Last September, Nickelodeon launched a new program block on their Teen Nick station called The Splat. The Splat features all of the network’s most popular shows from the 1990’s, such as "Rugrats" and

"Are You Afraid of the Dark?"

This programming block has struck a chord with the people who grew up in this era — In fact, most of the feedback for The Splat sounds like it was written by baby boomer grandparents reminiscing about the good old days. However, seniors aren’t the ones writing the comments; it’s mostly coming from today’s twenty-somethings who are wholeheartedly convinced that things were better in the 90’s.

Which begs the question: were things better in the nineties?

It’s hard to say if everything was better during this decade in comparison to the one we’re living in now; but in terms of entertainment, I’d have to say the last ten years of the twentieth century blows the entire twenty-first century out of the water.

Let’s start with the basics here. In talking of animation, the quality and appreciation of Saturday morning cartoons has undoubtedly gone down in recent years. When I say “quality,” I’m not referring to the appearance of the show (Hand-drawn cells were a thing of the past once computer animation came to the scene in the early 2000’s); rather, I’m referring to the humor that had the ability that no kids show today will ever have. This kind of humor pushed the boundaries of what was allowed on the small screen. Think about it — there will never be another "Ren & Stimpy." Thank goodness for that, but the point is most cartoons on Nickelodeon and Disney Channel seldom experiment with their content. The plots are more cliché, the characters are often one-dimensional, and there’s little-to-no memorable dialogue in an episode.

Don’t think I’m bad-mouthing ALL of today’s cartoons here; I’m a huge fan of the Regular Show and have even watched a few episodes of "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic." They’re both extremely entertaining and even somewhat relatable. But somehow, I feel a show about a ten-year-old boy who has a secret laboratory is an idea ten times more original than a blue jay and a raccoon working in a city park.

Moving on to a larger scale of 1990’s animation, the number of animated feature films being nominated for an academy award (besides and/or addition to the best animated feature category) has sadly decreased. Disney’s masterpiece Beauty and the Beast pushed open the door of the 1990’s with full force. It earned six academy award nominations, including Best Picture. Despite losing that award to "Silence of the Lambs," "Beauty and the Beast" became the first animated film to receive such a nomination. It won two Oscars for best music, including Original Score and Original Song.

It would be nineteen years before the Walt Disney animation department found itself in the category for Best Picture once again. 2009’s "Up" reminded us all how powerful animation can be when utilized at full capacity.

What happened during that almost two decade-long gap? Not very much. Shortly after "Toy Story" was released in 1995, big-name studios such as Disney, DreamWorks, and Sony started grinding out some painfully overdone animated films. A few were hits (such as "Shrek" and "Wallace & Gromit"), others were losses (Think "Shark Tale" and "Cars").

Computer animation has somehow taken the luster out of quality filmmaking. I cried at "Toy Story 3" (And who didn’t?), but let’s face it: we will never be as moved by a college student giving up his toys as we were when a young lion cub watched his father die right before his eyes. Sentimentality is not as prominent in animation as it once was.

Now let’s discuss live entertainment. The television sitcom has undergone thousands of changes over the years. We’ve seen it all — an eccentric redhead, an absent-minded sailor, and buddies at a bar. The 1990’s were something of a revolution in terms of the American sitcom. The most popular of these shows were focused on pals living in the Big Apple. "Seinfeld" was the show about nothing, and "Friends" was there for us. Both shows ran for about ten years each, Friends snagging six Emmys and "Seinfeld" earning ten. What makes these buddy comedies so widely hailed is how reflective they are of real life. Even after ending almost twenty years ago, the fanbases of "Friends" and "Seinfeld" are still going strong. Some might even call them cult classics because most of the new fans are able to watch the entire series online via streaming — in a time when no new episodes are being made.

Furthermore, these sitcoms were decent and well-thought out throughout the majority of their run. Not all of the episodes were perfect, but most of them were. As far as I’m concerned, there weren’t any periods of redundancy in all of their seasons. This stands in stark contrast to the sitcoms of the twenty-first century, which usually have a tendency to start off strong and become old halfway through the series.

Take "The Big Bang Theory" for example. The premise is fairly unique — four nerds sharing an apartment across from a dumb blonde — and it has rightfully earned a total of eight Emmy awards thus far.

Lately, however, "Theory" has fallen tragically short on the humor scale. It’s entering its tenth season this fall, and I’m sorry to say I strongly feel it is time to say goodbye. The sitcoms of the nineties knew when to say when. Ten seasons is enough for any show, sitcom or not. Unfortunately, the shows of today allow their positive feedback get to the better of them; and as a result, the networks let their shows last two seasons longer than necessary.

So once again, the nineties come out on top.

I’d like to close this analysis with a brief discussion of a sense of closure in live-action films. Movies like "Pulp Fiction" and "Se7en" dominated the box office not because of their all-star cast but because they made their audiences think. "Pulp Fiction" was a cinematic jigsaw puzzle we had to put together for ourselves, and Se7en scared us as well as challenged our intellect.

Have any films made in the past five years been as brain teasing or as mesmerizing? I don’t think so. A lot of movies today are loaded with plot holes and absolutely no loose ends are tied up. Take last summer’s blockbuster, "Avengers: Age of Ultron." It opens right in the middle of a battle sequence no one is prepared for, it bares little connection to its predeceasing films, and there are so many questions left unanswered —when did Natasha Romanoff and Bruce Banner begin their relationship? Where was Clint Barton when he should have been with his family (that we knew nothing about)? Why did Tony Stark feel it necessary to reiterate that joke with Steve Rogers every five minutes? Explain movie, explain!

I hope you have enjoyed my analysis of today’s entertainment in comparison to the entertainment of the 1990’s. I didn’t write this to make people agree with me; I just wrote it because it’s, like, my opinion, man!