semi-OT & very-PO: What is up with these idiots that own classic cartoons.

[J. A. Boschen]

As I have been reading, in these posts Boomerang is going to stop airing classic Warner Bros. cartoons. This makes me absolutely sad, not just the fact that these are going to stop being played, but also that they are baiscally depriving a whole generation of children of something wonderful (and yes I realize that these films were made for adults). And its not just Turner/Warner, its all of these guys: Viacom, Columbia, Disney (the Disney Channel doesn't even show any classic Disney material, or they rarely do, instead they show the Hillary Duff garbage used to stupidify Middle Schoolers). I can remember back when I was in elementary school, the highlight of my day was not just playing Super Mario Bros. on my Super NES, but watching classic Looney Tunes and Disney cartoons. Every Day I would come home from school and later on in the day Day-Care, and I could not wait to watch "Donald Duck's Quack Attack", "Mickey Mouse's Mouse Tracks", and Looney Tunes on Nickolodien. Now don't get me wrong DVD's are absolutly wonderful, but the whole fun of these cartoon shows was you (meaning me as a child) never knew which cartoon the show was going to play next. When a "Road Runner & Wile E. Coyote" cartoon or a "Donald Duck Vs. Chip & Dale" cartoon came on it was always a wonderful moment in my day. Not to say that DVd's suck or anything, its just not as fun knowing what you are going to see, its more fun when it is a surprise.

My personal feelings are that these corporations need to cut the crap, and put out decent some family entertainment, that everyone, not just kids can enjoy. I know when I have children I do not want to watch cheaply produced trash-o-rama such as Dexture's Laboratory, Ed Edd Eddy (those character designs of those guys are absolutely dispicable), other new Disney cheap garbage, I want to watch with my children classic Donald Duck cartoons and hilarious Looney Tunes, which have not only enlightened my life, but have steered me in the direction that I want to choose my major in (in college) and conquer: Film History or film Production. I beleive that there is something magical in these old cartoons that 98% of new cartoon shows are lacking, and in this day and age, we need something wonderful and magical.

[corey3rd]

I want to watch with my children classic Donald Duck cartoons and hilarious Looney Tunes, which have not only enlightened my life, but have steered me in the direction that I want to choose my major in (in college) and conquer: Film History or film Production.

As someone with a film degree from a major program....don't. You're better off attending workshops, buying a G-5 and a new Sony HD-Cam and spending the other $50,000.00 film school will cost you on DVDs and things you need to make your own films with friends.

Last winter I was in Boston and it was depressing that a TV market that used to excite me as a child with it's showing of classic cartoons and H-B titles was as boring as what I got back home.

I feel bad that kids can't come home and just indulge in afternoon cartoons, but there's only one group we can blame for this: Parents who demanded educational television instead of mindless fun. Those NPR-listening busybodies ruined it. WGN recently ran a special about Bozo and other inhouse kid shows. What killed Bozo? They had to make him educational - who wants to see Bozo reading a book?

And CN and Nick while not under the same restrictions want to make a fortune off their characters - think of the billions Viacom has made off Spongebob. So they don't want to deal with vintage characters. There's no money in Sniffles. Disney is happy with Mickey Mouse being an icon instead of an entertainer.

It's startling to remember back when local TV stations had freakish afternoon hosts that gave away prizes in between cartoons to kid callers.

[John Pannozzi]

Nice speech. I have to disagree with Dexter's Lab and the Eds being "trash"-the makers of those and other modern cartoons put their hearts and souls into their creations just like the boys at Termite Terrance did. I think CN lost it in October/November of 2003 when Mike Lazzo when from being in charge of programming for the whole network to just being in charge of programming for Adult Swim. IMHO that's when CN went from cool and hip and funny and indiviual (in terms of its programming and bumpers and ads and stuff) to just being a Nickelodeon wannabe. As for Viacom and its cartoon liabrary, there is some hope for Terrytoons on DVD. John Kricfalusi really wants both the classic Terrytoons as well Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse: The New Adventures (which was one of John K.'s first big breaks) on DVD. Maybe he can encourage Viacom to get them onto DVD like he did with Ren and Stimpy.


And can I make a little rant of my own? I'm sick of classic cartoon fans saying that all modern cartoons are completly worthless and that networks should only air old cartoons. I agree that future generations should be exposed to the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies on TV, but animation must move forward, not backward, and even some of the worst cartoons are still undeniably part of animation history. And hey, even the worst cartoon from this decade is better than most of the American TV cartoons from the 1970s:tweety:

[Cartman]

While obviously not as good as vintage cartoons, Spongebob can be quite entertaining. I agree that it's sad that kids of today can't watch these classics on TV, but there's always DVD. And the cartoons are UNCUT unlike they were on TV in the past few years.

[Studio Toledo]

As someone with a film degree from a major program....don't. You're better off attending workshops, buying a G-5 and a new Sony HD-Cam and spending the other $50,000.00 film school will cost you on DVDs and things you need to make your own films with friends.

Damn, see how expensive these things can be! :)

Last winter I was in Boston and it was depressing that a TV market that used to excite me as a child with it's showing of classic cartoons and H-B titles was as boring as what I got back home.

Seems to be that way all over.

I feel bad that kids can't come home and just indulge in afternoon cartoons, but there's only one group we can blame for this: Parents who demanded educational television instead of mindless fun. Those NPR-listening busybodies ruined it. WGN recently ran a special about Bozo and other inhouse kid shows. What killed Bozo? They had to make him educational - who wants to see Bozo reading a book?

That's quite true. Apparently parents didn't realize they had "PBS" to plug their kids to if they really wanted them to see soemthing educational if they could block out the other channels on their TVs easy these days. At times this reminds me of an episode of The Jetsons where TV in the future pratically became all educational and hardly anyone could think of a good program besides documentaries.

And CN and Nick while not under the same restrictions want to make a fortune off their characters - think of the billions Viacom has made off Spongebob. So they don't want to deal with vintage characters. There's no money in Sniffles. Disney is happy with Mickey Mouse being an icon instead of an entertainer.

True.

It's startling to remember back when local TV stations had freakish afternoon hosts that gave away prizes in between cartoons to kid callers.

I almost remember those days, but Toledo hardly had shows like that for being a smaller market than Detroit.

[Jon Cooke]

And can I make a little rant of my own? I'm sick of classic cartoon fans saying that all modern cartoons are completly worthless and that networks should only air old cartoons. I agree that future generations should be exposed to the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies on TV, but animation must move forward, not backward, and even some of the worst cartoons are still undeniably part of animation history. And hey, even the worst cartoon from this decade is better than most of the American TV cartoons from the 1970s:tweety:

Even though a lot of fans of the classics aren't too wild about the bulk of modern TV cartoons (myself included), I bet you will find that most feel that there is plenty of room on TV for the classics *and* the modern cartoons.


-Jon

[JDWeil]

As I have been reading, in these posts Boomerang is going to stop airing classic Warner Bros. cartoons. This makes me absolutely sad, not just the fact that these are going to stop being played, but also that they are baiscally depriving a whole generation of children of something wonderful (and yes I realize that these films were made for adults). And its not just Turner/Warner, its all of these guys: Viacom, Columbia, Disney (the Disney Channel doesn't even show any classic Disney material, or they rarely do, instead they show the Hillary Duff garbage used to stupidify Middle Schoolers). I can remember back when I was in elementary school, the highlight of my day was not just playing Super Mario Bros. on my Super NES, but watching classic Looney Tunes and Disney cartoons. Every Day I would come home from school and later on in the day Day-Care, and I could not wait to watch "Donald Duck's Quack Attack", "Mickey Mouse's Mouse Tracks", and Looney Tunes on Nickolodien. Now don't get me wrong DVD's are absolutly wonderful, but the whole fun of these cartoon shows was you (meaning me as a child) never knew which cartoon the show was going to play next. When a "Road Runner & Wile E. Coyote" cartoon or a "Donald Duck Vs. Chip & Dale" cartoon came on it was always a wonderful moment in my day. Not to say that DVd's suck or anything, its just not as fun knowing what you are going to see, its more fun when it is a surprise.

My personal feelings are that these corporations need to cut the crap, and put out decent some family entertainment, that everyone, not just kids can enjoy. I know when I have children I do not want to watch cheaply produced trash-o-rama such as Dexture's Laboratory, Ed Edd Eddy (those character designs of those guys are absolutely dispicable), other new Disney cheap garbage, I want to watch with my children classic Donald Duck cartoons and hilarious Looney Tunes, which have not only enlightened my life, but have steered me in the direction that I want to choose my major in (in college) and conquer: Film History or film Production. I beleive that there is something magical in these old cartoons that 98% of new cartoon shows are lacking, and in this day and age, we need something wonderful and magical.


THey're not stupid. They want you to go out buy the DVD. There's more profit in it.

[Dell Comics Fan]

As I have been reading, in these posts Boomerang is going to stop airing classic Warner Bros. cartoons. This makes me absolutely sad, not just the fact that these are going to stop being played, but also that they are baiscally depriving a whole generation of children of something wonderful (and yes I realize that these films were made for adults). And its not just Turner/Warner, its all of these guys: Viacom, Columbia, Disney (the Disney Channel doesn't even show any classic Disney material, or they rarely do, instead they show the Hillary Duff garbage used to stupidify Middle Schoolers). I can remember back when I was in elementary school, the highlight of my day was not just playing Super Mario Bros. on my Super NES, but watching classic Looney Tunes and Disney cartoons. Every Day I would come home from school and later on in the day Day-Care, and I could not wait to watch "Donald Duck's Quack Attack", "Mickey Mouse's Mouse Tracks", and Looney Tunes on Nickolodien. Now don't get me wrong DVD's are absolutly wonderful, but the whole fun of these cartoon shows was you (meaning me as a child) never knew which cartoon the show was going to play next. When a "Road Runner & Wile E. Coyote" cartoon or a "Donald Duck Vs. Chip & Dale" cartoon came on it was always a wonderful moment in my day. Not to say that DVd's suck or anything, its just not as fun knowing what you are going to see, its more fun when it is a surprise.

My personal feelings are that these corporations need to cut the crap, and put out decent some family entertainment, that everyone, not just kids can enjoy. I know when I have children I do not want to watch cheaply produced trash-o-rama such as Dexture's Laboratory, Ed Edd Eddy (those character designs of those guys are absolutely dispicable), other new Disney cheap garbage, I want to watch with my children classic Donald Duck cartoons and hilarious Looney Tunes, which have not only enlightened my life, but have steered me in the direction that I want to choose my major in (in college) and conquer: Film History or film Production. I beleive that there is something magical in these old cartoons that 98% of new cartoon shows are lacking, and in this day and age, we need something wonderful and magical.

I like the classic stuff, but I like some of the new shows, too. There's no
need to slam LIZZIE McGUIRE. Have you ever watched an entire episode?
It's a funny show. At least, she has an animated alter-ego. I like it (and
I'm 58 years old by the way), and so does my niece's granddaughter. I
also like DEXTER'S LABORATORY (another funny show). I have watched
cartoons for fifty years and agree with the person who posted that there's
room for both the classic ones and the new ones. Give the new shows a
try. That's the way I treat the new live-action shows. True, they're not
as good as the sitcoms from the 1950s and 1960s that I grew up with--but
I still find myself laughing at the better ones (FRASIER, EVERYBODY LOVES
RAYMOND, KING OF QUEENS, etc.). I prefer a balance of the old and the new. But that's just my opinion. No one has to agree with me.

[J. A. Boschen]

Yeah I guess everyone was right, that I did over react in this thread about some of the new shows, its just me and a very bad habbit that I have, and I am sorry about that. These are just my opinions, but at same time I need to realize that some of this other stuff that I can't stand isn't all that bad either. From my personal experiences however, I can admit when I was real young I used to love to watch Tale Spin, Duck Tales, Chip and Dale rescue rangers, which were absolutely wonderful shows, but at the same time when I watched these shows I got a good dosage of classical cartoons. I should also note that during this time period in my life the majority of what I watched was approved by my parents, so I did not get to see some of the other cartoon shows on TV, which has sort of grown on me. After reading your other reveiws that you guys have posted, I think we need both kinds of shows new and old.

I appreciate everyones feedback and thank you for taking the time to read, and I'm sorry if I was a bit hard iagainst some great new shows that other people here at the forums enjoy. I hope that I didn't tick anyone off, (I do not like making people upset that I do not know, thats the last thing I want to do). In the future I will try to avoid starting threads like this. So everyone have a nice day:)

[Detroiter]

I like the classic stuff, but I like some of the new shows, too. There's no
need to slam LIZZIE McGUIRE. Have you ever watched an entire episode?
It's a funny show. At least, she has an animated alter-ego.

I see a lot of these shows because of my kids' ages. Most of the cartoons are anywhere from not so hot to lousy, although Spongebob and Wild Thoreberrys can make me laugh out loud, and Avatar is pretty cool. Lizzie McGuire? Umm - try Malcolm in the Middle, Even Stevens or even Raven. They're much funnier.

We old timers (ouch) were lucky. When I was young, pre-UHF, Detroit's four television stations showed Terrytoons, Betty Boop, Popeye, Woody Woodpecker, Looney Tunes, and Famous cartoons, and the network showed more Warners, MGM and more Terrytoons. And there were a bunch of cartoons that showed around dinner time that I can't in my memory peg that for all I know were Columbias. And we had the early great days of Hanna-Barbara and Jay Ward. But if you took those away, and all we had were Sinbad Jr., Oriolo's Felix, Courageous Cat, Space Angel and Supercar, could we really look our kids in the eye and truthfully talk to them about the "good old days?"

There's always dreck. Your lucky if there's some good stuff out there when you're watching.

Frank

[doctoon]

What really got the ball rolling towards educational tv and teenybopper stuff replacing classic cartoons happened much earlier. Action for Children's Television (ACT) petitioned the FCC to ban children's shows in which the hosts advertised their products within the shows. As of January 1, 1973, such shows were officially gone. Some local stations decided to keep the cartoons but lose the hosts. Others decided to replace cartoon-host shows with talk shows.

Also, parental watchdogs convinced a California station to ban all violent children's programs as of December 1973. The shows? Reruns of Filmation's SUPERMAN, AQUAMAN, and BATMAN.

Ironically, ten years later, Filmation and Mattel found a loophole. You could make a cartoon starring animated versions of toys, as long as He-Man and She-Ra didn't say, "Hey, kids! Buy me!"

[frizfrelengfan]

Today there are 200 channels! If the honchos who determine what should entertain us wanted to, there is plenty of room for them to place classic cartoons! Instead, we have shopping channels and infomercials. I just upgraded to digital cable (because I bought an HDTV) and even though I have a lot more channels, there are few that I would actually watch.

[rbl100]

Yeah I guess everyone was right, that I did over react in this thread about some of the new shows, its just me and a very bad habbit that I have, and I am sorry about that. These are just my opinions, but at same time I need to realize that some of this other stuff that I can't stand isn't all that bad either. From my personal experiences however, I can admit when I was real young I used to love to watch Tale Spin, Duck Tales, Chip and Dale rescue rangers, which were absolutely wonderful shows, but at the same time when I watched these shows I got a good dosage of classical cartoons. I should also note that during this time period in my life the majority of what I watched was approved by my parents, so I did not get to see some of the other cartoon shows on TV, which has sort of grown on me. After reading your other reveiws that you guys have posted, I think we need both kinds of shows new and old.

I appreciate everyones feedback and thank you for taking the time to read, and I'm sorry if I was a bit hard iagainst some great new shows that other people here at the forums enjoy. I hope that I didn't tick anyone off, (I do not like making people upset that I do not know, thats the last thing I want to do). In the future I will try to avoid starting threads like this. So everyone have a nice day:)

You do not need to apologize friend. As I believe I am a bit older than you.... It is very pleasing to know that a younger generation understands and is of a caliber to appreciate what the classic cartoons of pre 1955 were made of. I agree 110% with you. Cartoons post 1955 are on the most part disturbing, irritating, nauseating and detrimental to our society. This is emphasized as time progressed after said year. There are exceptions, but I stress very few to this rule. I will again use the Chuck Jones Tom & Jerry's as a perfect example. These were created by minds that were soaked to the limits by illegal drugs and it shows in the content and substance of the product created. There may never again be artists with talents from the golden age of years past again. These past creators would not sacrifice time, expense, ingenuity, physics, respect, musical talent and above all true humor in its purest form to build those wonderful masterpieces of years gone by. Most, if not all modern toons are worth less than the cardboard used to box them. Keep to your position and do not waiver. The TRUTH is always and will continue to be the strongest argument.

[Timber Wolf]

I know when I have children I do not want to watch cheaply produced trash-o-rama such as Dexture's Laboratory, Ed Edd Eddy (those character designs of those guys are absolutely dispicable), other new Disney cheap garbage, I want to watch with my children classic Donald Duck cartoons and hilarious Looney Tunes, which have not only enlightened my life, but have steered me in the direction that I want to choose my major in (in college) and conquer: Film History or film Production.

I agree about Ed, Edd n Eddy (that's probably the worst cartoon ever made), but Dexter is actually very good in my opinion. And even today there are great cartoons on television, like Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends.

[Studio Toledo]

I see a lot of these shows because of my kids' ages. Most of the cartoons are anywhere from not so hot to lousy, although Spongebob and Wild Thoreberrys can make me laugh out loud, and Avatar is pretty cool. Lizzie McGuire? Umm - try Malcolm in the Middle, Even Stevens or even Raven. They're much funnier.
I don't even watch any of this.

We old timers (ouch) were lucky. When I was young, pre-UHF, Detroit's four television stations showed Terrytoons, Betty Boop, Popeye, Woody Woodpecker, Looney Tunes, and Famous cartoons, and the network showed more Warners, MGM and more Terrytoons.
At least I grew up with the UHF stations picked up the tab.

And there were a bunch of cartoons that showed around dinner time that I can't in my memory peg that for all I know were Columbias.
Bet you saw a lot of Fox & Crow cartoons this way!

And we had the early great days of Hanna-Barbara and Jay Ward. But if you took those away, and all we had were Sinbad Jr., Oriolo's Felix, Courageous Cat, Space Angel and Supercar, could we really look our kids in the eye and truthfully talk to them about the "good old days?"
You can always put up the occasional English-dubbed Japanese cartoon or sentai program like Ultraman.

[quote]There's always dreck. Your lucky if there's some good stuff out there when you're watching.

Frank[/QUOTE
True. I just don't feel like the one to start yet.

[Chow Hound]

THey're not stupid. They want you to go out buy the DVD. There's more profit in it.

I beg to differ: they ARE stupid (or at least short-sighted). This tactic only works for one generation. After that, the market dries up. Better to keep the market alive by airing the cartoons and milk the DVD revenue for generations to come. But today's execs are all about boosting the stock price and to Heck with the future. Depriving us of cartoons on TV may boost DVD sales a little; it does so at the expense of long-term revenue, but a small short-term boost may translate to an ever-so-slight stock price boost, and that's all the current crop of near-sighted execs are looking for apparently.

[Chow Hound]

I'm sick of classic cartoon fans saying that all modern cartoons are completly worthless and that networks should only air old cartoons.

I've only seen a few posts saying or implying complete worthlessness of new cartoons, and I've never seen anyone say networks should only air classic cartoons. Most of the posts I've read involving old and new cartoons simply want more airtime for the classics and point out that the new stuff is aired repeatedly throughout the day, a ligitimate grievance I think.

[Chow Hound]

I hope that I didn't tick anyone off, (I do not like making people upset that I do not know, thats the last thing I want to do).

Well in that case I guess I'm glad I don't know you :D. Seriously though, don't be afraid to voice your opinion because you may annoy or offend somebody somewhere on the planet. You have every right to voice your opinion. But, if you insist on sticking to your policy of not ticking anyone off, I've compiled a carefully researched list of all the words you can safely use and not annoy anyone, anywhere:

the
a
and
but
or
if
as

Good luck forming sentences with those.

[Miss Marnie]

I'm sick of classic cartoon fans saying that all modern cartoons are completly worthless and that networks should only air old cartoons.


So am I. I think classic cartoons (like modern cartoons) have good and bad moments in them, so basically, they're pretty much even.

[Chow Hound]

Today there are 200 channels! If the honchos who determine what should entertain us wanted to, there is plenty of room for them to place classic cartoons! Instead, we have shopping channels and infomercials. I just upgraded to digital cable (because I bought an HDTV) and even though I have a lot more channels, there are few that I would actually watch.

So when the novelty of HD wears off, cancel it. What's the point of subscribing to watch things you couldn't care less about in glorious high definition? If we keep feeding the beast, it's just going to continue growing. If a sizable number of people started cancelling, the execs would have to be more responsive to their customers and show us what we really want to see, not what they want us to watch.

[Jon Cooke]

So am I. I think classic cartoons (like modern cartoons) have good and bad moments in them, so basically, they're pretty much even.

I am interested in reading all the posts where GAC members say TV stations should air only classic cartoons and that all modern cartoons are worthless. I must keep missing them.


-Jon

[Debbie]

Cartoons post 1955 are on the most part disturbing, irritating, nauseating and detrimental to our society. This is emphasized as time progressed after said year. There are exceptions, but I stress very few to this rule. I will again use the Chuck Jones Tom & Jerry's as a perfect example. These were created by minds that were soaked to the limits by illegal drugs and it shows in the content and substance of the product created.

Um...Much of Chuck Jones' crew worked at Warner Bros. with him before the 1962-68 Tom and Jerry's...I doubt they were on "illegal drugs" (Ben Washam, Abe Levitow, Maurice Noble, and occaisionally vocal effects from Mel Blanc and June Foray). (Just my two cents...)

[Thad]

I'm interested in seeing those posts too. I'm VERY blunt over what I think is a bad cartoon, but that doesn't mean other people who want to see them shouldn't be able to. There's plenty of room on a 24 hour network for a variety of material to please everyone.

Where do you guys get "All TV networks should air only classic cartoons" out of "Dexter's Laborator doesn't need to be on six times a day"?

-Thad

[rbl100]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbl100
Cartoons post 1955 are on the most part disturbing, irritating, nauseating and detrimental to our society. This is emphasized as time progressed after said year. There are exceptions, but I stress very few to this rule. I will again use the Chuck Jones Tom & Jerry's as a perfect example. These were created by minds that were soaked to the limits by illegal drugs and it shows in the content and substance of the product created.


Um...Much of Chuck Jones' crew worked at Warner Bros. with him before the 1962-68 Tom and Jerry's...I doubt they were on "illegal drugs" (Ben Washam, Abe Levitow, Maurice Noble, and occaisionally vocal effects from Mel Blanc and June Foray). (Just my two cents...)

Yes, they may have worked for WB.............however I am merely stating that post 1955; many artists were not in their right mind any longer. Especially the 60's and to this day, which was and is due to drug use. When one commits murder, but was a Pope up and until that point...no longer are they to be a Pope.

[Bartman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbl100
Cartoons post 1955 are on the most part disturbing, irritating, nauseating and detrimental to our society. This is emphasized as time progressed after said year. There are exceptions, but I stress very few to this rule. I will again use the Chuck Jones Tom & Jerry's as a perfect example. These were created by minds that were soaked to the limits by illegal drugs and it shows in the content and substance of the product created.




Yes, they may have worked for WB.............however I am merely stating that post 1955; many artists were not in their right mind any longer. Especially the 60's and to this day, which was and is due to drug use. When one commits murder, but was a Pope up and until that point...no longer are they to be a Pope.

After reading this, I can only wonder what drugs you are on to make such an assumption - any proof to back this up? Sorry - Ralph Bakshi doesn't count...!

Please - no pseudo-intellectual blah-blah-blah - hard facts, please...

Again, another decent thread gone WAY off on a tangent.

[Chow Hound]

After reading this, I can only wonder what drugs you are on to make such an assumption - any proof to back this up? Sorry - Ralph Bakshi doesn't count...!

Please - no pseudo-intellectual blah-blah-blah - hard facts, please...

Since recreational drug use in this country is illegal, proof will be difficult, if not impossible, to come by. What animator, author, or director is going to come right out in an interview and say "yeah, I love to animate/write/create when I'm stoned"? And why shouldn't Bakshi count?

[Dell Comics Fan]

I recall when "YELLOW SUBMARINE" came out. A bit later "FANTASIA" was
re-released. Comparing the two films, a fan asked a veteran Disney animator
if they were on drugs when they made "FANTASIA." He replied: "Yeah, we
were on drugs: Pepto-Bismol and Ex-Lax!"

[Dell Comics Fan]

I agree about Ed, Edd n Eddy (that's probably the worst cartoon ever made), but Dexter is actually very good in my opinion. And even today there are great cartoons on television, like Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends.

There are several other clever and entertaining cartoons among the new crop: THE FAIRLY ODD PARENTS, JIMMY NEUTRON, JOHNNY BRAVO, KIM POSSIBLE, THE POWERPUFF GIRLS, RUGRATS (the original series), SAMURAI JACK, and SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS (to name a few). To be honest, though, ED, EDD AND EDDY is pretty lame most of the time. Every era has had its hits and misses. But I agree with the sentiment that every generation should have the opportunity to see the older cartoons (esp. the ones that have become classics) without having to buy them on tape or DVD. With at least three networks broadcasting nothing but cartoons (Cartoon Network, Boomerang and Toon Disney), there should be time enough for a blend of old and new animation.

[Chow Hound]

I recall when "YELLOW SUBMARINE" came out. A bit later "FANTASIA" was
re-released. Comparing the two films, a fan asked a veteran Disney animator
if they were on drugs when they made "FANTASIA." He replied: "Yeah, we
were on drugs: Pepto-Bismol and Ex-Lax!"

I stand corrected, I guess. Although I can't imagine what kind of mentality it takes to use Ex-Lax as a recreational drug.

[Jack G.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbl100Yes, they may have worked for WB.............however I am merely stating that post 1955; many artists were not in their right mind any longer. Especially the 60's and to this day, which was and is due to drug use. W
There are multiple factors for the decline in output post 1955. The various studios were breaking up due to budged cuts, layoffs, retirements, and death of key talent. The Golden Years of Hollywood Animation were just coming to an end. That's all. It takes years to assemble a team like say Termite Terrace had in its prime. It slowly broke down. And was eventually put out of its misery.

As far as "new" cartoons go. I thought the Simpsons was good in it's day. The writing was the key thing for me. When I first saw the original Ren & Stimpy I thought, "Hey, someone's trying to actually do something better than the usual TV animation." But then I grew bored of the gross-out thing pretty quick. I also liked Johnny Bravo.

I'd also like to think that there's room for everything on TV and in the movie theater. Traditional animation should be able to co-exist with CGI. There's enough cable stations to show classic animation and films as well as contempory work.

The problem is the "suits" don't see that way.:mad:

[Sultan]

Nice speech. I have to disagree with Dexter's Lab and the Eds being "trash"-the makers of those and other modern cartoons put their hearts and souls into their creations just like the boys at Termite Terrance did. I:tweety:
Ed Wood put his heart and soul into Plan 9 From Outer Space

[Jack G.]

Ed Wood put his heart and soul into Plan 9 From Outer Space
Yes he did!:D

An it's very entertaining! But Perhaps not the way Mr Wood intended.

[John Pannozzi]

Ed Wood put his heart and soul into Plan 9 From Outer Space True, and that makes Plan 9 slightly better than films that the makers hated and didn't care about. But that's just my view.

[frizfrelengfan]

So when the novelty of HD wears off, cancel it. What's the point of subscribing to watch things you couldn't care less about in glorious high definition? If we keep feeding the beast, it's just going to continue growing. If a sizable number of people started cancelling, the execs would have to be more responsive to their customers and show us what we really want to see, not what they want us to watch.
HD is great for sports though...Cartoons are not the only thing I watch.

[horsecollar12]

I have to respectuflly disagree. I'm not a kid anymore, so it's a bit difficult to judge contemporary cartoons, but i have to say that TV animation today is 1000% better than most of the stuff on TV when i was a kid (the 1980s). Watch anything from Hanna-Barbera or Filmation and it's easy to see all the short-cuts they took back then. Disney's afternoon shows ("Duck Tales", "Tail Spin", etc.) were probably the best-looking cartoons of that era, but toons these days look *at least* as good as those, and usually better.

I'm not saying that cartoons today are all winners--only a few seem to have good storylines that both kids and adults can enjoy ("Spongebob" comes to mind). But the same was true 20 years ago: i don't recall "Thundercats" or "Transformers" getting any critical accolades. And since there are so many more choices today for kids and adults, it is much easier to turn off the cheapie, toy-commercial-type 'toons and find something better on another channel.

The fact of the matter is: TV animation looks better and better every year, and, while the majority of shows don't merit a second look, a handful of shows are continuing the tradition of quality animated storytelling that once was the sole propriety of the silver screen. I'm all for showing the classic theatrical shorts of Disney and WB on TV, but if i have to buy them on DVD so that some young animator can have his/her chance at a new TV show, I'm happy to help.

[Jack G.]

I have to respectuflly disagree. I'm not a kid anymore, so it's a bit difficult to judge contemporary cartoons, but i have to say that TV animation today is 1000% better than most of the stuff on TV when i was a kid (the 1980s).
The 1980's were indeed a very low point. It seemed almost all the shows were nothing more than an advertisement for some toy or game (He-Man, Pac-Man, Gummi Bears, etc...). The animation on TV now is definitely a step up from that period. I remember watching things like Josie and the Pusscats where a certain character voice would be speaking and a totally different character's mouth would be moving. That's pretty bad.

[J Lee]

I'd say the last 15 or so years of TV animation are very much mirroring the period from around 1940 to 1955 in theatrical animation, in that there was a big improvement in the first decade or so in style and content from what came before, but in the past 4-5 years the trend has been towards taking certain styles -- in this case anime and flash animation -- and using them the way studios used UPA style animation in the 1950s, as a method to cut costs as much as to develop any new look for the cartoons. Anime allows for frozen poses that cut the cost of actually drawing anything, and flash is simply a time-saving/cost cutting process that is getting better, but still looks better on computer screens than on the big 45-inch HDTV-ready set in the living room.

Cartoon Network and Warner Bros have been far more in the lead of this trend than Viacom/Nickelodeom has. The best of the new stuff CN has debuted, like "Fosters Home for Imaginary Friends" have been able to make up for the even more limited animation with inventive stories (and the style actually is a little similar to some of the stuff being done in Prague and Zagreb studios in the 1960s), but most of the other stuff is just cheapjack 30 minute time fillers -- more aware and ironic than the 1970s Hanna-Barbera stuff, but not any more interesting after the initial viewing than "Wheelie and the Chopper Bunch" or "Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels".

Nick's cartoons take a safer road, both in visual design and in story concept. They don't irritate the eye and have concepts that are pretty easily boiled down. The stuff CN is doing is a little more daring and prone to failure, which they've been succeeding at quite regularly as of late. But I gues they figure that sooner or later, the heir to the "Powerpuff Girls" marketing bonanza of five years ago is bound to arrive.

[The Silver Fox]

And can I make a little rant of my own? I'm sick of classic cartoon fans saying that all modern cartoons are completly worthless and that networks should only air old cartoons. I agree that future generations should be exposed to the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies on TV, but animation must move forward, not backward, and even some of the worst cartoons are still undeniably part of animation history. And hey, even the worst cartoon from this decade is better than most of the American TV cartoons from the 1970s:tweety:

As was said in one cartoon about the worst cartoons
"I wouldnt say that" even though the animation did become mass assebly in the 70's it was still better then alot of the HB crap that came out in the mid to late 1980s as well as some of the last Filmations Studios
stuff produced between 79 and 87. I mean come on how can anyone say "a pup named Scooby Doo" was something that better??
IMHO that was the WORST version of Scooby made. in other HB toons that are poor shells, Jetsons (85-7)(this version looks Horabley dated, as well as the soundtrack is poorly done, way too much bass), Sheep (ripoff of Rocky), Ed (gross out humer that wears thin after one sitting), Disney's Snukoms and meet / Brandy are in a tie for also being poor shells of a toon.

[Dell Comics Fan]

I stand corrected, I guess. Although I can't imagine what kind of mentality it takes to use Ex-Lax as a recreational drug.

He was making a joke!

[Chow Hound]

He was making a joke!

So was I.

[Chow Hound]

HD is great for sports though...Cartoons are not the only thing I watch.

Yeah, I tend to forget about that, since I've never been a sports fan myself. I imagine that's saved me a lot of money over the years...

[frogboxer]

I think that modern cartoons in general are not as good as cartoons from animation’s golden age. This is not to say that all modern cartoons stink and all classic cartoons were great. I can think of several examples of classic cartoons that were absolutely horrible and modern cartoons that I really enjoy.

It seems to me that perhaps the times aren’t ripe for creativity in animation to reach a pinnacle. Too many cartoon production companies are just after a quick buck rather than a good product.

It makes me think of when Walt Disney would be on the brink of bankruptcy while working on one of his projects (which, IIRC, happened more than once until after the success of Snow White - and maybe even after). If things had been left up to Roy Disney (Walt’s brother, not his nephew), who usually tried to discourage Walt from pursuing his creative aspirations because of their financial risk, then the Disney Company probably wouldn’t be around today. But Walt was never willing to sacrifice good creativity in his films for financial stability. As a result, he ended up being extremely successful in the film-making business (as we all well know). Even after the success of Snow White, Walt never lost focus of making a quality product. He was always very hard on those who worked with him to make their films good. If he didn’t like what he saw or he heard, he demanded it be made better. I realize this may have made him a difficult person to work for, but at least he understood that the quality of a film should matter first and foremost to the film industry and that financial success would naturally follow.

Anyway, my point is that because modern companies are merely interested in making as much money as they can as soon as possible, they do not provide a fertile environment for creativity to bloom. Thus, cartoons nowadays (in general) do not live up to the standard of cartoons from the golden age. But, I don’t think it’s the fault of those who actually make the cartoons like the animators, story-writers, etc. Many talented and creative people are definitely out there. They just aren’t being allowed to show it.

[Jack G.]

There's a lot of truth to that. But I don't think Leon Schlesinger cared about art and creativity. As long as the cartoons were doing well and they stayed on budget, he left the directors alone, generally speaking. That hand's-off attitude was a good thing.

Nowadays there are creative consultants, focus groups, marketing considerations, and all sorts of b.s. that interfere in the process. Supposedly these things are to help maximize profits.:rolleyes:

I've always admired Walt Disney for reasons said in the above post.