OT: Negativity Towards Modern Animation

[Leviathan]

Over the Last couple of years (When i first joined Gac in Augest 2004 to the PResent Day) I have noticed that the there has been an increase in negativity towards Modern Animation and the Modern Animation industry. i'm not referring to any one person or event, i've just noticed it's become gradually apparent that Modern animation is being looked down upon.

Some of what i've noticed.

1. Before the recent Disney-Pixar merger, general attitudes towards Disney was that it was in creative turmoil and there was a lot of apocolyptic talk regarding them, even though Walt and Roy faced many down times in their day (Hijacking of Oswald, 1941 Strike, financial underperformance of Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi, the War, etc.). During the Merger, Pixar was portryed as Disney's savior despite being just as fallable as them)
2. There's geen a general disdain from a lot of the CGI movies released between 2004 and now ( such Shark Tale, Chicken Little, Hoodwinked and The Wild), they've been treated as inferior to overseas animated Films (The Triplets of Belville, Howl's Moving Castle, Hair high,) and certain Us-made ones (Bill Plympton's Hair High)
3. Television Cartoons (such as family Guy and most Cartoon Network shows), are slammed for being too dialogue-and-writing oriiented)
4. The so-called "virtues" of "Good" cartoons are touted, and Modern Cartoons are criticized for not conforming them

I don't know, but i feel that no matter what happens, the Modern Animation Industry is going to get a bad rap, no matter what. Does anyone else feel like this?

[J Lee]

We're really going through the second cycle, and on a smaller scale, of the same situation that took place in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when made-for-TV cartoons first really came into prominence and producers of both those and the theatricals found they could get away with cheaper and less artful imagination.

The reaction to that was the creative outburst of shows beginning in the late 1980s that were a reaction to the mind-numbingly stiff TV cartoons of the previous 20 years, and produced shows like The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse, Ren & Stimpy, Tiny Toons and Animaniacs. Say what you want about any of those shows, they were not mirror images of the Hanna-Barbera, Filmaction or Ruby-Spears stuff that had dominated on TV. Combine that with the rebirth of the Disney feature film in the late 1980s, and for about 8-10 years there was something of a renessance in animation.

But now we're in the same cycle as 40-45 years ago -- producers have decided that they really don't need to do very good animation to get by, and while the stories are better than the stuff turned out in the 1970s (due in part to less strict rules on the content of the shows), the bean counters don't see new animation forms such as GCI or Flash, or the importation of Japanese anime shows, as a way to broaden the horizons of the craft. They see it as a way to pair down the bottom line costs and churn out 40-80 episodes for less money. That's why there's so much hostility out there to so much of the new animation, because just as the case in the 1960s through the 1980s, quantity seems to dominate over quality when it comes to any sort of imagination in the new product.

[Ray Pointer]

Having one foot planted in the past and the other in the present, I would agree with Mr. Levitan. Being involved with recent animation productions, I have been targeted by moderators and one of the prominent posters in this forum to the extent of begin personally attacked, having my professional creditials brought to question as if being examined for my qualifications to participate in this forum. Such remarks were very close to slander and libel in the actual legal definition, and this has been brought to the attention of Jon Cooke.

I would agree that this atmosphere of hostility that you cite is not in the keeping of the purpose of the forum. But this hostility is not just a bias against modern animation, but towards certain cartoons and certain studios. Several months ago an interesting thread about the POPEYE cartoons, which are finally being regarded as among the best cartoons and comedy shorts ever made was a source of heated controversy. A group lead by at least two of the moderators of this forum antagonised the discussion with attempts to "flame", argue, and ruin what was an interesting discussion that attracted a large number of viewers.

It is indeed unfortunate that in this day of enlightment we have to experience such narrow mindedness. The purpose of these threads is to openly discuss our mutual appreciation of the art of animation that includes a vast array of subjects and characters. And since animation offers so much for everyone, there are going to be some cartoons that some people like over others. That is fine too. But it is not fair to ruin a discussion or completely pan something just because it doesn't appeal to you. And while there are some cartoons that I may not particularly like, I generally refrain from commenting unless I might have something worth saying about it. Any threads that do not interest me I avoid. But to deliberately spoil and argue against a line of discussion without offering constructive counter agruments is counterproductive to our purpose. We can discuss, debate, and exchange points of view, and we can do this by using critical thinking and clear writing, not personal attacks.

[Gossamer]

being done these days, particularly at the shorter lengths. I'd recommend Ryan, Father and Daughter, Das Rad and quite a few others. I'm hoping John Canemaker's latest (I can't recall-it's called The Son and the Moon, I think) comes out on DVD at some point soon. I've heard it's quite good. It's supposed to air on cable (HBO, I believe) on Father's Day.

This is a board devoted to the older animation, so it's going to draw people interested in that, sometimes to the exclusion of other animation that falls outside those areas.

Further, on a board where someone can be relatively anonymous, things can get more heated than they might in a face to face conversation. That may explain a lot of what you've seen.

There's actually a fair amount of that disdain here for a fair amount of the "classic" shorts. I doubt any of that will change anytime soon.

I certainly agree with Mr. Pointer-people should be able to discuss these things civilly.

Good thread.

May all be well with you and those you hold dear.


Robert Reynolds
Tucson AZ

[Dan Porceddu]

Ray:

I haven't taken any part in the questioning of your credentials that you allude to, but to suggest that merely questioning your credentials is libel is at best paranoid and at worst absurd. I must say that I find your attempt to hijack this thread into a complaint hall regarding this forum and its moderators and then going on to criticize people who deliberately spoil and argue the threads on this very forum to be amusing, if not downright hypocritical. That said, your accusation that you have been targeted because of your work in the modern animation industry has no base whatsoever - judging from the quantity of concerns that are voiced to us moderators, we have been fairly lenient.

I'm all for having a civil debate without personal attacks, yet you appear to be going out of your way, subtle as it may look, to accuse some posters here of being libelous and certain unnamed GAC moderators as antagonistic. I am familiar with this innocent victim persona you are assuming, but for the sake of this forum's dignity, it would be appreciated greatly if you could practice what you preach. For starters, you could stop trashing perfectly legitimate threads with diatribes against the GAC forums membership.

Regardless, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize what one may see as the general attitude from the classic animation community towards modern animation. However, I would argue that dislike of most modern animation is an unfortunate consequence of having specialized interests - it has nothing to do with being narrow-minded. I think many of the points in Gossamer's post sum up my feelings quite well- as this is a board devoted to classic animation, it will draw people who are more interested in old cartoons than new ones. But I don't pay attention to the year something was made before deciding whether I like it or not - there is no litmus test where anything made before 1963 is discounted because it's too modern.

Regarding Leviathan's four points:
1. I did not pay much attention to the Disney-Pixar merger, so I cannot comment.
2. I think this has to do more with the content of the movies than the fact that they are CGI - most recent 2D movies were likely criticized by the same crowd. One could argue that the trend instead shows a bias against any movies produced by major American studios, regardless of the animation format, although having paid no attention to the foreign films you named, and believing this is likely the case for much of the GAC community, this would be better applied to animation fans in general, as opposed to simply classic animation aficionados. But I would be careful to make such a generalization in any event.
3. I would say that television cartoons are becoming too dialogue-oriented, but I don't see this as an inherently bad thing, only something that should be done in moderation and not overused.
4. One could have thought the same in the 1940s and wished that cartoons would return to what they were in the 1930s. Disliking change is nothing new, nor is it exclusive to classic animation fans - personally, I like to see where the new styles and types of entertainment that evolve over time take us. It's just that in general, I prefer what we got out of the 1940s and 1950s than what we're getting today. That is certainly not an exclusive statement, nor should it be considered a final judgement on every animation ever produced.

[J. B. Warner]

Quite simply, I like what I like too. If a modern cartoon makes me laugh, then so be it, I'll watch it and enjoy it. If it doesn't, then I'll leave it alone and say how it could improve (because I'm verbal like that). For instance, I'm not fond of a lot of Cartoon Network's recent series and scheduling decisions, but I love "Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends" and consider it a shining beacon of genius in a network continually dominated by bad ideas. Likewise, I think that Nickelodeon has been going downhill in recent years, but I consider the short-lived "Invader ZIM" to be one of their funniest Nicktoons ever. I even like a bunch of CGI movies, but only the ones that are character-driven and have a really good story (i.e. "Ice Age"; anything Pixar's ever made; etc.). Ultimately, for me, it comes down to quality of the writing and the integrity of the people behind the production, not what year the cartoon was made in.

[cpdavison]

1. Before the recent Disney-Pixar merger, general attitudes towards Disney was that it was in creative turmoil and there was a lot of apocolyptic talk regarding them, even though Walt and Roy faced many down times in their day (Hijacking of Oswald, 1941 Strike, financial underperformance of Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi, the War, etc.). During the Merger, Pixar was portryed as Disney's savior despite being just as fallable as them)
2. There's geen a general disdain from a lot of the CGI movies released between 2004 and now ( such Shark Tale, Chicken Little, Hoodwinked and The Wild), they've been treated as inferior to overseas animated Films (The Triplets of Belville, Howl's Moving Castle, Hair high,) and certain Us-made ones (Bill Plympton's Hair High)
3. Television Cartoons (such as family Guy and most Cartoon Network shows), are slammed for being too dialogue-and-writing oriiented)
4. The so-called "virtues" of "Good" cartoons are touted, and Modern Cartoons are criticized for not conforming them.

You raise some interesting points. Since you asked for feedback, here's some off-the-top-of-my-head comments:

Points #1 & #2 kind of go together. I think folks inside and outside of "the industry" were devastated by the wholesale canning of domestically-produced cel animation by Disney (of all people!) in favor of CGI-produced product. Talk about trashing your core competency! Not only that, but a very emotional and important link in the "cartoon continum" was very painfully (needlessly?) severed. The problem, as I understand it, is that the CGI features you cited have been branded as not entertaining. (I'm just going by the critcal blow-back I've read. I've not been to the flickers in about 2-1/2 years!)

I, too, have noticed, as stated in Point #3, that there is a very vocal contingent that delight in slamming the shows you mentioned. I will whole-heartedly agree they do nothing to advance the "art of animation" but, gosh, they're cheaply-produced TV cartoons! This strikes me like saying The Dick VanDyke show was a failure because it wasn't filmed in color or wasn't as good as a high-ticket Broadway musical. Is it entertaining on its own terms? That's enough for me!

Point #4? Well, I suppose folks posting to a forum called "goldenagecartoons" would tend to be pretty rah-rah about, well, golden age cartoons. There have been some noble attempts to work some "golden age" precepts into modern-day cartoons with decidely mixed results. I think the anxiety here is that "the industry" is losing (or has already lost) the secret recipe and there may be no way to retrieve it.

Here's a depressing thought; Nothing, but nothing, that man creates is permanent. These creations are sadly subject to deterioration and change.
Craig D.

[Brundledan]

1. Before the recent Disney-Pixar merger, general attitudes towards Disney was that it was in creative turmoil and there was a lot of apocolyptic talk regarding them, even though Walt and Roy faced many down times in their day (Hijacking of Oswald, 1941 Strike, financial underperformance of Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi, the War, etc.). During the Merger, Pixar was portryed as Disney's savior despite being just as fallable as them)

I was actually concerned about exactly the opposite. It was not strictly a "merger"; Disney BOUGHT Pixar and my worry was (and still is) that the failings of the parent company will rub off on the acquisition. I do, on the other hand, trust John Lasseter's creative judgment, and am heartened by some of the developments since the buyout, such as John L.'s torpedoing of TOY STORY 3.

2. There's geen a general disdain from a lot of the CGI movies released between 2004 and now ( such Shark Tale, Chicken Little, Hoodwinked and The Wild), they've been treated as inferior to overseas animated Films (The Triplets of Belville, Howl's Moving Castle, Hair high,) and certain Us-made ones (Bill Plympton's Hair High)

There is a disdain for CGI in general, because, IMHO and in the HO's of many others, CGI is simply an artistically inferior process that limits the full range of character expressivity that was possible with 2D. I have worked as a 3D animator and found myself constantly frustrated by those very limitations, and by my own colleagues' willingness to accept them. Working with this technology transforms animators into engineers, and strips a great deal of the joy and soul from the process. The results can be seen on-screen in most CGI features (particularly those from the hacks at DreamWorks), from grotesque character designs to unnatural movement. I recommend checking out some of Mike Barrier's writings on 3D animation; he sums up its inherent problems very well.

Pixar's features are generally held in such high regard because Lasseter and Co. (again, unlike the hacks at DreamWorks) truly seem to understand that 3D is not an end in itself, and that the believability of 3D animation is not rooted in the sophistication of the texture maps.

3. Television Cartoons (such as family Guy and most Cartoon Network shows), are slammed for being too dialogue-and-writing oriiented)

Family Guy is poorly-written plagiarism, whose overwhelming success says a great deal about the low standards we have set for animation in 2006. The "Adult Swim" series on Cartoon Network are funny for college-aged stoners, but have little value outside that demographic and will not age well. (I've gotten some laughs out of Sealab 2021 but can't imagine buying a DVD set of it.) These series are dialogue- and writing- oriented because the animation is atrocious at best.

4. The so-called "virtues" of "Good" cartoons are touted, and Modern Cartoons are criticized for not conforming them

It isn't called "the Golden Age of Animation" for nothing. The incredible confluence of talents that produced that age, and the long-lost studio and commercial structure that sustained it for so long, can never be equaled. The requirements of mass-output television production destroyed animation as an art form; few will argue that -- the burden of quality production shifted entirely to the writing, and truly great writing has not come along very often.

I do't know, but i fell that no matter what happens the Modern Animation Industry is going to get a bad rap, no matter what.

"If you build it, they will come," to coin a phrase. There were some wonderful efforts during the '90s, such as Tiny Toon Adventures, The Simpsons, Dexter's Laboratory, and Batman. I can't think of any comparable series being produced today. Theatrically, the only worthwhile animated films come from Pixar. And even they face an uphill battle against 3D's inherent limitations.

-Dan

[Timber Wolf]

Theatrically, the only worthwhile animated films come from Pixar.
What about Wallace & Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit? In my opinion, it was the greatest movie ever. :) And it shows how animated movies don't need to be CGI. Talking about CGI, it seems that many companies don't care about the quality just if the films/series are CGI. A perfect example is a series aired by Cartoon Network called "Pet Alien". It is awful in my opinion and almost everyone's who has commented it in the internet opinion. I still haven't seen a good CGI television series, they have always been just bad humor (the mentioned Pet Alien) or meant for pre-schoolers (Backyardigans, Cubeez, Jakers!).

Modern cartoons can be great; I have liked Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Cow and Chicken and Dexter's Laboratory.

[gdX]

Yup, it's all about content... and currently very little of it is worthwhile.

In an environment where entertainment is turned out in such volume, it's inevitable that 90% of it will be garbage... look at the pop music industry.

If this seems lamented by the Golden Age fans, it's probably due to the higher percentage of quality from the 40s and 50s... partially due to fewer players.

At the risk of flaming, look at Hanna-Barbera... their Tom & Jerry's are immortal, no question... when they moved to TV, a good deal of studio energy carried over thru, say, Quick Draw McGraw -- they brought players with them... but as they grew with success and demand for more product, the creative spark got watered down fast, and for decades the only thing that grew was the roster of characters... as though they were filling an ark with every species possible.

They've been terrible for ages... and yet that does nothing to diminish their Tom & Jerry's... when it's good, it's good.

CGI is neither good nor bad, it's a tool... cartoons -- and movies and literature for that matter -- are good or bad based on storytelling and character development... Pixar has an amazing track record; I hope they can sustain it, but there's no guarantee.

Does anyone really think there's a good character on the Family Guy?... OK, I'll give ya Stewie, but overall that's a mega-stinky series that does nothing more than copy the Simpsons and turn up the speed... nothing new there.

You have to discriminate a little, but there is some good contemporary work being done... Aardman, Pixar, Groening... Powerpuff, Belleville... and John K gets a shout-out for innovation even if he hasn't been productive lately.

I guess personal taste has some bearing... but if many people have a hooray-for-everything response to modern animation, all I can do is scratch my head and wonder what is it about the culture that creates such a receptive atmosphere for every shiny gadget that comes off the entertainment assembly line.

[Chow Hound]

There is a disdain for CGI in general, because, IMHO and in the HO's of many others, CGI is simply an artistically inferior process that limits the full range of character expressivity that was possible with 2D.
That's not my HO. My HO believes CGI is still in it's infancy and as artists become more adept at it's use and as the technology improves, so will the animation itself (not that it's bad now, IMHO). But I'm not an animator and have never attempted to animate a CGI character and you have, so when it comes right down to it, your HO would probably beat my HO. :D

[Ray Pointer]

Ray:

I haven't taken any part in the questioning of your credentials that you allude to, but to suggest that merely questioning your credentials is libel is at best paranoid and at worst absurd. I must say that I find your attempt to hijack this thread into a complaint hall regarding this forum and its moderators and then going on to criticize people who deliberately spoil and argue the threads on this very forum to be amusing, if not downright hypocritical. That said, your accusation that you have been targeted because of your work in the modern animation industry has no base whatsoever - judging from the quantity of concerns that are voiced to us moderators, we have been fairly lenient.

I'm all for having a civil debate without personal attacks, yet you appear to be going out of your way, subtle as it may look, to accuse some posters here of being libelous and certain unnamed GAC moderators as antagonistic. I am familiar with this innocent victim persona you are assuming, but for the sake of this forum's dignity, it would be appreciated greatly if you could practice what you preach. For starters, you could stop trashing perfectly legitimate threads with diatribes against the GAC forums membership.

Regardless, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize what one may see as the general attitude from the classic animation community towards modern animation. However, I would argue that dislike of most modern animation is an unfortunate consequence of having specialized interests - it has nothing to do with being narrow-minded. I think many of the points in Gossamer's post sum up my feelings quite well- as this is a board devoted to classic animation, it will draw people who are more interested in old cartoons than new ones. But I don't pay attention to the year something was made before deciding whether I like it or not - there is no litmus test where anything made before 1963 is discounted because it's too modern.

Regarding Leviathan's four points:
1. I did not pay much attention to the Disney-Pixar merger, so I cannot comment.
2. I think this has to do more with the content of the movies than the fact that they are CGI - most recent 2D movies were likely criticized by the same crowd. One could argue that the trend instead shows a bias against any movies produced by major American studios, regardless of the animation format, although having paid no attention to the foreign films you named, and believing this is likely the case for much of the GAC community, this would be better applied to animation fans in general, as opposed to simply classic animation aficionados. But I would be careful to make such a generalization in any event.
3. I would say that television cartoons are becoming too dialogue-oriented, but I don't see this as an inherently bad thing, only something that should be done in moderation and not overused.
4. One could have thought the same in the 1940s and wished that cartoons would return to what they were in the 1930s. Disliking change is nothing new, nor is it exclusive to classic animation fans - personally, I like to see where the new styles and types of entertainment that evolve over time take us. It's just that in general, I prefer what we got out of the 1940s and 1950s than what we're getting today. That is certainly not an exclusive statement, nor should it be considered a final judgement on every animation ever produced.

As Mr. Leviathan pointed out, there is an atmosphere of hostility that hovers here from time to time, which is totally unnecessary, and has been mentioned by others recently. While it is understood by the very title, "Golden Age Cartoons," there are at times comparisons of contemporary over classic that merit discussion since it is the work of the past that serves as a standard by which the present can be measured. But this hostility has carried over in the duscussion of classic cartoons as well. As I pointed out above, in an attempt to discuss the classic POPEYE cartoons, a "hostile takeover" was attempted by a certain group bent on flaming and spoiling the thread, resulting in its being closed a few months ago. Why this discussion seemed inappropriate was a puzzle to those who were participating, especially since it attracted a large number of viewers and participants--and was clearly on the topic of classic cartoons from "The Golden Age."

Regarding the matter that questioned my credentials, what I stated was that a "prominent poster",not you did this. This action was not only out of line, but in violation of your own rules. This is not paranoia, but disrespectful and wrong. This action was more potentially slanderous than your rule of misquoting the comments from posters, as the definitiion of slander in the legal sense is "the deliberate publishing of a false and malicious statement about a living person." The intent of this was clearly meant to discredit me in some way, which was totally unncessary, and one of your rules is that we do not make personal attacks upon each other. I have not done this to anyone, but in the minds of some not liking the content of my answers at times, they are taken the wrong way. While I may have responded to what I cited as an incorrect concept, I have done so without making it personal or berating that person, and I go to a great extent to qualify what I post. I am not responsible for what is taken out of context because the reader did not comprehend the total picture. What is interesting is the "knee-jerk" reaction over issues that do not merit arguements, and the willingness to seek out conflict that may not exist. On the other hand, it is ironic that when a conflict does arise,
it does not seem to be dealt with effectively.

The incident about my credentials on the IMdb was explained politely three times, yet the poster in question continued to harp on it. I contacted the moderators three times about this incident and nothing was done. Therefore I addressed these issues in the forum, which I had the right to do. Then the thread was closed with the suggestion that I had no right to answer these rude and ignorant remarks. And while I am in a unique position subject to a certain amount of scrutiny for actually being involved with both the historical animation as well as contemporary animaiton scene, I realize that I am a potential target. But my position gives me a point of view that is far more unique in that I am not simply a fan who has spent a lot of time watching cartoons and becoming an expert in the process. Anyone who has followed my postings can determine that my answers contain a depth that does not come from quoting from books or self-made conclusions. They come from having been in the trenches, and there are not many in this forum who can make that claim. And while this incident is in the past, it is yet another example of the problem cited in this thread.

My response is in suport of Mr. Leviathan's general concern, having nothing to do with "highjacking" the discussion. And the use of such words is most revealing on the part of the respondant. I am not clear as to what is mean by being "lenient" in light of the tone that has been displayed by others who have been outwardly rude here and in light of the incident already outlined. Again, this sorth of display is not what we are supposed to be about here. And while I may be sticking my head into "the lion's mouth" for saying this, I fear that you overstate your case, while proving my very points.

[Leviathan]

Everyone,

I'm also sorry for not being clearer on my #4 point. I included it here because i remember reading numerous passages that described the majority of comptemporary film and television animation as lacking in certain qualities, for example "Honest, likable characters", "visual storytelling" (which ties into my #3 point). and "influence of artists in the final product"

EDIt: also, most the negativity towards Modern Animation isn't coming from the golden age of animation community from what i've noticed.

[Dan Porceddu]

Ray:

Once again you have proven my point about thread hijacking. This thread is not about what you saw as a "hostile takeover" of another thread, or some event where your credentials were questioned and you found it offensive enough to be considered libel. Yet you are on the record as saying that you are unhappy with attempts to spoil legitimate discussions such as this one. Why not discuss the actual subject more, instead of telling unnamed people how badly they have apparently wronged you?

Now it's time to play the Quote Game. You state "Regarding the matter that questioned my credentials, what I stated was that a "prominent poster",not you did this." Thanks for informing me, because I apparently didn't know that when I stated "I haven't taken any part in the questioning of your credentials that you allude to" in the opening of my original post.

You go on to say that questioning your credentials is a personal attack but you have done no such personal attacks yourself. A bit puzzling, since the relevant paragraph is committed to bashing the GAC Forums staff. Consistency would, again, be appreciated.

Your status in both classic and modern animation does not make you a "target." When people voice their concerns, they never mention that they're upset with your work in the modern animation field. Why should they? As I have already said, this accusation is entirely baseless. It looks to me like splitting hairs at this point; trying to find a problem out of everything and connecting the dots to forge some sort of giant conspiracy. I assure you there is none.

I don't think it's fair that you are able to hijack a perfectly fine discussion with your complaints against the GAC staff, however, so it would probably be good if you took your concerns to a more appropriate avenue, such as private messages. I don't have a problem with you discussing the actual topic at hand; that is, the negative attitude towards modern animation from the golden age community. The topic at hand is not "Were Ray Pointer's credentials unfairly questioned?" or "Discuss the HOSTILE TAKEOVER of the Popeye thread!"

[CueBallCat79]

At the risk of flaming, look at Hanna-Barbera... their Tom & Jerry's are immortal, no question... when they moved to TV, a good deal of studio energy carried over thru, say, Quick Draw McGraw -- they brought players with them... but as they grew with success and demand for more product, the creative spark got watered down fast, and for decades the only thing that grew was the roster of characters... as though they were filling an ark with every species possible.


My sentiments exactly. It's amazing how quickly they went from the gloriously animated non-verbal antics of Tom and Jerry to the "lets stand still and do nothing but spout expository dialouge" days of characters like Peter Potamous, Magilla Gorilla and Wally Gator.

It feels like they were saying to themselves, "Well, we havent done a Lion character yet. So lets call him Lippy the Lion. And we havent done a hyena yet so...lets give him a sidekick. And lets make them polar opposites." But the problem is all these characters are just tweaked versions of Yogi and Boo Boo.

And they do absolutely nothing but narrate everything that happens to them during the course of a seven minute cartoon. For example, how about a snippet of a Ricochet Rabbit cartoon Boomerang has been playing for a while: the rabbit shoots a gun and the bullet zips around the outside of the house trying to find an opening to hit the robber within. Do we really need the robber going, "Now the bullet is going for the door. Now it's going for the window." But all of their cartoons during this time were like that. Incredibly unoriginal aside from the fact that they never seemed to go back to the same species twice. Aside from maybe the Flintstones and Yogi Bear I'm no fan of Hanna/Barbara's television work. I personally can't stand it. I wasn't animation. It was illustrated rambling.

And I know it was because of the technical limitations of the time but did every character from that era have to wear a necktie or bowtie? I shudder to think what Tom and Jerry would have been like if they were created then...oh wait...I guess the Pixie and Dixie cartoons give us a good idea of that.

Sigh. It's no wonder that when Bill and Joe went back to Tom and Jerry in the 70s and 90s they had no idea how to handle them. They had come sooooo far from what they had done in animation's golden years that they found it impossible to do cartoons anymore in which characters couldn't shut the hell up for a few minutes.

[gdX]

Not to worry... Jerry eventually got his bow tie...
.

[GeorgeC]

My sentiments exactly. It's amazing how quickly they went from the gloriously animated non-verbal antics of Tom and Jerry to the "lets stand still and do nothing but spout expository dialouge" days of characters like Peter Potamous, Magilla Gorilla and Wally Gator.


We've also gotta remember that something that gets left out a lot in the animation industry history chronicles is that a LOT OF PEOPLE contribute to cartoons, not just the directors and producers.

Tex Avery had help from writers like Heck Allen as well as great artists like Preston Blair. Over at MGM, a bunch of these guys crossed over between the Tex Avery and Hanna/Barbera Tom & Jerry series. A lot of ideas got traded back and forth from all these guys and that only helped the final product.

It's unfortunate that the esprit-de-corps is largely gone nowadays. It's everybody out for themselves and the team spirit and cooperation is largely gone. Blame it on changing societal attitudes, the auteur mentality of many film schools' curriculums which POISON the attitudes of film students (INCLUDING animation filmmakers), and the corporate mentality of the remaining big animation studios.

It's ironic, really, that Disney was THE WORST amongst the prominent Golden Age Hollywood animation studios in crediting its animation employees. For years after the OTHER studios gave their employees credits in their shorts, Walt Disney wouldn't have anybody's name on the films besides his! That's led to the assumption by the general public that Mr. Disney did all the work.

This is not to demean Walt Disney's legacy, however. In spite of this bit of short-sighted egotism, Walt Disney was the finest animation producer that's lived to this point in time and one of the best storymen, period.

[GeorgeC]

Over the Last couple of years (When i first joined Gac in Augest 2004 to the PResent Day) I have noticed that the there has been an increase in negativity towards Modern Animation and the Modern Animation industry. i'm not referring to any one person or event, i've just noticed it's become gradually apparent that Modern animation is being looked down upon.
.....................


A lot of the negativity gets fed in by the professionals working in the animation industry today, too.

They're basically feasting on and rehashing the old stuff AGAIN AND AGAIN!

It's morbid in a way to dwell on things like that. Many of those guys don't think ANY good animation has been done since 1959! Heck, a bunch of the TV animation designs are copies/emulations of the old Golden Books done in the 1950s. It's a vicious little circle that groups of animators have corralled themselves into.

No, there has to be a clean break from the past. As much as I want to see the older films re-released on home video, I'd rather NOT see new Tom & Jerry, Bugs Bunny, and Mickey Mouse shorts done by today's animators. There just aren't enough people today who appreciate these characters AND UNDERSTAND THEM.

It's better to create new characters and go forward with a POSITIVE ATTITUDE rather than spending all your time pissing about what's going wrong now and rehashing the past OR (God help us!) making Bugs and Mickey "edgier" for a modern audience!

[doctoon]

I agree with those who say that complaining about how cartoons have evolved is certainly not new. Back in the 1960s or '70s, a retired Tex Avery told Joe Adamson he'd never go back to the theatricals because of all the "yak yak yak" the characters did at that point.

[Bartman]

Can't you two settle this amicably? Your claws are showing!!

This thread has become the cyberspace equivalent of "*****fest 2006"! I say you two meet up in an alley somewheres and have a nice catfight - I'll print the tickets up - you 2 just need to show up...:D It's either this or one of you throw in the towel...then again, somehow I don't see that happening...

[rodney]

Well, with all due respect, Dan is just moderating the board. He's not the one hi-jacking the thread and trying to turn it into a pity party.

[Walt Disney]

My sentiments exactly. It's amazing how quickly they went from the gloriously animated non-verbal antics of Tom and Jerry to the "lets stand still and do nothing but spout expository dialouge" days of characters like Peter Potamous, Magilla Gorilla and Wally Gator.

It feels like they were saying to themselves, "Well, we havent done a Lion character yet. So lets call him Lippy the Lion. And we havent done a hyena yet so...lets give him a sidekick. And lets make them polar opposites." But the problem is all these characters are just tweaked versions of Yogi and Boo Boo.

And they do absolutely nothing but narrate everything that happens to them during the course of a seven minute cartoon. For example, how about a snippet of a Ricochet Rabbit cartoon Boomerang has been playing for a while: the rabbit shoots a gun and the bullet zips around the outside of the house trying to find an opening to hit the robber within. Do we really need the robber going, "Now the bullet is going for the door. Now it's going for the window." But all of their cartoons during this time were like that. Incredibly unoriginal aside from the fact that they never seemed to go back to the same species twice. Aside from maybe the Flintstones and Yogi Bear I'm no fan of Hanna/Barbara's television work. I personally can't stand it. I wasn't animation. It was illustrated rambling.

And I know it was because of the technical limitations of the time but did every character from that era have to wear a necktie or bowtie? I shudder to think what Tom and Jerry would have been like if they were created then...oh wait...I guess the Pixie and Dixie cartoons give us a good idea of that.

Sigh. It's no wonder that when Bill and Joe went back to Tom and Jerry in the 70s and 90s they had no idea how to handle them. They had come sooooo far from what they had done in animation's golden years that they found it impossible to do cartoons anymore in which characters couldn't shut the hell up for a few minutes.

The same could be said about the Fleischer cartoons. They were the original "talky cartoons". If you watch a Popeye made from 1933 to about 1938, for example, the characters talk and talk and talk, but in the case of the Fleischers, the voices were actually good, and the dialogue (mostly ad-libbed, probably) was funny. The Hannah-Barbera cartoons have horrible voice acting, and even worse writing.

[CueBallCat79]

The same could be said about the Fleischer cartoons. They were the original "talky cartoons". If you watch a Popeye made from 1933 to about 1938, for example, the characters talk and talk and talk, but in the case of the Fleischers, the voices were actually good, and the dialogue (mostly ad-libbed, probably) was funny. The Hannah-Barbera cartoons have horrible voice acting, and even worse writing.

I'd disagree only when it comes to the first few seasons of the Flintstones and the earliest Yogi Bear shorts. I've seen it happen with both cartoons where I was literally laughing out loud at a joke. But then very quickly, they started to go towards bad jokes/puns or just letting the character's funny voice be a joke all it's own. My opinion is that someone at H/B thought Wally Gator's voice was the absolute funniest voice in the world. He never shuts up for a second.

There was one really great Yogi Bear cartoon where Yogi (without Boo Boo) got himself into what was supposed to be a standard Red Riding Hood story. Yeah the animation was really limited but the characters played off each other so well, especially the wolf, exasperated with the way the story is going downhill. They interact with the story and comment on events but they don't stand around telling us what everyone else is doing and making puns so bad that everyone in the 1950s probably even groaned.

[Gordan]

The same could be said about the Fleischer cartoons. They were the original "talky cartoons". If you watch a Popeye made from 1933 to about 1938, for example, the characters talk and talk and talk, but in the case of the Fleischers, the voices were actually good, and the dialogue (mostly ad-libbed, probably) was funny. The Hannah-Barbera cartoons have horrible voice acting, and even worse writing.

Hanna-Barbera animated TV series mainly used dialogue to move the plot action forward. The dialogue in Fleischer "Popeyes", however, never moved the plot action in the "classical" sense. It was rather an improvisational afterthought - an early postmodern strategy that talented voice actors used in order to self-reflexively (and humorously) comment on the events on screen. Often, these witty asides, mumblings and mutterings in Fleischer films were not even a part of diegetic universe (i.e. You would wonder whether characters could hear each others' mumblings). The ad-libbing was the voice actors' (Mercer, Questel, etc.) improvisantional direct mode of communication/connection to the audience. This was tradition dating back to, at least, vaudeville shows (with which Fleischer animators were familiar).