Woes of Toons and TV's declinin' quality

[CyberFox]

http://lordzorori.livejournal.com/12193.html

y'all will pretty much agree with my little preachin' on this entry

[Marty26]

I'll admit that I do like a couple of the "modern cartoons" you mentioned being aired on Boomerang, such as Dexter's Laboratory. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with this editorial.

The "What A Cartoon Show" has to be one of the most hilariously stupid cartoon shows ever.

[dandu]

Even in the past 5 years it declined. I remember saturday mornings were worth getting up for, lots of cartoons on almost every channel, Fox, ABC, NBC, UPN and FOX, now there are only like a couple of decent shows, also TV shows used to only rerun in the summer or whenever they had to, now they do it almost like every two weeks!

[frootloops]

OH MY GOD!:eek: WHAT THE HECK IS THIS?!!! :mad:THAT'S NOT ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS!!! THAT'S SNOOP DAWG, EMINEM AND DR. DRE!!!!!!!!!!

Jason Lee is becoming like Brendan Fraiser, playing in all the ridiculous, re-vamped for Generation Me cartoon movies. Although at least Brendan Fraiser's movies tried (and failed) at least to stay faithful to the original characters.

I agree about the decline of quality television in the past few years. My ten year old cousin watches things like Pimp My Ride. The only cartoons he watches are Spongebob Squarepants and Fairly Odd Parents. Cartoon characters today aren't even CUTE anymore. They're all square and angular and in the case of Spongebob, HIGHLY ANNOYING!!!

IMO, the best tv show to come out of the US in the past ten years is My Name Is Earl, guess who that stars.

[Ray Pointer]

This is a subject that could go into a great deal of detailed dsucussion and debate. The reasons for the decline of TV animation and its content is so complicated, but I will tiry to simplify the explanation, having worked on 12 series in a ten year period.

At a special seminar at The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, we had a discussion on the subject, "Is There Room for Faith and Values in Television Today?" I sat on the end aisle seat near a microphone and made the following opening remark:

"We hear so much of the time that what we see in movies and television is that it is because of 'what the people want.' Well, I am of the people, and at no time have I been asked if I wanted to see programs containing people vomiting, deficating, or other disgusting acts that have nothing to do with entertainment or the uplifting of the human spirit. It is more so that what we see is the result of the "taste", or the lack there of exhibited by the programming executives who make the decisions about what is produced and broadcasted."

I believe this situation pertains to the decline of animation in terms of content. In other aspects, it is the industry's current disdain and lack of respect for experienced personnel who know how to create and guide well crafted programs. What they are doing is giving far too much creative freedom to inexperienced younger artists who really have not learned the craft, and most of all, do not have enough real life experience to draw upon for story material. At the same time, there is a lack of understanding of how animation is effectively applied, and mostly a lack of strong directing sense.
What results is an imitation of what has been seen in other cartoons and television shows. This, and a limited literacy level also affects the writing of such programs as well as the quality of the humor. I find that too much of what is being offered as "humor" is intospective to that group in the studio, and not understood by the general public which the cartoon is being made for. Other problems with such "humor" is on the risque' and somewhat perverted level, or simply mean spirited in the name of trying to be funny. Such people creatign these programs do not seem to realize who their audience is, and are more contend to impress each other with their "cleverness." At the same time, the excutives only see the surface "product" and simply say, "looks good" without really seeing what is there. They have no realization of the whole picture--no total vision. This is unfortunate.

Understand that I am not against giving a young person with demonstrated talent an opportunity. I was there once myself. But when I was starting out in the business, most of the people in it were seasoned pros who recognized potential and were encouraging of development, willing to teach. That, along with my own natural instincts is how I came to develop my own filmic and story sense. Today these opportunities do not exist since the studios have virtually pushed out the best experienced people over the age of 40, assuming that artists in their 20s have their fingers on the pulse of today's
scene. At the same time, there is a lot of selfiishness and backstabbing that goes on with people within the same studio who really do not know who is competent and who isn't. All someone has to do is say that so-and-so is good, or so-and-so is not good, and on the strength of that comment, people are considered qualified or unqualified. They don't really know what the person has done, nor have they seem much of their work if at all.

While there is an interest in making new appealing to "young audiences by making it relevant, it is unfortunate since a focus specifically on contemporary culture becomes quickly dated. This is something that most of the classic cartoons we love generally avoided, and is why they continue to entertain-- because they contain universal situations that remain relevant decades later--the trials and tribulations of the human experience. These cartoons were told skillfully with action along with limited and cleverly written dialog. Much of what we have now seems to be too much inane dialog and annoying voices that subsitutes for a lack of story content.

Another reason for the perceived decline is the struggle to produce in the digital age with new techniques such as Flash, and discovering its effective use to produce a product equal to or better than what Hanna-Barbera produced starting 50 years ago. In the process of adapting these new techinques, a lot of reinventing of the wheel occurs that could have been avoided by retaining people who already know the basic techniques that are being adapted to the new processes that are merely another application of the same concepts used in traditional 2D cel animation. All this in a nutshell is part of the reason as to why contemporary animation has declined.

[Mark J]

I'm not convinced that TV animation is any worse than it has been since it's inception. Made for TV toons from the 1950's on were all generally awful to look at and produced on shoestring budgets. Look at the awful limited animation in HB toons, Filmation, junk like Speedracer and Corageous Cat and Minute Mouse etc. Those were ugly and terribly animated. It is no better or worse today, it's just that people have emotional attachments to shows they watched as children and believe they are 'superior' to modern mass produced product. The only quality animation was theatrically produced and is long gone.

[OurGangAlfalfa]

The only quality animation was theatrically produced and is long gone.
What about Tom Terrific?

[Geezil]

What about Tom Terrific?

Hear, hear! :D And thank you for beating me to that point!

[Alf]

But at least, many of the 60´s toons, despite cheap animation, had at least clever scripts which did not talk down the viewer, be it a child or an adult... look at Rocky & Bullwinkle and the rest of the Jay Ward shows, Beany & Cecil, Roger Ramjet and others (including, of course, Tom Terrific).

[Tom Stathes]

I'm not convinced that TV animation is any worse than it has been since it's inception. Made for TV toons from the 1950's on were all generally awful to look at and produced on shoestring budgets. Look at the awful limited animation in HB toons, Filmation, junk like Speedracer and Corageous Cat and Minute Mouse etc. Those were ugly and terribly animated. It is no better or worse today, it's just that people have emotional attachments to shows they watched as children and believe they are 'superior' to modern mass produced product. The only quality animation was theatrically produced and is long gone.
I agree with you on this, but at least earlier TV animation had acceptable (or better) quality content. Part of the griping here has to do with the decline of good taste on television, that of which I find very apparent.

Slightly off-topic, a few words about live-action shows. Programs like Leave it to Beaver and The Andy Griffith show may have been fun to watch but are not very "realistic" programs...I could be wrong but I find they were presented as being what life is supposed to be like for average people. Later, programs like those produced by Norman Lear gave a more realistic look into life situations. The latter are shows with good, useful content in my opinion. More than just entertainment, they make you think and bring about awareness of some sort.
Today's "Reality Shows" have gone to another extreme, presented as being realistic but not really being so. This is the problem with today's television.

[Chow Hound]

Slightly off-topic, a few words about live-action shows. Programs like Leave it to Beaver and The Andy Griffith show may have been fun to watch but are not very "realistic" programs...I could be wrong but I find they were presented as being what life is supposed to be like for average people.Many Leave it to Beaver episodes were actually based on real events that happened in the lives of kids that were related to the show's creators (their kids and nieces/nephews). The stories that were not based on actual events were run past the same kids to get a consensus on whether or not it seemed like something they might do or that might happen to them. Or so I've read. I've also watched it with older relatives of mine who have stated that people really were more polite and helpful back then.

[Tom Stathes]

Sure, and I wouldn't debate that. What I'm saying was that they were a product of a time when there was little awareness about many things that were happening to people regardless of the time period. For instance, Aunt Bea didn't have to worry about breast cancer, nor was Ethel Mertz almost abused by a rapist (both compared to Edith Bunker). It was a time when doctors were recommending smoking.
See the point I'm trying to make?

[Ray Pointer]

I agree with you on this, but at least earlier TV animation had acceptable (or better) quality content. Part of the griping here has to do with the decline of good taste on television, that of which I find very apparent.
Slightly off-topic, a few words about live-action shows. Programs like Leave it to Beaver and The Andy Griffith show may have been fun to watch but are not very "realistic" programs...I could be wrong but I find they were presented as being what life is supposed to be like for average people. Later, programs like those produced by Norman Lear gave a more realistic look into life situations. The latter are shows with good, useful content in my opinion. More than just entertainment, they make you think and bring about awareness of some sort.
Today's "Reality Shows" have gone to another extreme, presented as being realistic but not really being so. This is the problem with today's television.

What is forgotten here is the mindset of broadcasting and the contolling interest in the 1950s and 60s. Television of the 1950 and 60s was a reflection of ideals set by 1) a desire to build a better society after coming out of WWII and the recovering from the Great Depression. This was an issue for sponsors. 2) Sponsors influenced greatly the content of the shows they sponsored because they wanted a show that supported their image. So there was more of a desire to stress good behavior and manners on programs.

But the fact is, there were people who acted very much like the characters in these shows. This was my experience growing up, and the people in my formative years did not look to television for role models. They already had them and knew what proper behavior was to a large degree.

[Chow Hound]

Sure, and I wouldn't debate that. What I'm saying was that they were a product of a time when there was little awareness about many things that were happening to people regardless of the time period. For instance, Aunt Bea didn't have to worry about breast cancer, nor was Ethel Mertz almost abused by a rapist (both compared to Edith Bunker). It was a time when doctors were recommending smoking.
See the point I'm trying to make?Yeah. TV entertainment went from being entertaining to being a major downer. Preaching and not entertaining became the primary focus.

[Tom Stathes]

Ray: Very truthful indeed. My concern though is while as a society we have come a very long way in terms of awareness since the 1950s, in the interum we have lost a sense of standard, quality and taste--the positive side of that time period. My ideal would be to have both.

[Chow Hound]

But the fact is, there were people who acted very much like the characters in these shows. This was my experience growing up, and the people in my formative years did not look to television for role models. They already had them and knew what proper behavior was to a large degree.And that's probably the crux of what went wrong with society. People stopped looking to real people for their role models and turned to fictional characters on TV and in the movies.

[Chow Hound]

Very truthful indeed. My concern though is while as a society we have come a very long way in terms of awareness since the 1950s, in the interum we have lost a sense of standard, quality and taste--the positive side of that time period. My ideal would be to have both.But did we really come a long way, or did we just lose the quality and taste? Just because these things weren't mentioned on TV doesn't mean people weren't aware of them or weren't dealing with them. They just weren't beat over the head with them every night on TV, perhaps because the general public thought it would be in bad taste and the sponsers responded. I can't say for sure as I unfortunately didn't live through those times, so I can only surmise from what older people tell me about it.

[Tom Stathes]

Yeah. TV entertainment went from being entertaining to being a major downer. Preaching and not entertaining became the primary focus.
I think you're missing part of my point. Let's take All in the Family for example. The point of this program was to bring light to the mentality and ways of people who were ignorant and unenlighted. Bigots, that sort of thing. It also sought to turn around the previous societal mentalities which may have seemed "pleasant" but under which many people suffered in different ways...many times for the simplest reasons of some subjects being taboo to discuss. Meanwhile, the show did have an element of comedy and appeal, and I for one enjoy it.
The point is, there should be a fair balance of true "reality" and quality entertainment.

[Tom Stathes]

To suggest that the general public was as aware of things back then as we are today is not very condusive with man's progression. It only makes sense that as time passes and new research and ideas come into fruition do we really become smarter as a society.

[Chow Hound]

It only makes sense that as time passes and new research and ideas come into fruition do we really become smarter as a society.That's just it though, I don't believe we have become smarter as a society. But that's a topic for a whole other thread (and forum).

[Tom Stathes]

That's just it though, I don't believe we have become smarter as a society. But that's a topic for a whole other thread (and forum).
I feel the opposite. If I come across any published articles that basically explain my point of view, I'll link to them here. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with a little disagreeing. ;)

[Chow Hound]

Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with a little disagreeing. ;)Absolutely true.

[Ray Pointer]

I think you're missing part of my point. Let's take All in the Family for example. The point of this program was to bring light to the mentality and ways of people who were ignorant and unenlighted. Bigots, that sort of thing. It also sought to turn around the previous societal mentalities which may have seemed "pleasant" but under which many people suffered in different ways...many times for the simplest reasons of some subjects being taboo to discuss. Meanwhile, the show did have an element of comedy and appeal, and I for one enjoy it.
The point is, there should be a fair balance of true "reality" and quality entertainment.

The trouble with sitcoms by the 60s was that they were becoming too formulaic and artificial. This was where Norman Lear triumphed by introducing comedy that was more focused and critical of contemporary society. This was also at a time when certain taboos were being lifted for television. And while shows such as ALL IN THE FAMILY were breakthoughs in television, the problem with the Lear shows is that in many ways their topical references sometime date the material. On the other hand, it seems that many of the social advances we had made by the 1970s have reversed, making these comedies just a relevant today.

In short, these types of programs offered more than a laugh, they provoked thought on serious issues that went beyond the simple ethical themes in earlier sitcoms.

[fan4life]

I'm not convinced that TV animation is any worse than it has been since it's inception. Made for TV toons from the 1950's on were all generally awful to look at and produced on shoestring budgets. Look at the awful limited animation in HB toons, Filmation, junk like Speedracer and Corageous Cat and Minute Mouse etc. Those were ugly and terribly animated. It is no better or worse today, it's just that people have emotional attachments to shows they watched as children and believe they are 'superior' to modern mass produced product. The only quality animation was theatrically produced and is long gone.

The one thing that seperates the old toons from the relatively newer toons is that the older toons were apparently treated as an art form, and those that created them in those days, like any artisan, put their very lifeforce into them. And it shows in their work, from the artwork to the writing.

I must disagree about Speed Racer: it was anime, and for me, anime has a way of drawing one into the action and the story. Beyond yesterday and today's anime, quality in toons is sorely lacking.

Even in the past 5 years it declined. I remember saturday mornings were worth getting up for, lots of cartoons on almost every channel, Fox, ABC, NBC, UPN and FOX, now there are only like a couple of decent shows, also TV shows used to only rerun in the summer or whenever they had to, now they do it almost like every two weeks!

Hey, all ya have to do is click onto Cartoon Network for declining quality....

The trouble with sitcoms by the 60s was that they were becoming too formulaic and artificial. This was where Norman Lear triumphed by introducing comedy that was more focused and critical of contemporary society. This was also at a time when certain taboos were being lifted for television. And while shows such as ALL IN THE FAMILY were breakthoughs in television, the problem with the Lear shows is that in many ways their topical references sometime date the material. On the other hand, it seems that many of the social advances we had made by the 1970s have reversed, making these comedies just a relevant today.

In short, these types of programs offered more than a laugh, they provoked thought on serious issues that went beyond the simple ethical themes in earlier sitcoms.

But did we really come a long way, or did we just lose the quality and taste? Just because these things weren't mentioned on TV doesn't mean people weren't aware of them or weren't dealing with them. They just weren't beat over the head with them every night on TV, perhaps because the general public thought it would be in bad taste and the sponsers responded. I can't say for sure as I unfortunately didn't live through those times, so I can only surmise from what older people tell me about it.

On one hand, it's great that these sitcoms finally shined some light on these subjects and broke new ground. On the other hand, when their contemporaries and later shows touched on the subjects, they made them cliche and pretty much beat the subjects to death. So quality has gone down the toilet.

What is forgotten here is the mindset of broadcasting and the contolling interest in the 1950s and 60s. Television of the 1950 and 60s was a reflection of ideals set by 1) a desire to build a better society after coming out of WWII and the recovering from the Great Depression. This was an issue for sponsors. 2) Sponsors influenced greatly the content of the shows they sponsored because they wanted a show that supported their image. So there was more of a desire to stress good behavior and manners on programs.

But the fact is, there were people who acted very much like the characters in these shows. This was my experience growing up, and the people in my formative years did not look to television for role models. They already had them and knew what proper behavior was to a large degree.

But values change and so do people, and TV does eventually have to play some catch up if it wants to compete or at least reflect those changes.

And that's probably the crux of what went wrong with society. People stopped looking to real people for their role models and turned to fictional characters on TV and in the movies.

TV and movies merely reflect society-they do not mold it nor even influence it. Could it be, then, that perhaps those former role models were found lacking in something?

[nickramer]

In my opinion, the reason with most animation shows declining comes in two theories:

1. Companies and production crews are designing show only for kids in mind, rather than their selves or trying to get on a latest trend.

2. This is a problem that Shamaus Culhane had mentaion in his book. People think that they could just think up characters out of the blue, rather than to talk about and let the idea slowly develop as time goes on.

[Studio Toledo]

I must disagree about Speed Racer: it was anime, and for me, anime has a way of drawing one into the action and the story. Beyond yesterday and today's anime, quality in toons is sorely lacking.
Also of note the timeframe and the fact shows like Speed Racer, Gigantor or Astro Boy were produced in another country as opposed to the American efforts (or those subcontracted elsewhere). Japan didn't have the experiences or expertise to do TV animation the way it was being crafted in the US, and had to learn from trial and error in those days when getting anything on the air still cost time and money (and most Japanese programs were still in black and white, shows like Kimba and Speed Racer were given the green light to be made in color at a time when the technology was still new there and not that many people had a color set, they couldn't juse pre-make them in color for future repeated use like the American studios were doing).

[Der Captain]

I was pretty much in agreement until the "when I was a kid" part and the suggestion that the ghastly-desperate "You Can't Do That On Television" was something watchable. (I still remember that the laugh track on that thing barely rose to a titter.)

[fan4life]

Also of note the timeframe and the fact shows like Speed Racer, Gigantor or Astro Boy were produced in another country as opposed to the American efforts (or those subcontracted elsewhere). Japan didn't have the experiences or expertise to do TV animation the way it was being crafted in the US, and had to learn from trial and error in those days when getting anything on the air still cost time and money (and most Japanese programs were still in black and white, shows like Kimba and Speed Racer were given the green light to be made in color at a time when the technology was still new there and not that many people had a color set, they couldn't juse pre-make them in color for future repeated use like the American studios were doing).

But-I watch enough Adult Swim, and I'm satisfied with some of the offerings there. And I still have my art pad and a notebook nearby, working on character designs and storylines in anticipation of getting to pitch them to Cartoon Network. Incidentally, I have 2 concepts in development right now. both stylized and I dare say revolutionary in many ways.

[Studio Toledo]

Heh, not even that desperate to bother pitching to them (unless they don't promise me full autonomy in my creative endeavours with no compensation besides capital to get a studio running in town).

[fan4life]

I'd for sure want ownership of the character, compensation, and a small studio for sure.

[Studio Toledo]

I'd for sure want ownership of the character, compensation, and a small studio for sure.
That's true. You just don't want to sign-off all rights to someone else, then 10-20 years later demand them back once you've realized how well those charcters meant to you.

[fan4life]

That's true. You just don't want to sign-off all rights to someone else, then 10-20 years later demand them back once you've realized how well those charcters meant to you.

Absolutely. Another thing-if I own the characters, I've got a vested interest to ensure quality throughout, and would thus reap the rewards. I've read the sad tales of Siegel and Schuster (creators of Superman) and decided that that's not something I'd want happening to me.