Breaking the Animation Age Ghetto

I will concede that A:TLA is a well-done show and I can see why people like it, but I wouldn't quite rank it among my favorites ever.

It just got massively popular due to multi-demographic appeal. Anything that gets that big tends to get overhyped to some degree, especially by people with small reference pools.

avatar is one of the better shows to have come out in the last few years, but its execution, while solid, is pretty standard fare.

That's a great way to judge a show.

Pretty standard fare? Care to elaborate.

edited 27th Aug '14 12:43:21 AM by AfroWarrior27

Avatar is good...I think though, that the last season was very weak overall, and that the show would have been better if they hadn't written romantic relationships into it. Also, I think Katara is a little bit too perfect and Ang a little bit too Woobie-like and childish...ironically they are the weakest characters in the show, more or less everyone else is more interesting.

You don't see people overhyping, say, Batman The Animated Series as "the best show to have aired on TV, ever," do you?

I don't quite see the "multi-demographic appeal"; there were a ton of series that were clever enough for both adults and kids to watch yet never caught on with adults like this did.

If I'm not interested in the characters of a show after four episodes, why should I watch more of them?

edited 27th Aug '14 5:23:21 AM by Aldo930

I don't quite see the "multi-demographic appeal"; there were a ton of series that were clever enough for both adults and kids to watch yet never caught on with adults like this did.

What other shows are you thinking of? A:tLA is unusual in a number of ways, but it's easier to make comparisons when I know what it's being compared to.

There are too many to count. Very few shows made for kids have been able to develop more than a tiny cult fandom among adults, even if they're clever enough that anyone could appreciate them.

In what way is it "unusual"?

edited 27th Aug '14 7:40:05 AM by Aldo930

While Avatar was certainly well executed (at least I think so) it is very. . ."Star Wars" in it's simplistic world-building and archetypal characters and plots. That is probably why it has such a multi-demographic appeal. Because it hearkens to a lot of well established storytelling tropes that appeal to a wide audience, like Star Wars does.

It's probably also why The Legend of Korra is not as well received as The Legend of Aang is. Korra tries for some less orthodox stuff that is, frankly; not executed as well, not as well suited to the world of Avatar, and not as well suited to the creative staff's ability. I admit I haven't watched all of season 3, but I think it says something when, in general, people's favorite parts of Korra were when they ditched the grey political maneuvers, in favor of fantastical dark and light plots more reminiscent of the first show.

I wouldn't have a problem with the character archetypes and world building that I'd seen dozens of times were it not for the fact that there's an aura of pretension about the show; if people treated it like just a normal little cartoon that didn't really have anything special it might be enjoyable, if bland.

Did the creators really think that "grey political maneuvers" would be interesting to the Nickelodeon audience of kids and teens? Really?

edited 27th Aug '14 8:46:33 AM by Aldo930

Sounds like you just suffered a case of Hype Backlash.

Also, it's clear that they wanted to target Korra at an older audience, but it's clearly limited by the network and the ability of the creative team.

Then again, there was a bit of that same pretension in the show. Like it thought it was so, so much better than it really was or than it ever could be.

Honestly, if you're on a kids' network and you have plans like that... don't do it. So what if it's oh-so-mature? You're going way over their heads.

Plenty of people within the show's actual target demographic seemed to like and understand it just fine. You shouldn't underestimate the intelligence of children. Besides, it's really not THAT hard to understand the majority of the stuff in the show.

There is a difference between treating children as equals and going way, way over their heads, however.

Though I'll admit, I'll take your word for it, as I've never seen the show and I don't intend to. It can't be any worse than its predecessor.

edited 27th Aug '14 9:59:08 AM by Aldo930

Oh, I thought we were still talking about Avatar, not Korra.

For what it's worth, younger audiences were never the target audience of Korra. It was more so targeting people who grew up watching Avatar, and, thus, would at least be in their teens now and more than capable of understanding everything. Of course, though, again, I don't think most of the show is too difficult to understand. I mean, the second season is a hot mess, but aside from that...

Well... that was pointless.

Yet it was still being shown amongst all the other programs for younger, pre-teen audiences on Nick, wasn't it?

Teens are not "kids", according to Nick. That's why they have Teen Nick but for the life of me I NEVER hear any teen sing the praises of any show there.

Yes, teens are not kids. They're in the phase between childhood and adulthood. That's why they're called teens.

So I can kinda see where Nick's coming from.

There are too many to count. Very few shows made for kids have been able to develop more than a tiny cult fandom among adults, even if they're clever enough that anyone could appreciate them.

Not buying it. I suspect that you're missing some really big turn-offs in cartoons at large due to your own enjoyment of pure kids' shows, but it's hard to say what without knowing what you're actually referring to.

In general, I think that whether a kids' show gains an adult following has less to do with whether it's clever or not and more to do with whether it's actively embarrassing or obnoxious to adult sensibilities. Older people tend to dislike obnoxious cartoon voices, for instance, and have trouble taking serious 'toons seriously when they don't produce a certain amount of verisimilitude (especially as far as human nature is concerned). They also tend to avoid slice-of-life stuff about kids, probably because it's hard for them to relate.

If you get rid of the stuff about kids going to school or having silly adventures with their friends, the superhero shows with full-grown adults wearing masks to fight crime, and the goofy slapstick stuff with obnoxiously-voiced protagonists, you're pretty much left with fantasy like Avatar and stuff like Looney Tunes that's classic enough to avoid irritating adults.

In what way is it "unusual"?

It consistently tries to create a sense of verisimilitude in its characters and setting, even when it's doing things that are inherently unrealistic (like having people bend elements), it's designed to be a complete story with an end in mind, and it has one of the best and most natural redemption arcs I've ever seen.

While Avatar was certainly well executed (at least I think so) it is very. . ."Star Wars" in it's simplistic world-building and archetypal characters and plots. That is probably why it has such a multi-demographic appeal. Because it hearkens to a lot of well established storytelling tropes that appeal to a wide audience, like Star Wars does.

Avatar is more than the Star Wars-esque foundation, but that foundation is probably why it has such broad appeal. The characters, for instance, are a lot more than archetypes (especially Zuko), but it's not hard to reduce them to that if that's what you relate to.

It's probably also why The Legend of Korra is not as well received as The Legend of Aang is. Korra tries for some less orthodox stuff that is, frankly; not executed as well, not as well suited to the world of Avatar, and not as well suited to the creative staff's ability. I admit I haven't watched all of season 3, but I think it says something when, in general, people's favorite parts of Korra were when they ditched the grey political maneuvers, in favor of fantastical dark and light plots more reminiscent of the first show.

You need to watch Book 3 and look at the fandom's reaction to it, because they went back to grey political stuff and the fandom ate it up.

I think the real issue is that some of the stuff they did in Korra was so unorthodox that they were basically flying blind, especially at the beginning. Most creative teams probably would have struggled with something so ambitious initially, and I think they did a great job of working out the kinks in the end.

I suspect that the end of Book 2 was essentially the end of the age of fantasy, and the rest of the show is going to be the fallout from that... and, if Book 3 sets the precedent, it's going to be incredible.

Honestly, if you're on a kids' network and you have plans like that... don't do it. So what if it's oh-so-mature? You're going way over their heads.

Kids' networks are the only corporations willing to shell out millions of dollars per episode for an animated program. I don't see anything wrong with ambitious creators taking advantage of a blank slate from a kids' network to create a show that isn't really aimed at kids when they don't really have any other options. =P

It's not like they cheated the network out of their investment, either, since the show consistently tops the digital charts. Everyone wins... well, everyone but the kids who like the show but aren't familiar with digital distribution. =P

And there, I think, is why, to tie this back into the thread, the Animation Age Ghetto must be broken down by getting adults to enjoy kids' shows without shame.

Though you do forget that quite a ton of silly slapstick shows with obnoxiously voiced protagonists did gain some noticeable adult followings, like Ren And Stimpy and Sponge Bob Square Pants.

Being designed to be a complete story with an end in mind does not work under the American model of "get enough ratings and you get another season." It'd work in the old Japanese fashion, where these shows would be one season of 52 episodes and that is that. (Though there is also a problem of quality, in that if one season is worse than the others, you're going to have to watch that season if something in it is important later on.)

That's kind of being dishonest, in my opinion. Highly dishonest.

edited 27th Aug '14 10:50:45 AM by Aldo930

^ Shame is one thing, but a lack of ability to relate is quite another. Even if no one felt ashamed to watch cartoons, adults wouldn't watch them if they couldn't connect to the characters.

Nickelodeon knew what they were getting into when they bought the show and the creators designed it to feel as natural as possible if they weren't given their full order. Episode 13 was designed as a pseudo-finale because it was the end of the initial order (and the show was very episodic before that), the Book 1 finale was very upbeat and self-contained, and by the time they were working on Book 2, they knew the ratings were high enough to ensure a Book 3.

In other words, it was no more deceptive than Star Wars was. =P

The idea that you can't relate to the characters and their troubles doesn't work in comedies, because there the object is to laugh.

Given that the end, from what I remember, was always alluded to in the show, and the 13 original episodes were probably done months before their air date, one has to wonder - what would have happened had the show tanked? ...It probably would've turned out like Firefly, I guess.

I was using "dishonest" in relation to the sequel show.

edited 27th Aug '14 11:17:49 AM by Aldo930

^ Outside of pure slapstick, comedy heavily relies on reliability to function. Mother-in-law jokes wouldn't be funny if familial squabbles with in-laws weren't common and part of a lot of people's experience; adults will appreciate jokes about co-workers more than kids and kids will appreciate jokes about school more than adults. That's kind of how humor works.

As for Korra, no one deceived anyone. Nickelodeon came to the creators and offered them the ability to make anything they wanted in the Avatar universe, and they came back with the plans for Korra. If Nick didn't want to make the show after that, they could have rejected the proposal.

Pure slapstick and character-driven comedy, which is what most good comedy is based off of. A lot of kids' shows traffic in character-driven comedy.

I still say it's a little dishonest. Unlike some people, this doesn't mean I think the creators are bad people; I've never met them and I could probably carry on a conversation with them.

edited 27th Aug '14 11:34:27 AM by Aldo930

That's not the problem, the problem is you making bold statement and claiming you can't take an academy award seriously on a show you barely seen.

...That is a very ignorant statement.

edited 27th Aug '14 11:41:04 AM by AfroWarrior27

I've seen enough of it to know I don't like it and I feel it's overrated, so why the heck should I watch more when I don't like the show?

Because kids ALWAYS go for grey political maneuvers, don't they? They just LOVE that stuff!

edited 27th Aug '14 11:42:05 AM by Aldo930