Breaking the Animation Age Ghetto

A lot of the best Internet stuff really isn't on the same level as the best of what the networks have had to offer, except for maybe Homestar Runner.

Frederator was the studio behind Oh Yeah Cartoons, and Fred Seibert not only loves to scout out new talent, but adapts to the new technological trends as they change. Ex, Cartoon Hangover is the latest in his creations and arose out of his noticing how more audiences have migrated to the Internet.

Is animation still considered to be just something for kids and families? At least on TV, it's now for teens and adults too. I'm talking about allowing family-unfriendly content, which we've been seeing a lot more of. Nevertheless, the vast majority of cartoons are rather silly comedies, and animation with little humor seems to be something unheard of.

Um... That's been around since the 60s. Maybe even the 40s.

Ditto.

Maybe they mean "right now," in which case I say: wait a couple years. It'll come back in style.

I mean that censorship for TV cartoons hasn't been so lax until the 1990s and 2000s.

edited 15th Nov '14 8:29:01 AM by AHI-3000

Most people don't understand that the existence of animation at all for adults is a very big step towards its acceptance.

I wouldn't say that. What about, say, RWBY, or Red Vs Blue, or Bravest Warriors?

Hell, Harry Partridge's stuff is beautifully animated (even though he only releases new content like twice a year).

edited 16th Nov '14 8:34:34 AM by TyeDyeWildebeest

I wonder...isn't there a difference between movies which really address children, and movies which are made colourful so that children can enjoy them, but are actually about very adult themes? The Hunchback of Notre Dame is naturally the obvious example, but it is also true for many of the Pixar movies. I mean, do children really care about Midlife crisis (The Incredibles), the worries of a father (Finding Nemo), the experience of becoming old (Up)? There is a big difference between movies like Dumbo and Fantasia. Or The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh and Lady and the Tramp (which is actually a very risky story about a lady of standing falling in love with someone beneath her and ruining her reputation when you look past the fact that it is told with dogs). There are certainly a lot of undertones I didn't really get as a child in a lot of animated movies.

You can get anyone to care about anything if you tell it well enough.

Yeah, but my point is that there perhaps are already a lot of animated movies which are first geared towards adults, we just don't recognize them as such. In this case we don't need a different kind of movies, but a different kind of perception.

I've said it before, but many shows for kids are enjoyable on their own terms; and if you want to enjoy them, you have to change your perception.

You can't force people to change their perception, though, and you especially can't do that en masse.

Which is the whole problem with the thread, in my opinion.

There have been so many shows that apparently can break down the ghetto in the past several years, yet the ghetto is still here.

So your problem is with basic human psychology?

To be clear - it's more with the people who think that we need more shows like so-and-so, then maybe the ghetto will break down. You know, if those shows you're lamenting didn't do a damn thing about the ghetto... Then what will?

Exactly. We can discuss to no end which kind of movie might break it, but it won't matter if said movies isn't perceived to be different by the audience, too.

Personally, I'm not as concerned with breaking down barriers in the medium as I once was. I just want more variety in the choices that are readily available.

That, unfortunately, is a choice bound not only by the networks, but by the fans.