Breaking the Animation Age Ghetto

So one show dead means we don't have a perfectly good balance?

So one show dead means we don't have a perfectly good balance?

When the reason the show died made it virtually impossible for more serious 'toons to survive, I'd say it does. Cartoon Network basically destroyed all of their action shows. Nickelodeon moved their one serious animated program to digital. That doesn't sound like a good balance to me.

One "serious" animated program on Nick? I seem to recall there being another...

This may be the first time since 1964 when silly cartoons outweigh the serious ones.

Though Adventure Time gets more praise for its serious moments than its silly moments, so there's that.

edited 16th Aug '14 7:41:47 PM by Aldo930

Since 1964? I don't remember their being an abundance of serious cartoons until at least the 80s. Action cartoons maybe, but not serious.

"Serious" in this case means action, "silly" means comedy.

There's a certain degree of seriousness to any animated action show, and that's why I use the term. (Yes, even the campiest of action cartoons are serious on some level.)

edited 16th Aug '14 7:42:56 PM by Aldo930

One "serious" animated program on Nick? I seem to recall there being another...

You mean Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles? Eh... I don't know it well enough to say how serious it does or doesn't get, but I was always under the impression that it was more of a lighthearted kind of show than a serious one.

I don't know. I've seen action series that are far less serious then some comedies.

I really don't think you should link the tone of a work to it's genre.

Would you like to hear the origin of Splinter and the Turtles in this version?

Would you like to hear the origin of Splinter and the Turtles in this version?

Sure. But I'd also like to get a feel for the overall tone of the show, too, because depressing backstories aren't always inconsistent with general lightheartedness.

Let me comment about the supposed "balance between comedy cartoons and action cartoons". There really isn't any; that balance was artificially destroyed by CN, Nick and Disney XD screwing over their action shows by many tricks, so blame can't be placed on a waning interest in action animation among the target audience (kiss, obviously).

That's the trick of this show, it's lighthearted mostly, so the dark stuff blindsides you.

Here's how it went down: 15 years ago or so, Hamato Yoshi was buying four baby turtles for his young daughter Miwa, when suddenly he was attacked by, who else, Oroku Saki and the Foot. Yoshi was beaten to within an inch of his life, and in the struggle somehow a cannister of Kraang mutagen came into play and the turtles escaped. All five found their way into the sewers, where the turtles became humanoid and Yoshi became a giant rat. Meanwhile, Saki "adopted" Miwa and raised her into his lieutenant, Karai.

That's the trick of this show, it's lighthearted mostly, so the dark stuff blindsides you.

Here's how it went down: 15 years ago or so, Hamato Yoshi was buying four baby turtles for his young daughter Miwa, when suddenly he was attacked by, who else, Oroku Saki and the Foot. Yoshi was beaten to within an inch of his life, and in the struggle somehow a cannister of Kraang mutagen came into play and the turtles escaped. All five found their way into the sewers, where the turtles became humanoid and Yoshi became a giant rat. Meanwhile, Saki "adopted" Miwa and raised her into his lieutenant, Karai.

...you know, from the way you made it sound, I was expecting something darker. =P

Then again, my definition of "serious" might be different than the rest of yours. I see "silly" as including a broad range of show types, from pure comedy to lighthearted action, and "serious" as a narrower category that requires consistently high tension and heavy drama. Book 1 of Avatar The Last Airbender might have been built on a foundation of genocide and child abuse, but tonally it fit into the former category.

The reason I'm claiming that the fate of two shows messes up the balance is because I can probably count the number of contemporary animated shows in the latter category on one hand.

OK... now, here's the bizarre thing.

Everybody is saying "We need more serious, adult programs to break the Animation Age Ghetto."

Now, my question is... How's it going to do that? One does not necessarily lead to the other.

I think the idea is, if you can create a couple of animated programs with Game Of Thrones level recognition with the adult demographics, the people who enjoy them will be more likely to watch other serious animated programs and the networks will realize there's a market they can mine.

It wouldn't do anything for the comedic side, of course, but there are already plenty of "mature" comedic cartoons out there.

Somewhat related - they once tried putting Batman The Animated Series on in primetime, at 7:30 on Sundays. The show had gotten some notice among adults. Mad even parodied it, which they rarely did for kids' toons.

And it didn't do very well then. Oh, sure, you can say that Sixty Minutes may have taken all the glory, but that may only be half the reason.

So I don't see how it'll help. In my mind, we have to change people's attitudes towards animation first.

edited 17th Aug '14 7:01:20 AM by Aldo930

I would consider shows like Avatar the Last Airbender and Young Justice "serious" shows comparatively in that they're the closest things to what some people want in western animation at the moment.

I'm no expert, but from what I can see there's really no question that silly shows and comedies outweigh "serious" or action cartoons at the moment. they really do seem to be a dying breed. western animation is really pigeonholed.

I also find that it's important to note two things:

1) A lot of the good/better written "serious" animated shows and movies have been about superheroes, specifically DC and Warner's efforts. What if I don't like superheroes? Again, pigeonholed.

2) As some people have already said, when talking about anime, you have to remember that there's very different standards on what's acceptable for children at play. Bleach may need to run on Adult Swim to air unedited elsewhere, but the manga run in Shounen Jump which is a kids' magazine. And honestly, if you read enough actual manga/watch enough anime legitimately aimed at an older audience (seinen/josei), you can really see that the vast majority of anime really IS aimed towards kids. There's often a huge difference in presentation, characterization, atmosphere, themes, sophistication, etc. Not always, of course, but often enough.

With that said, if nothing else, I definitely think that if we aren't willing to break the ghetto, we at least have to acknowledge that western animation should be more diverse.

I don't know; even if they are dying right now they'll come back again in a few years. Just wait. It's happened before, it'll happen again (though the last time, it was due to protests... now, I dunno).

Somewhat related - they once tried putting Batman: The Animated Series on in primetime, at 7:30 on Sundays. The show had gotten some notice among adults. Mad even parodied it, which they rarely did for kids' toons.

And it didn't do very well then. Oh, sure, you can say that 60 Minutes may have taken all the glory, but that may only be half the reason.

So I don't see how it'll help. In my mind, we have to change people's attitudes towards animation first.

That was... what, almost twenty years ago? Back before PG-13 superhero flicks were box office gold? I can't imagine what was, at that point, most likely a dual stigma would have helped.

Times are so different now that I can hardly consider that experiment to say anything about what would happen in the current media environment if, say, one of the major networks were to make an animated Nolanverse Batman show and attempt the same thing.

I would consider shows like Avatar the Last Airbender and Young Justice "serious" shows comparatively in that they're the closest things to what some people want in western animation at the moment.

Yeah. Legend Of Korra might be even closer than its predecessor, but other than those three...

Yes, a "dual stigma." Note how I mention that adults took notice of it; it was even on TV Guide's list of the best TV shows that year! It's hard to say there was a stigma when even TV Guide was taking notice of how good it was.

Admittedly, comedic kids' cartoons weren't better in primetime. Pinky And The Brain lasted for only a season at 7:00 on Sundays.

If those three are the only examples as to what most people want in serious animation, may I suggest either they look into animation's past or try some art-house stuff for good "serious" animation. And I REALLY mean serious.

edited 17th Aug '14 10:08:06 AM by Aldo930

I suppose I do not find serious animation as fun to watch as cartoony animation. Maybe it's just me, but if that's the case, I would feel worse.

*shrug* I like both.

Personally, best balance for me would be a show with smart writing and plotting and amazing comic relief.

And some good visuals. I mean, that's what animation is about, isn't it?

It certainly doesn't hurt.

Critical and popular disconnect is nothing new. The people on TV are probably "nerdy" enough that they would be open to that sort of thing, your average person probably was not, even with the advent of things like The Simpsons.

As for looking for serious animation else where. . .well that's a whole different can of worms on what people actually want from animation these days.

I actually agree with this. We may quibble about tone, genre and other things that people tend to think are reasons for animations lack of popularity, lack of variety etc, but when it comes down to it, the biggest hang up people have about animation more then anything else. . .is the fact that's animation. It's inherently unreal in a way that a lot of people seem to have a problem with, even when it happens to be more "grounded" then some live action media.

edited 17th Aug '14 4:58:02 PM by Mio

Technically a show lives and dies by its writing. Rocky And Bullwinkle, for example, never had particularly good animation or visuals - sometimes they were downright awful - and yet the show is a classic of animation on the strength of the writing alone.

I got something wrong. The publication that called BTAS one of the best shows of the year when it came out was actually Entertainment Weekly, a publication so nerdy its film critic gave Epic Movie a positive review.

TV Guide gave it a C- and gave shows that are pretty much forgotten now an A.

edited 17th Aug '14 5:51:41 PM by Aldo930