The Renaissance Age of Animation needs repair: The Renaissance Age Of Animation

Like the talk page says

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=Main.TheRenaissanceAgeOfAnimation

The entire article is geared towards glamorizing TMS and takes liberal departures from the truth.

I had a lot of bad experiences editing TV Tropes in the past. If you're not one of the "main guys" and you try to fix an article, all your edits are liable to get reverted, and it doesn't matter if you're fixing information that's easily shown to be false.

Please fix.

This goes into Trope Repair Shop, as it says in the What Goes Where thread in FAQ. I'll ask this to be moved as TRS seems to be below the cap.

Moved to TRS.

edited 19th Aug '12 7:54:58 PM by Willbyr

Given the tone of your post, I get the feeling that trying to "fix" pages by interjecting your personal opinions probably more had more to do with it then being one of the "main guys".

Although that said, the tone is overly gushy in parts.

The last paragraph also has a non-sequitur from declining animation quality to what is essentially making use of new tools. Outsourcing abroad is done by plenty of industries, it's basic economics. Using computer animation cuts back on costs, but need not be any less good than hand-drawn. In fact, one reason for the Dark Age was the improving America economy. Back in the interwar era, it was feasible to hire hundreds of good artists to simply draw the in-between frames; from the fifties, full employment and automation (fewer unskilled manual jobs needed) meant that studios had to pay more relative to other sectors of the economy. Limited animation was the inevitable result. It was only with computers that animation could be automated, cutting down on the worker-hours needed. It is not a bad thing.

The article needs attention from someone knowledgeable in the subject. Or better, more than one.

The other wiki and Google calls the time dring the 80ies a "renaissance", so it is a thing. I am not sure if we can remove the glamorizing here.

Also, outsourcing has a justified reputation for causing quality of things to decline. So I am not surprised that it's mentioned there.

@Septimus Heap, the article needs to be fixed because:

1. 1 It glamorizes TMS, while their contribution was mostly inbetweening shows for Disney and Warner Brothers.
2. 1.1 To further #1, it lumps in "Mighty Orbots", "Galaxy High", and similar shows as part of the renaissance, when they are really part of the '80s style television shows like "The Snorks" and "Happy Days in Space". Even better-quality shows like "Inspector Gadget" are still lumped with '80s limited animation, so putting "Galaxy High" in with the renaissance is just TMS propaganda.
3. 1.2 To further #1, attributes shows like "Gummi Bears" and "Duck Tales" as "done in collaboration with Disney", when the truth is that the rote animation was outsourced to TMS and two or three other studios to cut costs, not as a creative or executive collaboration.
4. 2 The TMS glamorization comes at the expense of the actual players: Disney, Warner Bros, Nickelodeon. Every Disney production becomes "alongside TMS", as if TMS were partners or leaders instead of inbetweeners, and every WB production becomes "Spielberg and TMS produced efforts brought Looney Tunes-style comedy into the 1990s", as if TMS were the producers or creative leaders instead of inbetweeners.
5. 3 The article contradicts itself. Did the renaissance begin with Disney's high-quality TV production, or did it begin with Bakshi's Mighty Mouse? The reason the article gets it wrong is because Disney did kick-start high-quality TV production, but Tiny Toons and Bakshi's Mighty Mouse changed the production system to be more crew-driven, though Tiny Toons doesn't get much credit for it because it's yet-another-baby-version-of-adult-characters cartoon that was prevalent in the '80s.

Removed parts aboout a specific person-stay on the topic, not on the people. Lu

edited 6th Sep '12 12:54:04 AM by lu127

^That is all nice and good, but can we get citations for each of these claims? If they are correct, we'll make the edits.

The current claims aren't cited, so why should we need citations to fix them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Movie_Shinsha

They did do high quality work and completing based on rough keyframes from the US is a bigger deal than the above makes it sound like in terms of a polished final result, but TMS isn't even mentioned in the equivalent Wikipedia article, at least not for their work on US shows. I didn't check the Japan article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_animation_in_the_United_States

"That is all nice and good, but can we get citations for each of these claims? If they are correct, we'll make the edits."

Does that mean I can start removing uncited claims from all over TV Tropes? This is exactly the sort of attitude that puts me off of TV Tropes for months at a time. I want to improve an article, I provide citations, then the edits get reverted back to the original because "TV Tropes is not Wikipedia and citations don't matter."

So, here I go again with the citation dance! I hope this actually sticks this time, because every other time the "made guys" reverted my edits even though mine had citations and theirs didn't.

1.1 "Galaxy High" being a "low end" TV series: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/22908/galaxy-high-school-vol-1/ "Mighty Orbots" being an "awful mess", according to the lead writer http://joeguide.com/interviews/buzzdixon_ci.shtml Regardless of how much people love these shows, the animation itself and the content is deeply "80s Saturday Morning". No one's allowed to get hurt, weak sitcom gags, uninspired characters (notable exception are the main character designs for Galaxy High)

1.2 "Gummi Bears" and "Duck Tales", wholly produced and directed by Disney, with full Disney creative control; rote animation was outsourced to two or three foreign studios, one of them being TMS, hardly a "collaboration". I would think a simple look at the credits would do: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092345/fullcredits and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088528/fullcredits - animated in Japan and Australia among other places, I hope that doesn't make it a co-production with the Australian studio.

2 A simple look at the credits for Animaniacs and Tiny Toons would do. Tiny Toons is famous for having a lot (four or five) different studios doing the animation for them. "The animation" isn't the storyboards or the character design or any of the creative parts; it's the inbetweens. Not really "alongside TMS", and if you credit them you really ought to credit the four other animation studios working on inbetweening, Kennedy Cartoons being the most infamous. Maybe the janitor who picked up a cell from the floor once, he might deserve co-producer credit too. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098929/fullcredits and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105941/fullcredits The root of the error in 1 and 2 is that TMS is listed as "animation production", and someone unfamiliar with the term would immediately jump to the conclusion that this description is similar to "producer". Unfortunately it's "production" as in "production line", not like "associated producer".

3 The article contradicts itself with the Mighty Mouse paragraph; just change the wording a bit to fix it.

And here we go. I can't wait to get told that my references are bad and that TV Tropes is not Wikipedia and that a Troper's unreferenced claim is better than a non-Troper's referenced claim and that my attitude sucks and that the article was better before.

The Renaissance Age of Animation glamorizes TMS. Many of its related articles, like Duck Tales and Mighty Orbots, glamorize TMS too. Someone with hard fan-lust for TMS added all this information to TV Tropes and instead of asking them to prove that they're right, TV Tropes is asking other people to prove that they were wrong.

That, in a nutshell, is why I can't edit TV Tropes. There's a double standard when it comes to reliability. Anything a Troper says is right until proven wrong, anything anybody else says is wrong until proven right.

edited 9th Sep '12 6:33:37 AM by naoi

You do realise that the person who reverted the parts you're unhappy with was banned a long time ago, right? And that you could have taken it to Ask The Tropers.

Stick to the topic of the repairs and stop the dramatics about how people like that can't let you edit TV Tropes. It is non-sequitur and a personal problem, which is not relevant to this discussion.