New Cartoon Network pilots

If you're really going to say that the likes of Ed Edd N Eddy (Ed's humor was "lolsorandom" a lot of the time) and Billy And Mandy (kind of the same with Billy) are mature comedy, then I have to wonder if we were watching the same show.

(Admittedly, Cow And Chicken, Ed Edd N Eddy and Billy And Mandy were all examples of that type of cartoon where on the surface it looks like a lowbrow gross-out show, but when you watch it, you find that there's something cleverer going on.)

Action cartoons in general will probably survive. There'll always be a need for that, but the specific type of action cartoon that's been around since the last decade and that animation fans drool over will probably die out.

Whatever comes next... who knows?

edited 12th Jul '15 7:24:48 AM by Aldo930

Like I said, I'm sure things like Netflix and Hulu are the way to go for them.

But their is that Vixen cartoon that's coming out for the CW. I'm not sure if it's on the channel or their website, though.

Disney XD's action cartoons seem to do sorta well. I mean, they're still airing and they get decent advertising. I know the Hulk cartoon isn't too good, but I heard that Ultimate Spiderman and Avengers Assemble have gotten better. Plus Star Wars Rebels is supposed to be good. And that Guardians of the Galaxy cartoon looks great.

I think their is still hope.

Two things here.

First, shows getting cancelled for not attracting the right audience only begs the question: What is the right audience. According to guys like Craig Mc Cracken and Gennedy Tartakovski, the audience Cartoon Network's shows were after was, well, everyone. Not just adults, not just kids, but all ages. Not to mention shows eventually found some kind of audience to them and Cartoon Network rolled with it. Dragonball Z failed on Fox Kids for not attracting the right audience? Not a problem, they'll just renew it when it gets an audience! Batman mostly attracting adults even on Kids WB? Skew Justice League towards older audiences! Those action shows, like Cartoon Network's other shows, weren't really skewed either way. A child could enjoy the show just as much as an adult, and even if the show's audience skewed older, Cartoon Network would accommodate, as was the case with Big O, Tenchi, Gundam Wing, and Outlaw Star.

Comedy Network? They specifically went on record as saying they only want one audience: boys 7-11. It is true, the shows were expensive and did run out of budget. Was is conveniently missing from that explanation, however, is the underlying sabotage of those shows in question. Beware The Batman, Sonic Boom, and Robots in Disguise share a common theme: They were all given minimal advertising, pretty much next to none. If people don't know the show exists, they certainly can't buy toys of it. Every kid knows Teen Titans Go exists and is Comedy Network's, er... I mean their new favorite show, so merchandise will sell like crazy. Beware never got a chance to sell its merchandise because people didn't even know the show existed.

It's true that if you build it, people will come. But first, people have to know where it is, and that it exists. If you underpromote your cartoon, people won't know about the merch, so of course it'll die off. Especially if the network promotes goofy boys comedy over actual effort.

And, number two, and I hope to be shorter. Yes, I'm not the target audience anymore. And neither is anyone in this thread. But it's not because any of us have changed, it's because the network has. As I said before, it has been documented that Cartoon Network predominantly targeted everyone, adults and children alike, while Comedy Network only targets kids.

People use the argument, "It's okay to like cartoons, just don't be ashamed of it." People say this about video games and comic books, too. The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no cartoon equivalent of Watchmen or Spec Ops: The Line. There is no "mature" cartoon that allows animation to break free from its shackles. It's either for children, or for man-children as seen in many of these "adult" cartoons.

Animation needs to stop thinking in terms of "target demographic" and "family friendliness." You can tell stories with less special effects than you need for a live-action movie, stories where anything is possible. Instead, we're making works that are limited not by the constraints of this medium, but by people's preconceptions of what the medium is supposed to be like. And unless someone decides to change the way we perceive animation, we will continue to see these identical works and shows that pander to children's intelligence... possibly forever.

'Taint so, honey, 'taint so.

Cartoon Network was founded as a children's network. The presentation reel made to promote it in 1991 mentions that one of the reasons it was founded was that there were no cartoons suitable for them to watch in the 8 to 10 p.m. hours, when kids watching TV were at their highest. Even the mention of an adult audience for the network is expressed in terms of watching with the children. The only shows CN expressly geared towards adults were Space Ghost Coast To Coast and the Adult Swim block that came out of it. Cartoon Planet was supposed to feature Space Ghost and the gang in something the kids could watch. Simply watching clips of the network from back in the day - which I have - shows that kids were the target audience.

You rant about how CN saved Dragon Ball Z and the DCAU from the networks' cancellation because they didn't have the right audience. And yet Freakazoid and Animaniacs died while those were allowed to live...

By the by, the reason Dragon Ball Z was failing was because it was in syndication and wasn't put on in good timeslots. The DCAU was taken off of Kids WB because the increasingly Pokemon-dominated schedule had no room for good action animation.

Saying that "It's not me that's changed! It's the network!" is denial. You've changed because you've grown up. Is Uncle Grandpa really stupider than Ed Edd N Eddy? No, it isn't. It's simple nostalgic blindness.

There are truly mature pieces of animation. Look at Peace On Earth and Ringing Bell. Or look at UPA's The Tell Tale Heart. Oh, wait. Those aren't action cartoons, so I guess they don't count.

I could go on and rant about how "Son of Stimpy" is a truly mature piece of animation - and yet one that deals with a fart - but I'll simply say this:

Things aren't as bad as you think they are. Mature animation is out there. You just have to look for it. Accepting that you've moved on from the networks that serviced your childhood is a part of being an adult. We all have to do that at some point. We have to realize we aren't the target audience anymore.

In the end, we just gotta move on.

edited 12th Jul '15 8:13:58 AM by Aldo930

There are more mature cartoons on CN now then their was before. Shows like Adventure Time, Regular Show, and Steven Universe are much more mature than a lot of CN's classic shows. I'm pissed at CN for taking down their Action cartoons but I've mostly moved on. And I think if you can't really accept CN now, maybe you should move on from them. No ones forcing you to watch it.

I could rant here about how having semi-serialized plots and really serious stuff in it doesn't really make it more mature than any of CN's previous shows, but I don't feel like it. I got other things to do...

I'm convinced the pendulum will swing back one day anyway, and the network's got some great stuff running right now, so what's the harm?

Alright, you want to play with fire? Fine, let's do some roasting.

Cartoon Network was founded as a children's network. Again, what's this? Or this? Or this? Or this?

Even the mention of an adult audience for the network is expressed in terms of watching with the children. That's still better than today, where the network basically says "No adults allowed. Vio lat ors will be shot." Cartoon Network did rely on the family audience, true, but those families had the right to smell crap and not feed it to the kids. Parents need to make better choices on what their kids watch, and they can't do it when the shows only air when their kids are at school or asleep.

Simply watching clips of the network from back in the day - which I have - shows that kids were the target audience. Then what's this?

You rant about how CN saved Dragon Ball Z and the DCAU from the networks' cancellation because they didn't have the right audience. And yet Freakazoid and Animaniacs died while those were allowed to live... Different networks. Those were Kids WB having used their second chance, mine were Cartoon Network just getting their second chance. Stay on target.

By the by, the reason Dragon Ball Z was failing was because it was in syndication and wasn't put on in good timeslots. The DCAU was taken off of Kids' WB! because the increasingly Pokemon-dominated schedule had no room for good action animation. And the reason Beware The Batman was failing was because it wasn't put on in good timeslots. Sym-Bionic Titan was taken off CN because the increasingly-Teen Titans Go-dominated schedule had no room for good action animation.

Saying that "It's not me that's changed! It's the network!" is denial. You've changed because you've grown up. And what I'm saying is Cartoon Network, instead of growing up with the audience, now talks down to it. Again, Cartoon Network was something you could watch with the family, and the parents would enjoy it, too. Comedy Network? Parents will either won't watch it with kids or not let kids watch it after watching it once.

Is Uncle Grandpa really stupider than Ed, Edd n Eddy? No, it isn't. It's simple nostalgic blindness. And yet the one from Cartoon Network is highly rated, but the other has debates over whether it's good. Time will be the final arbiter of course, but so far things aren't looking good. And by the way, I actually dislike both shows.

There are truly mature pieces of animation. Look at Peace on Earth and Ringing Bell. Or look at UPA's The Tell Tale Heart. Oh, wait. Those aren't action cartoons, so I guess they don't count. Are you enjoying your strawman? Because it's the only incarnation of me you'll be able to defeat. Those cartoons are decades old. I would perfectly take another King of the Hill, or another Simpsons. The problem is that most people want to settle for either Mr Pickles or Teen Titans Go, and when someone tries breaking the mold, it dies forever, or gets corrupted by the mold it fought against. I'm perfectly capable of appreciating mature non-action animation and would argue that'd be something we need to see more of. It's just hard to do when the system fights against that creativity. (On a side note, is Bojack Horseman any good? I hear it breaks the mold, and it's getting a second season.)

Things aren't as bad as you think they are. Why not.

Mature animation is out there. You just have to look for it. Name five from this decade.

Accepting that you've moved on from the networks that serviced your childhood is a part of being an adult. We all have to do that at some point. We have to realize we aren't the target audience anymore. You'll notice no other medium seems to receive the kind of "let it go" attitude animation does. "Dude, eventually you'll outgrow books. It's part of being an adult." "It's just a historical drama, they're not making War and Peace." "Documentaries are only watched by obsessive nerds or their target audience."

Would you like to try again?

edited 12th Jul '15 9:40:47 AM by Darkton

Aside from Toonheads, the rest of those aired in family friendly timeslots and were marketed to children.

And yet Cow And Chicken ran for four seasons, and got a spinoff... Clearly they didn't know how to distinguish "crap" back then.

And yet Adventure Time, Regular Show and Steven Universe have big adult audiences.

Didn't I say that using the IMDB to show popularity is a fallacy?

If you don't like Cartoon Network as it is now, why do you keep ranting about it? You can easily not watch and say "Oh, I used to watch it. It's not as good as it used to be." And just leave it at that. Most people do.

@Nega King Kix and kablammin The list was going by show creators; none of the creators of sanjay and craig worked on flapjack

Also I'm pretty sure Teen Titans Go didn't even exist when Sym bionic Titan was killed

I think I'm starting to notice ''a certain trope'' in the argument here. In fact, its something I've seen a lot of toon-fans complain about. It's getting to the point where I feel I'm the only person who can live with Animation Age Ghetto.

edited 12th Jul '15 10:32:56 AM by MagnusForce

Aside from Toonheads, the rest of those aired in family friendly timeslots and were marketed to children. You... you don't know? You don't know anything about those shows? Of the Flintstones cigarette commercials and the constant risque jokes?

And yet Cow and Chicken ran for four seasons, and got a spinoff... Clearly they didn't know how to distinguish "crap" back then. Fair enough. You win that point.

And yet Adventure Time, Regular Show and Steven Universe have big adult audiences. And they're also the shows that are currently in death slots. This is no coincidence; Christina Miller, the new head of the network, subscribes to the Animation Age Ghetto. That's why the network's decayed so muhc.

Didn't I say that using the IMDB to show popularity is a fallacy? Yes, but you never said why. I'm pretty sure IMDB ratings are reliable, since they gauge popularity from common goers. Besides, the scores might indeed be skewed, but by how much? Only reason I can think of is trolls affecting the ratings of popular shows. If there were good television ratings sources, I'd cite those. Maybe you could direct them to me.

If you don't like Cartoon Network as it is now, why do you keep ranting about it? You can easily not watch and say "Oh, I used to watch it. It's not as good as it used to be." And just leave it at that. Most people do. The same reason why Don't Like? Don't Read! is not a valid defense. In a sense, I'm doing this for a couple of reasons:

• Reason Number 1: I've always believed that if you feed a kid crap, they will excrete crap as adults. But if you feed a kid fertilizer, they will put out beautiful flowers. Kids can't be told that crap like the stuff Comedy Network promotes as its, er... their new favorite show is good, or they'll have lower standards. I kinda blame the 2004-2006 era for having sub-par shows, lowering the bar for entertainment. The entertainment industry is founded by people who don't like to work hard, and the lower they can go to entertain, the better. Telling kids they don't have to shoot for the stars means that everyone suffers as a result, leading to...
• Reason Number 2: Walt Disney himself once said if you only shoot for kids, you lose. The main goal of a show should be to attract as many people as possible. That's how they get maximum ratings. Shows that only shoot for a single target demographic fail because either their target demographic is the only one that watches it and the show grows stale knowing it can do whatever it wants and still get support, or it gets cancelled when it attracts the wrong demographic. Playing to a larger demographic of "people" or even "families" will attract a larger ratings pool. Why do you think Adventure Time is so successful? And while Frienship is Magic would've done just fine without the Bronies, they did help inspire certain episodes, so they definitely do play a part in upping the ratings. Ultimately I don't want animation to think in such limited terms as "target demographic." I want them to be broad and have Multiple Demographic Appeal. It's something Cartoon Network understood perfectly, but Comedy Network stumbles on.

And the reason for all my complaining? Because I honestly do care. I know animation in general can do better, I've seen it done better. I don't want it to homogenize. Right now I feel that animation is becoming increasingly similar to each other. I want to see people break the mold and create something we've never seen before. I don't want five Simpsons knock-offs, a glut of South Park wanna-bes or a bunch of random surreal shows on CN; I want a more varied lineup with all sorts of kinds of shows. Even if Toonami didn't receive much promotion in the early days, it was still there. The option was there for action cartoons, just like the option was there for action comedies, horror comedies, pure horror and just about anything you could think of! And that's something Comedy Network is lacking. I look at those summaries that say "a surreal cartoon" in the darlings they have and think "Where's the variety?"

In short I rage because I need others to see. This current situation cannot stand, and someone has to do something about it.

That was back in the 60s, though. By the time Cartoon Network came out - which is what we're talking about here - they were firmly marketed towards kids.

It's a fallacy because these are shows for children. Children do not generally use the IMDB, so rating them generally falls to adults who don't like the shows.

Nothing is worse than a would be Peggy Charren or Donald Wildmon.

Courage was a horror comedy, by the way.

It's not like adults don't enjoy these shows. There are adults watching them with kids over the nation either out of obligation or because they actually enjoy it - they just don't feel the need to speak up.

So, kids who are raised on awful shows don't grow up, revisit the shows they enjoyed and say "This didn't age well..."?

May I suggest you wait a couple years and then maybe things will be more to your liking?

edited 12th Jul '15 11:04:53 AM by Aldo930

That was back in the 60s, though. By the time Cartoon Network came out - which is what we're talking about here - they were firmly marketed towards kids. I'll need to look more into that.

It's a fallacy because these are shows for children. Children do not generally use the IMDB, so rating them generally falls to adults who don't like the shows. "It's for kids," is the worst defense you could use for entertainment because it's basically like saying "kids are stupid, so they won't know better," which just goes back to my crap vs. fertilizer argument. Also, try saying that with any other demographic. "Eh, it's for adults. They had to make concessions because adults are boring."

Besides, the point was that Cartoon Network appealed to both adults and kids, whereas Comedy Network just appeals to kids. I once again invite you to compare the Powerhouse announcer with the current one.

Nothing is worse than a would be Peggy Charren or Donald Wildmon. You'll have to explain that one better. I don't understand.

Courage was a horror comedy, by the way. It varied. It could do both, but the way I see it, it mostly played the horror straight. In just the Ramses episode you had stuff like the first two plagues for comedy, then the third plague and Ramses himself for horror. So I'll give you that one.

Adults generally don't enjoy kids shows in general because they've outgrown them. Think of any kids' show you enjoyed during your youth - it was at one time cited as an example of how bad kids' TV had become.

Peggy Charren and Donald Wildmon were both people who fought to get certain kids' shows off the air because they would corrupt/rot the brains of children. They and their ilk were puritanical bluenoses.

So, as you can see, it combined horror and comedy. Ergo - horror comedy.

edited 12th Jul '15 11:12:27 AM by Aldo930

Adults generally don't enjoy kids shows in general because they've outgrown them. Think of any kids' show you enjoyed during your youth - it was at one time cited as an example of how bad kids' TV had become. Two things I seem to be getting at here.

• 1) You seem to think Childrens TV Is Childish. And I'm continually saying "maybe, but it doesn't have to be." I will admit, there is a bias against children's shows. This is natural. But to assume children's shows don't have to appeal to adults is flawed: the adults will want to watch with their kids so they can know what they're watching. Again, I bring up the Walt Disney line about only shooting for kids being a bad idea.

• 2) You are continually ignoring my point about Cartoon Network being for both audiences, and Comedy Network just being for kids. Either the network has changed, or the audiences have changed. If you'd like me to bring up reviews of the shows in question from the time they were made, I can certainly do that.

Peggy Charren and Donald Wildmon were both people who fought to get certain kids' shows off the air because they would corrupt/rot the brains of children. They and their ilk were puritanical bluenoses. No, no, no. You've got me all wrong. I'm not trying to protect the children from sex or violence or stuff like that. And I'm not trying to push for educational programming, either. That's a very specific niche that is its own genre. No, what I'm trying to do is, again, feed a kid fertilizer instead of crap. Teaching kids that it's okay to put out bad shows by showing them bad shows won't help them. I'd rather they be taught with respect in their TV shows.

So, as you can see, it combined horror and comedy. Ergo - horror comedy. I already gave you the point, what more do you want?

The target audiences haven't changed. The kids who want to enjoy shows that they like are still there. But we users of TV Tropes have changed. We've outgrown the channels we used to love, and which, let's face it, were never about appealing to adults even back then.

We gotta move on and stop complaining. We're no longer the target audience. A new generation is.

If AT RS and SU are being Screwed by the Network (as you claim) then why are they still getting new seasons? Besides, they're getting good ratings (especially SU, which generally gets near (not quite but near) 2 million for new episode premieres most of the time)

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, dude.

If you're hating Cartoon Network (oh sorry, "Comedy Network"), that much, why not just go over to Georgia or wherever their HQ is and give them a piece of your mind?

I mean, why take it up with us, man?

Or did you already try what I suggested before and now they pegged you with a restraining order because of it?

edited 12th Jul '15 11:56:38 AM by TargetmasterJoe

This is pathetic. We're not even discussing the same thing. I'm replying with hard evidence and you're basically saying a bunch of programmed lines like Don't Like? Don't Read! or It's You, Not Them. I'm sorry that you can't see the difference between the two networks. This conversation is clearly going nowhere.

Actually, I have entertained the thought of going up there. I have something a little more... direct in mind, though. I just need to build up a reputation by the time they're hiring.

No, for the most part it isn't the network. It's the adult viewers who don't want to come to terms with outgrowing it.

I have a feeling it's going to end with Andy Merrill getting a head injury.

My reaction to the current state of this thread.◊

Oh, no, nothing violent. Just establish a name for myself, keep applying for the position, then when I'm in, institute some changes. Honestly, we could use another one of those What A Cartoon sort of things, where we get some talent that's not from Adventure Time.

Also, a suggestion box. Because they may have some good ideas.