Are we entering a new age of animation?

I do wonder what caused the shift to creator-driven? Was it the rise of cable TV? It seemed to start with the Hannah-Barbera Turner acquisition on the one hand (itself predating Cartoon Cartoons by about 5 years) and the rise of Nicktoons on the other. "House Style" actually persisted at Disney for another decade, since the Disney Afternoon shows remained consistent, and it was only in the late 90s with stuff like Recess and their acquisition of Doug that they started following creator-driven content.

Nicktoons, no doubt about that.

There are a few shows that you could say were creator driven in a way. Mighty Mouse, the Bakshi version. Garfield and Friends.

But Nicktoons were the first creator driven cartoons as we know them today. The incredible success of Ren And Stimpy, and later Rugrats, were the catalyst for the creator driven explosion. H-B's first creator driven shows - 2 Stupid Dogs and Swat Kats - came in 1993, well after the success of R&S on Nick.

Actually now that i think of it, would The Simpsons count? Its artistic style was all Groening and they didn't rely on any established studios.

Though that show didn't hit its popularity explosion until probably after Ren and Stimpy.

That would be one of those shows that count as creator driven before R&S.

The popularity of The Simpsons was apparent after its first season - it was big even then.

The amount of subjective biases in this topic is outstanding. I have my own personal grudges against the whole idea of a "golden age" or a "dark age" of animation/anime, which I think Gigguk covers perfectly in this video. Basically, what we define as a "golden age" is usually heavily influenced by both the era we were introduced to the genre (usually childhood) and our own personal preferences (whether they shift to parody, action, slapstick, modern, grand, etc.). So the idea that one period is better than the other is sure to cause a flame war, especially since most criticisms applied to any supposed Golden Age can easily be slapped onto give or take any other era before or after it. (Seriously, remember when post-Disney Renaissance was Disney's Dark Age, and Atlantis/Treasure Planet were considered ambitious but deeply flawed projects aimed at the wrong demographic).

In any case, I think everyone here can agree that, whether or not there are best or worst eras of animation, there are in fact eras. A film from the pre-Renissaounce Disney era (e.g. The Black Cauldron) is definitely going to feel different from a Modern Era film like, say, Tangled or Big Hero 6.

I think that we definitely shifted over to a new era of animation that I think you can pretty much pinpoint down to Cartoon Network's extremely short lived attempt to pull a Nickelodeon/Disney Channel and shift primarily to live action television in 2008.

While I won't say that cartoons suddenly became 100% better, there was definitely a shift in tone in the way cartoons were. A lot of the cartoons from the 2000s were very much centered around action (Teen Titans, Danny Phantom, Kim Possible), with lots of characters with realistic body shapes, running arcs, older protagonists, etc. etc. While some shows post 2008 would keep these themes running (Secret Saturdays, Ben 10, Generator Rex, Korra, Tron Uprising, Motorcity), what few shows that weren't extensions of existing action series would over time get filtered out, in many cases far too soon. (compare the runtimes for Kim Possible, Avatar, Danny Phantom, My Life as a Teenage Robot, etc. with shows like Motorcity, Tron Uprising, and Secret Saturdays which were given much shorter runs) This all said, this isn't as definite of a trend as I thought it seemed like at first, so take with a grain of salt.

We also start to see a lot more surreal themes in shows. Ignoring series founded after the Flapjack Dynasty, we also see shows like Planet Sheen (I can't believe I'm actually using Planet Sheen as an example for anything) and Wander over Yonder, as well as the entire surreal acid trip that is the Cartoon Network lineup. Even shows that take place in more "mundane" settings, like Phineas and Ferb, are always quick to turn on a dime into a weird surreal sci-fi romp through weird worlds that the boys both explore and inadvertently create. What action shows remained were always in these fantastic worlds (The Clone Wars, Tron Legacy). Fewer and fewer shows were based off the concept of oddity being placed into mundanity, and more and more shows were taking place in worlds just as strange and wild if not more so than the characters that inhabited them.

I don't think much needs to be said about Disney studios, but I'll say it anyways. After a little under a decade of films that really struggled to pop open the general market the same way that their Renaissance films did due to the more offbeat tone of the 2000s era films (this isn't to in any way insult Lilo and Stitch and The Emperor's New Clothes, two of my favorite Disney films, period), they finally went back to basics with more straightforward films. Starting with the well received if not a bit unremarkable Princess and the Frog and going on into the hit Tangled and the smash hit Frozen, Disney films started becoming really popular again. While there are a lot more offbeat films here and there that wouldn't have been done during the Renaissance like Wreck it Ralph and Big Hero 6, comparisons to it are near universal.

I can't say much on Pixar, because I don't consider them having made a "real" film since Toy Story 3 in 2010. Brave was a bust, Cars 2 was Cars 2, and Monsters University just felt like a solid film, which when you're talking about the guys who pushed the ideas of animation as a form for true art with some of the high points of Wall-E is a really big step backwards. Inside Out, their most recent work, is a good step in the right direction, but I think we'll need to see into the future to really see what this current era has in store for them.

Dreamworks I can't really say. They are literally the definition of inconsistent. They can somehow both produce some of the most amazing animated films of the current day (Kung Fu Panda, How to Train Your Dragon) and yet also have Shark Tale as a part of their resume. They've always been more deviated from the standard Disney flick, which makes them a lot more interesting to look at as well as a lot harder to get a general consensus on. It's not just a film about rats, it's a film about rats in a society in the sewer. It's not just a movie about racers, it's a film about snails. It's not just a movie about bees, it's a film about... actually what was Bee Movie about?

In any case, these days there are a lot more studios that are surprisingly competitive with Disney/Dreamworks films. Like who would have predicted how big of a thing Despicable Me would have been (in fact, who would have predicted how meme worthy minion hate would be)? Who could have possibly guessed that a film like Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs could have been a hit? It's strange, but not entirely unwelcome.

Adult cartoons are still stuck in a bit of a ghetto themselves, but I think a lot of progress has been made in that field. They aren't just exclusively crude humor antics anymore, they compose a wide variety of fields. You have everything from the bizarro world of Aqua Teen Hunger Force to the subversive action of Venture Bros to the witty sarcastic cynicism of Rick and Morty? You have things like Bojack Horseman, a show that somehow breaks out of the adult animation ghetto by running so deep into darkness at points that it starts to slip out of what is traditionally seen as an "adult cartoon".

So yes, I do think we're in a new era. Is it a golden age? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But I think the question is inherently flawed.

edited 27th Aug '15 4:38:22 PM by InAnOdderWay

You. I like you.

Alternately: Remember when people talked about "new Rugrats" the same way they talked about "new Sponge Bob"? Or how Ed Edd N Eddy was considered to be as bad as Uncle Grandpa today?

What complaints like this boil down to is "Things changed. I don't like that. But now things have changed in a way I like. The medium is saved!" Even when animation was new, people felt like that. Winsor Mc Cay lashed out at Max Fleischer (or Paul Terry?) for what he felt was perverting the medium of animation.

"more and more shows were taking place in worlds just as strange and wild if not more so than the characters that inhabited them."

Many of these are thorwback to ren and stimpy in style of whackyness and strange thing happen, uncle grampa while more tame is really strange as hell.

"they finally went back to basics with more straightforward films. Starting with the well received if not a bit unremarkable Princess and the Frog and going on into the hit Tangled and the smash hit Frozen"

I call this the "prince disney 2010+ edition" with theme that resonate more with today(as having black princess who work hard or even Elsa who put sister love against the overused romantic love) so is clasy movie with more modern taste.

"hen you're talking about the guys who pushed the ideas of animation as a form for true art with some of the high points of Wall-E is a really big step backwards."

Really? Wall-E feels awsome in almost every way, granted the second act is a little bit...weaker.

Also I have seen another trend of "bait and swich" series who star somewhat silly and become more deeper as time add out, starting with Frinship is magic,going with Adventure time,Gravity falls and now Steven universe, none of this star as a "serious" cartoon like Avatar did but move away after a while

"'then you're talking about the guys who pushed the ideas of animation as a form for true art with some of the high points of Wall-E is a really big step backwards.'

Really? Wall-E feels awsome in almost every way, granted the second act is a little bit...weaker."

That was my (admittedly poorly punctuated) point. Wall-E was a god damn masterpiece, and it really sets a high bar for all Pixar films that Monster's University just really couldn't possibly live up to.

I wonder why some consider Wall-E second act weaker.

Because the first part feel like a silent romantic movie with a lot of Kafka-comedy thorw there, the second part shif away into some green-aseop space aventure, is not bad but take away the whole art film into a "very good movie"

I mean there was so much more to the second and third acts than just "humans should take care of the earth and americans are fat". It has a lot of discussion on what people do when everything can be done for them, a question that's a lot more thoughtful than just a heavy handed message. It has the "Define Dancing" sequence, which was arguably the high point of the film, while yes still managing to be a good movie.

It doesn't make judgements, it asks questions. Some having obvious answers, others not so much.

But the first part of the movie takes place in a polluted wasteland.

That fits with the whole green Aesop theme the movie was going for in the very beginning.

Maybe, but the first part was just about a only robot who try to have something with Eve, while the other is more of a typical adventre, the contrast is...somewhat jarring.