Are we entering a new age of animation?

In addition to and , you could also try not to sound so arrogant with your opinions.

edited 21st Aug '15 7:56:38 PM by XJTordecai

there's also a matter of context. for something to feel refreshing it doesn't necessarily have to be original, just something that serves as a counterpoint to what's popular at a given time. this is more or less how Reconstruction and Deconstruction dynamics work.

He also shouldn't be posting the same arguments in 5 different threads and harping on his points constantly. Seriously, I cringe every time I see that black triangle.

I'm not trying to start fights, I'm just sharing my opinion. It's just that my opinion isn't the one shared by the board. If I had another place to share it, then I'd gladly take it.

There is the point to be made that "original" and "familiar/derivative/rehash" are not really criticisms, they're descriptions. A film can be excellent AND derivative, and it can be totally original and pure crap. The degree of something's originality does not effect it's quality. It's great when you can get something that's original AND good, but I'd go for good over original any time.

If, when you say "Disney movie X has the same plot structure and themes as Disney movies U,V, and W, it's not original" and other people respond to you by saying "But I liked Disney movie X," it means you're not approaching the movie in a way that is meaningful to them. There was stuff in the film, beyond it's nuts and bolts, that appealed to them.

I think he has a slight point about how oversaturation can cause some people (including him) to get tired of something regardless of the actual quality but yeah, overall you've got the right point (plus people have different levels of tolerance concerning oversaturation)

I think so. it seems Nickelodeon's animation studio is really promoting the artistic side of their programs. Some of the artists on Harvey Beaks were even scrounged from Tumblr.

Plus, they're building a new studio that will be open to the public and will house tours and classes and stuff.

that explains a lot.

That doesn't surprise me since Nick does look to the internet for content.

That explains Breadwinners.

Also, I've noticed a trend of indie comic artists working on a variety of shows. Adventure Time is staffed with a lot of people from the indie scene (a major example being Jesse Moynihan, author of Forming), and Ian JQ worked on Steven Universe (and might be turning a pilot into a new series). Also, Nickelodeon's newest series, Pig Goat Banana Cricket (or whatever the hell it's called) was created by two indie comic artists (We Bare Bears on Cartoon Network was also created by an indie comic writer, but he worked for Pixar too).

I miss the age of the Saturday morning cartoon; hours of cartoon fun to be found on every channel.

It's not a new phenomenon. Remember Invader Zim, the show created by Jhonen Vasquez of Johnny The Homicidal Maniac fame?

It's all over the place if you look: Peter Hannan, creator of Cat Dog, was an underground cartoonist and had a Life In Hell type thing going for years (until production on his show forced him to stop)... Sponge Bob had episodes written by Kaz and Sam Henderson, both of whom were known for their underground cartooning.

Saturday morning is better off dead than suffering a slow, Pokemon and E/I-influenced expiration.

edited 24th Aug '15 3:06:12 PM by Aldo930

Those two Spongebob writers didn't actually create the show. Stephen Hillenburg did some work on Rocko before creating Spongebob.

Nick's generally been doing it a lot more now than they ever have been. You listed writers with only one actual creator. But Fred, React To That, and Breadwinners were all taken from Youtube.

Aldo, I know you don't like Pokemon, but that doesn't mean that everyone shares that opinion. And this is coming from someone who neutral at best towards the show and has an interest in the games.

He did say "worked on the shows."

People are willing to accept that E-I killed Saturday morning, but only a few people have ever said that Pokemon and the fallout from its success played a role in the deed.

If you look into the details it's scarily accurate how Pokemon had a role in the death of Saturday morning...

The whole point of Saturday morning was to have fun, not learn shit.

That's what Monday to Friday were for.

I wasn't contesting Aldo saying that E/I killing Saturday Morning, he just gave me a vibe with Pokemon that I reacted to.

Blame the FCC and overreacting parents' groups.

That's partly why the cable networks took off like they did around that time; the other part being the lack of variety on Saturday mornings circa 1999-2000.

I recall that the 90's WB lineup was, in my area anyhow, broadcast on Sunday mornings. At the time, it was the best thing going.

I enjoy CN's 24 hour schedule, but I just wish they'd mix it up more, intersperse some of their older stuff (older CN stuff, as well as Looney Tunes, HB, and all the other stuff Warner Bros. has in it's library) rather than just show the same six (more or less) current shows over and over again. And just give Adult Swim it's own channel, already. If YOU like Adult Swim, I congratulate you; I myself can't stand any of it other than Boondocks (which is over) and Venture Bros (which'll be over soon).

What could beat Animaniacs, Pinky And The Brain, Freakazoid and Earthworm Jim on the same lineup?... Comparing any other Saturday morning lineup to that is unfair to the others.

edited 24th Aug '15 4:51:16 PM by Aldo930

If anything, Cartoon Network is going the other way. Boomerang's going all MTV 2 on us, which is a terrible tragedy for what used to be an invaluable channel for fans of TV-animation history.

it's been mtv2 here for several years. i couldn't begin to tell you how disappointed i was.

OK, so here's the question... Are we really in a new age of animation or is it more like a continuation of the past 20 years?

Thoughts?

It's possible that we won't know until far into the future, where we have hindsight

edited 25th Aug '15 3:36:16 PM by DapperMammoth

Here's my theory on the matter:

Before the early 90s, creator driven animation was nonexistent on TV. There was, instead, the house style, which each company had. Hanna-Barbera had its house style; so did Filmation and Jay Ward and the like.

Shows definitely had creators during this time period - but they did the concept and that was all. Joe Ruby and Ken Spears, for example, created many of H-B's seventies shows, but the characters' design was in the H-B house style. Shows weren't really distinguished by their writing, aesthetic, what have you either.

When creator driven animation came into being, things changed. For once no two shows from any company looked alike. (Except Klasky Csupo, that is.) Consider how in the late 90s, Hanna-Barbera was the production house behind Dexters Laboratory, Johnny Bravo, Cow And Chicken and The Powerpuff Girls - and how none of those shows looked exactly the same. Similarly, you could distinguish each show on its writing, aesthetic, etc.

We're still in that age, and I don't think that's ever going to end. If there's a big change in how cartoons are made that invalidates the stuff I mentioned above about the current age - then we're in a new age.

I think the main difference is the 2010s versus the late 2000s. The 2010s generally have better cartoons than most of what the late 2000s had (We only really had Avatar and Brave and the Bold to fall back on).