Nostalgia: The Ultimate in Animation or Blind Bias?

[TOM 002]

There are those that watch today's toons with a glimmer of excitement, seeing what new adventures can unfold. However, there are also those that look at the same toons with a much more scornful eye. Reason why they don't like it?

"They just don't make them like they used to..."

Yes, that's right. There are always the old schoolers who fell in love with the cartoons that hailed back in the 80's. Classics like the Ninja Turtles, He-Man, G.I. JOE, and the such are absolutely unforgetable to many of us, and these fans hold them dear. And more often then not, they'll tell you with a straight face that Spongebob could not hold a candle to Scooby or that the newest heroes cannot compare to the Ghostbusters. And the further back one goes, one will discover the classic cartoons that Adult Swim makes references to on a constant basis.

However, I've wondered if nostalgia tends to blind those who have it. As far as I've seen, those who were fans of the nostalgic toons defend their favorite to the bone. And when remakes are made, they can only scoff and blame the new-fangled writers for not measuring up to the original writers. In some cases, this is true (i.e. Transformers Armada vs. Transformers G1), but in others maybe not so much (Scooby Doo Where Are You vs. What's New Scooby Doo). What I have noticed that when one really looks objectively at some nostalgic shows, they really aren't as great as we remember them to be.

For instance, take the classic Ninja Turtles and compare it to the new Ninja Turtles. We all know that this is a classic series and chances are many of us have memories regarding this series as the best thing ever. There are those that have hated the new Ninja Turtles from the start simply because it's way too different from what they were used to. But when I looked at this objectively, I've noticed several changes that added a great twist to what I remember. The Turtles actually use their weapons as they were meant to be used instead of glorified accesories. The Shredder is definately much more badass this time around and has never once turned into the nimrod that the old-school Shredder became. And while one can complain that the current storyline for the Ninja Turtles is utterly ridiculous, one has to understand that the old-school turtle's storyline wasn't all that great to begin with. Yet despite all this, the old-school shippers will defend their version of the Turtles until the end.

Now my question here is whether the old-school stuff is actually as good as we remember it to be. Would it really be far to compare the classics to the newcomers? What has changed, and is it for better or for worse? And ultimately, is there really a nostalgia bias that would blind people from accepting the newcomers?

[Hordesman]

I have an interview from some DiC guy that mentions action toy shows. In the original MOTU, there were charts on how many times a new toy had to be mentioned by name in the program. But now, the toy and toon industry realize more or less they're selling the same thing: A good show is a good show and drawing kids into a show's world will also make them buy toys they see of it.

This same nostalgia sometimes shows up on toy boards with assertions that SW and MOTU toys were better back then. That is nostalgiac blindless pure and simple.

That said, if someone comes up with a reason... Like "I hated that Rudolph CGI movie because it had none of that great physical details the original did." CGI's a biggie for me because I like detailed, rough-looking, tangible items onscreen. Incredibles wasn't half-bad, going more toony but I kept thinking "Man, I'd love to see One Piece have a go with this." :D

Of course, there's also camp factor. How can you not love the "Funhouse" episode of GI Joe... and also see the absurdity in some of the stuff like YGO and Pokemon? Geez, those Cobra twin lawyers who speak like 1 person and fight in showgirl outfits are no different than those Chinese bros who speak in rhyme Pegasus hired. Imagine that conversation. LOL

[MonkeyFunk]

Looking through old videos, there ARE some classics (we need another Mighty Max!) but a lot simply haven't stood the test of time.
And it's depressing having conversations like this:
"How would you like to see animation evolve?"
"I don't want it to evolve, I want it to devolve into great stuff like G.I. Joe!"
:shrug:

[CyberCubed]

I don't see the new Ninja Turtles' having a ridiculous storyline as you put it, the TMNT has always been a blend of realism and sci-fi.

[CookieS]

No doubt people are blinded by their memories. After looking back at some of the older cartoons, its easy to see that you can't just "remember" something being good. I recall watching "Inspector Gadget" last month and didn't realize how sloppy the animation was done. The show is very memorible, but you don't recall much of the details from 20 years ago, do ya?

[Beat]

Nearly 20 years later, many of us have trained ourselves to notice imperfections and flaws in animation that as kids, we wouldn't notice. Therefore, the toons of yesteryear are under much more scrutinizing eyes.

[Dee]

The stuff today is too perfect. It's too clean. It lacks a lot of the little things that come from earlier animation. I miss that.

[Fone Bone]

I rewatched the old Tranformers cartoon after I picked up a few nostalgia tapes from Rhino. I was appalled. The stories were simplistic offering black and white solutions about good and evil with not subtlety or shades of gray. Even the much lauded movie drew groans from me for when Starscream killed all those Autobots while Heavy metal blared in the background. "Look kids! Isn't killing COOL?":rolleyes: I used to love that show as a kid too. My own childhood betrayed me.:shrug:

I don't have the same problem with Thundercats becuase it is enjoyably entertainingly bad and I have no problem watching it.

[Mr. Insomnia]

Every cartoon from the 80s was either campy, or featured celebrities giving you nutritional tips in a campy way. Cartoons nowadays are much more edgy, With stylistic designs and clever writing. Cartoons back then were one-dimensional "golly, gee misther!" cartoons. Bottom line, the 80s sucked. Except Mr. T. Mr. T rocks.

[Prism]

While it is true that there were bad 80's toons there were also plenty of good ones as well. And I don't get bashing of an animation era. True I think that the 60's and 70's were not the best time for animation but there were some good toons there as well. And the stylized,edgy toons of today may well be mocked 20 years from now as being dated with popculture reference overkill. Now I know that I have a distinct preference for the 80's, I also know that they were cheezy, the lines got blurred and the animation does look dated. But they can still entertain me better then most of today's animation fare does. Now if that makes me nostalgic, yeah I suppose it does. And as for animation remakes, the modern HeMan was better then the original, but Transformers and GI Joe remakes were sadly lacking. In my opinion of course.

[Karl Olson]

I think any era of animation, even during the theatrical heyday, had it's fair share of crap, or at the least, mediocre/forgettable product. Nostalgia at points gets in the way of seeing the crap though. It also then gets in the way of appreciating the fact that the overall quality level of TV animation has been raised up by things like digital cel painting and making the toys after the show, or at the least, appreciating that the writers and storyboarders alone are being left alone to make their own vision for the first time in a very long time.

In fact, it's now largely been left up the writers and animators to the job as best as they can with the budget and in the case of shows adapted from comics or based around toys, as best they can with the source material. Stuff like the so-called "Silver-Age" and the current UPA-style-Revival occured because writers and animators were allowed to just make the shows they wanted to make, with very little interference creatively, only content/S&P-wise. Sometimes that yields wonderful results, sometimes it yields mediocre results, but rarely does that yield anything totally useless. Usually a show atleast has something interesting story-wise, concept-wise or visual-wise these days. As a matter of fact, the few shows these days that I do think have absolutely nothing to offer are usually quite clearly the victim of no budget, no talent, too many non-essential notes (aka committee writing) or some combo there of.

[Dudley]

When I look back at the cartoons I watched when I was younger, they were either badly animated, badly storyboarded, or have bad jokes.
I think it's best that I try to avoid watching those old cartoons again because it makes me detest something I used to enjoy.

[Wesyeed]

I recently watched an old episode of superfriends called "revenge of Bizarro" in which bizarro takes out pretty much the entire superfriend group singlehandedly(turning them into bizarro people with his bizarro ray), but is thwarted by an eight legged superman who conveniently had some extra blue Kryptonite stashed away at the fortress of solitude. YES IT WAS THAT CRAZY.

SO Are cartoons today better? Beats me, I laughed so hard at that episode and enjoyed the cheese factor a hell of a lot more than anything JLU could throw at me. What does that tell you?

Yes the voice acting was crap.
the story was crap
the animation was crap
But it's all subjective

Therfeore, I guess I must like crap... :eek:

And no, there was no nostalgia involved.

[Classic Speedy]

The stuff today is too perfect. It's too clean. It lacks a lot of the little things that come from earlier animation. I miss that. I agree, to an extent. Heck, I'll even make a theory out of it (credit to Duckman's "Gripes of Wrath", though) :

Humans are inherently determined to improve things around them. That's the drive of humanity- to make things better. So in essence, the imperfect cartoon is a perfect cartoon. In reverse, a cartoon without flaws, that looks exactly the same episode after episode, lacks some charm in seeing the human inconsistencies. So in essence, a perfect cartoon is an imperfect cartoon. ;)

That's why Ed, Edd, & Eddy is such fun to watch. You can see the changes from frame to frame depending on how thin or thick the brush strokes for the character outlines are.

[Frank]

No flamage intended but I watched the Smurfs 3 years ago and I found out how bad the quality was. The animation was poor, the artwork was bad, the storylines were childish and PC. The musical score was great though (the last time Hoyt Curtin composed for HB). Sometimes Nostalgia can be a Blind Bias IMHO.

[Prism]

There are always going to be people who prefer oldschool same as there are those who have the old animation bad/new animation good mentality. Most of us oldschoolers know the flaws in older animation.I know all about the cheesiness,blurred lines,dated dialogues and music from the 80's and I really don't care.I still prefer Inspector Gadget,Heathcliffe,Real Ghostbusters,Dungeons and Dragons and yes even the Smurfs along with several other late 70's to mid 90's toons to some of what I see today. Yeah it makes me biased, same as those who think that only modern toons are good toons are just as biased.

[Simpler Simon]

A lot of us like to talk about how the animation scene has either improved or taken a step backwards since our childhood in terms of censorship, story quality, and general originality, but really it's about the same. We still had laser guns and characters "destroying" each other in Ninja Turtles, Transformers, and GI Joe, we were just too young to notice it back then. Really, they were the Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh of our day, whether or not you like that comparison. They weren't imports, but they had just as much depth and were there to sell toys.

Objectively, animation and storytelling standards have improved since then. Character movements are smoother and there's less animation mistakes, and scripts (no matter how bad they are) usually avoid the huge leaps in logic we used to have (Donatello magically rewiring the Technodrome so it sucks itself into dimension x).

[Merilee]

Now my question here is whether the old-school stuff is actually as good as we remember it to be. Would it really be far to compare the classics to the newcomers? What has changed, and is it for better or for worse? And ultimately, is there really a nostalgia bias that would blind people from accepting the newcomers?
This is my own personal opinion (and no bashing, PLEASE)
See, I do love the old school cartoons (as you can tell from my avatar) and I do feel like it just can't hold a candle to the newer ones.
I feel like this mostly because I feel like the old cartoons had better stories conncted to them. That was why Hanna Barbara had all the cartoons with mystery formats and most were sucessful, because when people watched the cartoons they becamse drawn into the stories and got caught up in the mystery and excitement. Nowadays with some cartoons like Pokemon there's no real story element, just people who train their pets or cards (Yu-Gi-Oh) to fight and gain some points in a game. A person just can't really get caught up in the stories like they used to. Also I feel cartoons like Mucha Lucha are very violent and not just fanciful cartoon violence like Tom and Jerry, wrestling is a dangerous sport and shows like this inforce it.
Also with some cartoons like Spongebob, there is no real point to those cartoons either, no real purpose. The stores do not really go anywere and not to any definite conclusion, like Scooby Doo.
This isn't blind bashing, because I HAVE seen these new cartoons with an open mind, and without any bias I have found them to be violent, and without a purpose.
Anyway, like I said, these are my reasons why I feel like this, please don't bash me (like some people have done before). This is how I feel, this is just me.
Merilee
:cool:

[Chris Wood]

I don't see much cause for debate here. There's going to be good stuff released nearly every year, whether today or 30 years ago. Naturally we all have a soft spot for the toons of our youth. Not only do they remind us of good times, but we were less critical at that young age. That doesn't mean that we can't appreciate good new stuff, only that our standards are likely to be much higher.

However, I think the popular styles and genres in animation do shift over time, and so while quality may not change much one might find that the niche they enjoyed most disappears. For example I loathe flash animation. Sure, the old Scooby had crap animation, but that was in the early 70s! There's no excuse to have made no progress over 30 years.

Also I miss straight-up action cartoons. No kids, little or no comedy. Outside of superheros and the occasional anime, there really isn't much on TV these days. It's too bad the new He-Man failed. We need more shows like that.

But I certainly enjoy a number of recent toons. Whereas action animation has suffered, I think comedic animation may be stronger than ever. Stuff like Spongebob, Oddparents, Courage, Harvey Birdman, etc. is a lot of fun.

[Harley Quinn]

*is a classic Betty Boop fanatic* You know what? They really DON'T make them like they used to..... *smug look* ;)

Weyseed, I LOVE your avatar.

[Samurai]

But I certainly enjoy a number of recent toons. Whereas action animation has suffered, I think comedic animation may be stronger than ever. Stuff like Spongebob, Oddparents, Courage, Harvey Birdman, etc. is a lot of fun.It depends on the type of comedic animation. For instance, I think a lot of the old classic cartoons are better than Spongebob, Oddparents, and Courage.

For the Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, and a lot of the Adult Swim stuff, it's more about the dialogue and witty references than the quality of their animation. I think those are more "writers" shows than "cartoonist" shows since they rely on parodying American pop-culture so much. Basically, they share more in common with Saturday Night Live than anything else.

But like Saturday Night Live, the jokes can get terribly outdated (like anyone remember the Bob Dole jokes on The Simpsons?).

So the argument goes: are today's more dialogue-oriented cartoons such as Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy funnier than the old comedy classics like Looney Tunes or Tom & Jerry, which relied exclusively on animation for their jokes?

It's like comparing apples to oranges...

[Harley Quinn]

Witty observational/scenario-orientated humor vs. slapstick. I prefer the former, but I love a good konk to the head.

[Chris Wood]

So the argument goes: are today's more dialogue-oriented cartoons such as Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy funnier than the old comedy classics like Looney Tunes or Tom & Jerry, which relied exclusively on animation for their jokes?

It's like comparing apples to oranges...

Not really. I mean, funny is funny. It doesn't matter how you get the laugh. Of course there are some really funny old shows like Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry, but from 1960-1990 there's not a whole lot really. Most comedic cartoons of that period aren't funny at all. Whereas ever since the Simpsons hit there's been somewhat of a boom in clever comedic animation.