Antiyonder
03-06-2006, 04:57 AM
The kiddies don't like the old toons and their aren't enough older animation fans to keep boomerang's ratings at a good level.
From the thread: I'm sorry, but this has to be said about Boomerang.
First of all, I can understand cartoons from the 70's bombing, as BS&P were down on them hard (Except for Scooby Doo & Superfriends). But you can't tell me that ones such as Looney Tunes, Flintstones, Jetsons, Scooby Doo, The Smurfs fail in ratings.
Second, getting to the point of the thread title: Are classic cartoons really failing, or are they mere successes? Here's a quote from Looney Tunes "Back In Action" that sums up my belief perfectly:
Commenting on the Bugs Bunny Cartoons without Daffy appearing:
Kate- My films have made $950,000,000.
Warner Brother: But that's not billions.
Warner Brother 2: That's right, not billions.
While there's no denying that making money has always been top priority in the network business, the desire back then to make money was a healthy one. Compared to today where it's a borderline obsession. Anyone remember Walt Disney's Quote:
"Let the accountants worry about the money, our job is to provide the customers with top quality products".
Back then shows/cartoons didn't have to be a full blown fad/trend/flavor of the month/quick fix. It just had to pay the bills/be a success, not out rival Bill Gates. Nowadays, if a show fails to become the next fad (like Power Rangers during the mid 90s, Pokemon, Dragonball Z, Yu-Gi-Oh), regardless of it succeeding, then it's dog meat. Now, I'm betting the majority of Boomerangs line up would be successful, even if it doesn't brainwash the masses. As someone on Toonzone mentioned, some shows fail in ratings, not because of low quality, but due to poor market or handling (Such as airing too many times Teen Titans, or hardly at all Justice League Unlimited, Zeta Project, Static Shock). Yet they blame the quality as opposed to their business decisions.
Heck, The Mighty Max cartoons while not exploding in ratings got a respectable run (Compared to Invader Zim, Freakazoid for instance).
Take the upcoming Legion Of Superheroes cartoon, 9 to 1 the higher ups expect it to make at least $1,000,000,000. Chances are, if the 1st Season finishes, bringing in $999,999,900 they'll panic and dump the series rather than renewing it.
It's like they say, you try to hard to accomplish something you crash and burn. So, maybe the higher ups need to ease up in getting rich. Don't try to hard. Don't create a show or a character for the sole sake of popularity. Take a few chances. Think I'm smoking something do you? Here's comment from a Spider-Man Site.
Courtesy of the site spideykicksbutt:
After all, you never know when a new character may prove to be a breakout franchise character, who just needs an "incubator" title to get their feet on the ground (Wolverine is probably the best example of this – he was originally just a one-shot character created to fight the Hulk). Spider-Man himself was a radical concept at one time – a teenager as the hero, rather than the sidekick? It certainly would have seemed “safer” to go with Jack Kirby’s and Joe Simon’s concept of “Spiderman,” than Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’s.
See, Spider-Man and Wolverine weren't meant to be such popular characters when they were created. Yet, Spider-Man has multiple titles, has been part of different medias, became an icon to the company that supported him. Wolverine like Spidey has been in different medias, also appears in various titles and is part of two groups (X-Men and Avengers).
From the thread: I'm sorry, but this has to be said about Boomerang.
First of all, I can understand cartoons from the 70's bombing, as BS&P were down on them hard (Except for Scooby Doo & Superfriends). But you can't tell me that ones such as Looney Tunes, Flintstones, Jetsons, Scooby Doo, The Smurfs fail in ratings.
Second, getting to the point of the thread title: Are classic cartoons really failing, or are they mere successes? Here's a quote from Looney Tunes "Back In Action" that sums up my belief perfectly:
Commenting on the Bugs Bunny Cartoons without Daffy appearing:
Kate- My films have made $950,000,000.
Warner Brother: But that's not billions.
Warner Brother 2: That's right, not billions.
While there's no denying that making money has always been top priority in the network business, the desire back then to make money was a healthy one. Compared to today where it's a borderline obsession. Anyone remember Walt Disney's Quote:
"Let the accountants worry about the money, our job is to provide the customers with top quality products".
Back then shows/cartoons didn't have to be a full blown fad/trend/flavor of the month/quick fix. It just had to pay the bills/be a success, not out rival Bill Gates. Nowadays, if a show fails to become the next fad (like Power Rangers during the mid 90s, Pokemon, Dragonball Z, Yu-Gi-Oh), regardless of it succeeding, then it's dog meat. Now, I'm betting the majority of Boomerangs line up would be successful, even if it doesn't brainwash the masses. As someone on Toonzone mentioned, some shows fail in ratings, not because of low quality, but due to poor market or handling (Such as airing too many times Teen Titans, or hardly at all Justice League Unlimited, Zeta Project, Static Shock). Yet they blame the quality as opposed to their business decisions.
Heck, The Mighty Max cartoons while not exploding in ratings got a respectable run (Compared to Invader Zim, Freakazoid for instance).
Take the upcoming Legion Of Superheroes cartoon, 9 to 1 the higher ups expect it to make at least $1,000,000,000. Chances are, if the 1st Season finishes, bringing in $999,999,900 they'll panic and dump the series rather than renewing it.
It's like they say, you try to hard to accomplish something you crash and burn. So, maybe the higher ups need to ease up in getting rich. Don't try to hard. Don't create a show or a character for the sole sake of popularity. Take a few chances. Think I'm smoking something do you? Here's comment from a Spider-Man Site.
Courtesy of the site spideykicksbutt:
After all, you never know when a new character may prove to be a breakout franchise character, who just needs an "incubator" title to get their feet on the ground (Wolverine is probably the best example of this – he was originally just a one-shot character created to fight the Hulk). Spider-Man himself was a radical concept at one time – a teenager as the hero, rather than the sidekick? It certainly would have seemed “safer” to go with Jack Kirby’s and Joe Simon’s concept of “Spiderman,” than Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’s.
See, Spider-Man and Wolverine weren't meant to be such popular characters when they were created. Yet, Spider-Man has multiple titles, has been part of different medias, became an icon to the company that supported him. Wolverine like Spidey has been in different medias, also appears in various titles and is part of two groups (X-Men and Avengers).