Why is it that Animation isn't taken seriously in the U.S.?

[SkullRing]

I mean, most people think of animation as kids stuff and what I want to know is why and what can we do to counter that perception.

[BCVM22]

No one here is going to be able to give you a definitive "why." People can surmise, sure, but it's public perception, which is often something that differs for every individual, and so there isn't one single answer to give.

There's nothing "we" can do, really. Public perception is an impossible beast to tame. You could put up billboards, run ads, hand out flyers and you wouldn't be able to change much.

But you know what? It doesn't matter. Of all the terrible, stereotypical misconceptions the public and society at large accept as truth, this really isn't one of them. It's cartoons. Usually if cartoons and questions of society as a whole cross paths, it's someone overreacting or reading too much in to something. Watch what you watch, enjoy what you enjoy, and if someone questions it, explain it to them. End of story.

[Simpler Simon]

I mean, most people think of animation as kids stuff and what I want to know is why and what can we do to counter that perception.

animation is not kids stuff in the u.s. Look at simpsons, king of the hill, family guy, american dad, etc.

i think the question ppl are really asking is why we can't get more stylized action shows with blood, violence, death, etc. that specifically appeal to teens and young adults. thats a fairly different question.

[Antiyonder]

My short answer is that some adults are open to watching cartoons, especially some kid target ones, but avoid them to fit the sterotype of being the perfect mature adult. The irony is that forcefeeding maturity itself is immature.

You can see my full take on that here:

http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=190553


There's nothing "we" can do, really. Public perception is an impossible beast to tame. You could put up billboards, run ads, hand out flyers and you wouldn't be able to change much.

If someone were to create a survey asking teens/adults if they like cartoons, and the higher percentage is pro towards cartoons, then I'd image public perception would to a degree change. After all if it was proven that the higher percentage of people (especially teens/adults) like cartoons, then the whole "it's not normal for adults" arguement wouldn't hold water.

[Gokou Ruri]

I mean, most people think of animation as kids stuff and what I want to know is why and what can we do to counter that perception. Since when? Simpsons, Family Guy, and all of Fox's other adult animation does extremely well in the 18+ ratings. I'd say it's accepted just fine.

[Antiyonder]

Since when? Simpsons, Family Guy, and all of Fox's other adult animation does extremely well in the 18+ ratings. I'd say it's accepted just fine.

I believe SkullRing is refering to animation in general, not just Simpsons, King Of The Hill and Adult Swim.

[Gokou Ruri]

I believe SkullRing is refering to animation in general, not just Simpsons, King Of The Hill and Adult Swim. I'd say the fact most of the adult animation made is accepted and popular is a pretty good track record, myself. Unless he meant why adults don't take kids animation seriously... but why should adults accept kids shows if they don't want to?

[SkullRing]

Well, I've also always wondered why there is very little serious animation for adults in the U.S.A.. It seems that all the animation for adults is comedies.

[Antiyonder]

I'd say the fact most of the adult animation made is accepted and popular is a pretty good track record, myself. Unless he meant why adults don't take kids animation seriously... but why should adults accept kids shows if they don't want to?

Because some shows aimed towards the younger audience has proven to be entertaining to adults:

Batman The Animated Series-Justice League Unlimited
Gargoyles
Kim Possible

Even the TMNT movie.

Yes, there are animated shows for kids and for adults, but you forget to consider the rare but existing family animation. And while the recent Spider-Man cartoon will obviously be for the younger demograph, the crew behind it seem to be intent to also include us old folks along for the ride.

I'm not saying they have to like, but don't just assume they dislike. I myself wasn't sure I'd enjoy Kim Possible, given the tween shows on the Disney Channel preceeding it. However, I viewed the first 3 to 4 episodes and ended up enjoying it.

[Gokou Ruri]

Well, I've also always wondered why there is very little serious animation for adults in the U.S.A.. It seems that all the animation for adults is comedies. No market for it, really. That's why 90%+ of animation in the world is for kids. That's where the money is.

[Henk55]

I'm much more annoyed with networks people stereotyping cartoons. Which represents itself in all the generical wonkiness in "designed for kids" cartoons, like "what network shirt thinks kids like." I really hate that phrase "designed for kids." Real fun cartoons weren't really "designed for kids" they were designed by their creators as what they thought was fun.

[Kagetsu]

Saturday morning and censors.

In the beginning, the only US animation was Disney "Fariey tale" movies and Saturday morning tv cartoons, that the censors cut any and violence from and came to the point that only stories that showed cooperation and the "group is right" were allowed.

[Jave]

No market for it, really.There is a market. They just can't seem to find it.

[Jeff Harris]

I mean, most people think of animation as kids stuff and what I want to know is why and what can we do to counter that perception.Why? Because the baby boomer generation was the first to see animation as a television medium exclusively, theatrical shorts were formatted with kid-friendly hosts, and these children grew up with the mentality that animation is purely for kids, thus continuing that belief when they became in power in the mid-70s, 80s, 90s, and today.

I talked about that many moons ago in this article (http://thexbridge.toonzone.net/bugswashere.html). Nobody really reads the site anymore, but I digress.

How can that perception be reversed? When my generation, the children of the late 70s and the 80s, take over. When you look at an outfit like Williams Street, it's mostly comprised of members of this generation in producer and production roles. Look at a guy like Seth McFarlane, and it's evident that the shows of that era are deeply ingrained within him.

The moment when the perception of animation being only kid-vid fodder will shift when the so-called Generation X members take higher positions of power within the industry.

[HG Revolution]

No market for it, really.

Then please explain why Princess Mononoke was so huge in Japan, or why many people I know thought the anime scene in Kill Bill was one of the best parts.

[tb4000]

When creators attempt to make more adult oriented fare, it doesn't always provide the neccessary response(read: profit) that kiddies do. Look at most of the animated trailers for animated movies. There may be one or two clever jokes or pieces of dialogue, but most of the is burp and fart jokes and slapstick.

[Gokou Ruri]

Then please explain why Princess Mononoke was so huge in Japan, or why many people I know thought the anime scene in Kill Bill was one of the best parts. Mononoke is not for adults, it's a family movie like Disney's stuff. Some blood, violence, and death doesn't make something adult, since that stuff can be found in tons of Disney movies. Kill Bill, well, that's a focused example since it's based off first-hand knowledge from you and your friends. I doubt the majority of people who watched it did so for the animated sequence. Even so, it's a live-action movie most of the time so it will be considered as such.

Even in Japan, animation is still mostly for kids and any series for adults doesn't do nearly as well as the kids stuff (that's why the top 10 animated shows are always kids stuff) The fact Family Guy and other adult shows make it to the top of the animated list in America means Americans are more open to adult animation than Japan is. Of course, I doubt a lot of anime fans would accept that and try to refute it.

[HG Revolution]

Mononoke is not for adults, it's a family movie like Disney's stuff. Some blood, violence, and death doesn't make something adult, since that stuff can be found in tons of Disney movies.

Really? Mononoke felt more like Tolkien than Disney to me, and I recall Miyazaki saying the film wasn't appropriate for elementary school children. Also, Porco Rosso is definitely an adult-oriented movie according to Miyazaki.

In general, I guess serious adult animation is a lost cause. Then again, adults in general are lost causes as well. Kids soak up everything, then teenagers and young adults become more critical, but by the time you hit 30 or so the beast of nostalgia seems to kick in and you get scared of anything new and exciting. Family Guy is huge with older people mostly because they watched The Simpsons and similar shows when they were younger. Experimental movies marketed directly at adults tend to flop (even Citizen Kane did so). Stuff aimed directly at kids isn't taken seriously by teens and up for the most part, so that's bad business in general. So I'd say that the best way for animation (and film in general) to go is to market more work to the family crowd that will be appreciative of creativity, perhaps with looser, more Japan-like standards of what is appropriate for families.

[MonkeyFunk]

I could be wrong, but the USA doesn't seem to have any notable organisations that are willing to fund and promote offbeat animation. I'd say that round about half of the UK's animation (roughly speaking - it's hard to quantify) is adult-oriented, and a good proportion of that seems to be non-comedy; a lot of the thanks for this has to go to Channel 4's funding schemes. Similarly, Canada has its National Film Board, which has produced a lot of great stuff over the years. Does the USA have an equivalent?

[launchpad25]

Even in Japan, animation is still mostly for kids and any series for adults doesn't do nearly as well as the kids stuff (that's why the top 10 animated shows are always kids stuff) The fact Family Guy and other adult shows make it to the top of the animated list in America means Americans are more open to adult animation than Japan is. Of course, I doubt a lot of anime fans would accept that and try to refute it.
I always use to think that Japan is more open to adult animation that America. Sure the mind set has changed a bit in America, but i never thought that adult animation would now be frowned upon in Japapn. Am i missing something.

[Gokou Ruri]

I always use to think that Japan is more open to adult animation that America. Sure the mind set has changed a bit in America, but i never thought that adult animation would now be frowned upon in Japapn. Am i missing something. It's just a popular misconception anime fans have about Japan. Nothing more, nothing less. The entire world aims animation towards kids, like I said, because it's where the money is.


Really? Mononoke felt more like Tolkien than Disney to me, and I recall Miyazaki saying the film wasn't appropriate for elementary school children. Also, Porco Rosso is definitely an adult-oriented movie according to Miyazaki. Tolkien's stuff wasn't aimed for adults either. It was pretty much aimed for anyone who enjoyed fantasy stories, which would be classified as a "family" book, I guess. No real target audience besides people who would enjoy the genre. (Though Miyazaki's name being attached to them didn't hurt. His name means a lot more than anything else to Japan, similar to how Disney's name works to the rest of the world.)


Stuff aimed directly at kids isn't taken seriously by teens and up for the most part, so that's bad business in general. I've always wondered.. what's wrong with serious live-action shows? Animation fans seem to dismiss them in a similar way every else dismisses serious animation. I'd say just enjoy a show regardless of what medium it's in and stop holding out for serious animation. Researchers have proved live-action is just easier to invoke an emotional response out of people, which is usually what is being aimed for in serious media. Just go enjoy 24, Heroes, Prison Break, and all the other serious shows on television. Doesn't matter if they're animated or not.

[Alph]

I've always wondered.. what's wrong with serious live-action shows? Animation fans seem to dismiss them in a similar way every else dismisses serious animation. I'd say just enjoy a show regardless of what medium it's in and stop holding out for serious animation. Researchers have proved live-action is just easier to invoke an emotional response out of people, which is usually what is being aimed for in serious media. Just go enjoy 24, Heroes, Prison Break, and all the other serious shows on television. Doesn't matter if they're animated or not.

It's not that there's anything wrong with live action, it's just that animation is capable of more in the realm of fantasy with a lower budget. Sure, you have stuff like LOTR, Star Wars, Tranformers, or Spiderman in the movies, but as far as TV shows go, you just can't afford that kind of stuff in live action. Just compare Smallville to STAS for instance.

And I'd wager to guess that alot of animation fans are also fans of fantasy stories, which is a reason why guys like Tolkien and Miyazaki get brought up when talking about serious stories.

[HG Revolution]

I've always wondered.. what's wrong with serious live-action shows? Animation fans seem to dismiss them in a similar way every else dismisses serious animation. I'd say just enjoy a show regardless of what medium it's in and stop holding out for serious animation. Researchers have proved live-action is just easier to invoke an emotional response out of people, which is usually what is being aimed for in serious media. Just go enjoy 24, Heroes, Prison Break, and all the other serious shows on television. Doesn't matter if they're animated or not.

There is nothing wrong with serious live-action shows. However, there's many things live-action can't do that well yet, especially on TV budgets, so its a shame there isn't much serious animation being made today outside of independent circles and Japan.

[Aldrius]

Because all cartoons are a very specific genre. Either action or comedy. For the most part.

[Anthonynotes]

I could be wrong, but the USA doesn't seem to have any notable organisations that are willing to fund and promote offbeat animation. I'd say that round about half of the UK's animation (roughly speaking - it's hard to quantify) is adult-oriented, and a good proportion of that seems to be non-comedy; a lot of the thanks for this has to go to Channel 4's funding schemes. Similarly, Canada has its National Film Board, which has produced a lot of great stuff over the years. Does the USA have an equivalent?

Not as far as I know of... if you want to make a cartoon here (and not attending an art school/university), you'll have to pay for it yourself or find some private entity who will...

-B.

[Jave]

Researchers have proved live-action is just easier to invoke an emotional response out of people.Okay, you always bring up this, yet you have never provided any backup or solid evidence. I'm not buying this until I see some facts.

Besides, I doubt any scientist will come out and state this out loud, since it's like saying "If you find a cartoon more emotional than a live-action show, then you're abnormal."

[Gokou Ruri]

There is nothing wrong with serious live-action shows. However, there's many things live-action can't do that well yet, especially on TV budgets, so its a shame there isn't much serious animation being made today outside of independent circles and Japan. Only if they do really weird things to begin with. But if we're just looking at slice of life, drama, martial arts,police shows, or any other similar concepts there's no real point. 24, Prison Break, and Lost all do just fine in live-action. As do all of the sitcoms/dramas that are so popular. Usually to be serious you need to be at least a little down-to-earth with your concept.


Okay, you always bring up this, yet you have never provided any backup or solid evidence. I'm not buying this until I see some facts. There's an instance where Masahiro Mori, a Japanese roboticist, found out that the more real a robot became, the more emotionally attached the people who interacted with it became. The same is also applied to various scientists who found out the more "cute" an animal is, the more emotions people will display and be empathetic with. People dislike kittens or puppies being hurt, but not nearly as many care about big, bulky animals like cows or pigs being hurt. You can apply the same to animation against live-action. Real humans naturally invoke more emotions than animation does, which is why all the best/most popular dramas are live-action and not animation.

[Bakasama]

I thought Mori was talking about as the robot becomes more real, the more positive and empathic the response until it a certain point. When it reaches the "uncanny valley" the response becomes disgust really fast. Mori wasn't really talking about cartoons but that can apply here. It is said that why "Final Fantasy: Spirits Within" failed was because the CGI characters' designs turned off the audience as a whole because the Uncanny Valley effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

[Jave]

There's an instance where Masahiro Mori, a Japanese roboticist, found out that the more real a robot became, the more emotionally attached the people who interacted with it became. The same is also applied to various scientists who found out the more "cute" an animal is, the more emotions people will display and be empathetic with. People dislike kittens or puppies being hurt, but not nearly as many care about big, bulky animals like cows or pigs being hurt. You can apply the same to animation against live-action. Real humans naturally invoke more emotions than animation does, which is why all the best/most popular dramas are live-action and not animation.So wait, you were basing your whole argument on an ANALOGY?

You can't apply that to live-action and animation AT ALL. What you cite involves strongly the feeling of touch, which you can't get from TVs and movies, being only a visual and auditive medium. "Cuteness" (as in the example with animals) is also something completely different. Live-action and animation can be cute in their own right, but it's not a factor that can be used as judgement to define emotion between them.

Show me actual studies, with proven facts regarding what you see on a SCREEN, then I may add a grain of salt to your claims.

[Gokou Ruri]

So wait, you were basing your whole argument on an ANALOGY? Well, that, and the fact live-action is at the top of the drama charts for every country in the world and not animation. It must be doing something right.


Show me actual studies, with proven facts regarding what you see on a SCREEN, then I may add a grain of salt to your claims. So a study proving realism invoked more emotion isn't going to be accepted?

Well then, I got nothing.

[Antiyonder]

Well, that, and the fact live-action is at the top of the drama charts for every country in the world and not animation. It must be doing something right.

Because again, people have preconcieved sterotypical views concerning cartoons. They don't based their dislikes on aspects such as stories and characters.

For instance, a poster once mentioned describing the story of Samurai Jack to his mother and she seemed interested in watching it. The moment she heard it was a cartoon, she decided to heck with it.

Another example of how the dislike of cartoons are based off preconieved perception, cartoons are just as much a hobby as are:

Cars
Sports
Fishing

Now tell, which person is most likely to be teased and taunted for his/her interests?:

The person interested in different types of cars.
The person interested in sports.
The person interested in fishing.
The person interested in cartoons.

I don't deny that some people might geniunely dislike cartoons, but how do you determine the sincerity? If a person's given reason for not watching a cartoon is:

1. Characters and stories don't appeal to me.
Definately a well informed opinion. Said person reaches it on his/her own.

2. It's kid stuff and any adult who watches them is mentally challenged.
Misinformed opinion, based off sterotype and peer pressure.

[CartoonSage]

Wow I've been thinking about this topic alot lately and I do believe that with the right talent, money and creative control you can in fact convey the same feelings and emotions from a "cartoon" character to the viewer.

I've often wondered why there aren't animated dramas, why all animated films and tv shows HAVE to be comidies, I think it's a combination of the marketing for animation and the overall creative design.

[J'onn J'onzz]

It's just a popular misconception anime fans have about Japan. Nothing more, nothing less. The entire world aims animation towards kids, like I said, because it's where the money is.

AKIRA, Ghost in the Shell, and Cowboy Bebop did pretty well in Japan, didn't they? Not to mention hentai...

[Kaoru]

I got a question, but it's not why isn't animation taken seriously. My question is why are politics etc. taken seriously? People should just chill about that global issues stuff, they'd be happier watching cartoons.

[tb4000]

Cartoons are basically deemed for kids, unless it's for more adults, like a Simpsons or Family Guy type thing. As soon as you hit your teens, suddenly cartoons no longer become cool, except in an ironic sense.

[HG Revolution]

There's an instance where Masahiro Mori, a Japanese roboticist, found out that the more real a robot became, the more emotionally attached the people who interacted with it became. The same is also applied to various scientists who found out the more "cute" an animal is, the more emotions people will display and be empathetic with. People dislike kittens or puppies being hurt, but not nearly as many care about big, bulky animals like cows or pigs being hurt. You can apply the same to animation against live-action. Real humans naturally invoke more emotions than animation does, which is why all the best/most popular dramas are live-action and not animation.

In the Masahiro study, the appeal of the robot dropped significantly when it got into the "uncanny valley", where it was almost realistic but not quite. Which is the same theory that could be applied to some special effects-heavy work. The Star Wars prequel trillogy failed suspending disbelief due to being half live-action and half uncanny-valley effects. Clone Wars, though its storytelling value is debatable similarly to the prequel trillogy, had more visual consistency and higher suspension of disbelief because it didn't try to be visually realistic (a goal which almost every effects-heavy live-action movie has failed at). Cuteness can actually be accentuated in animation. Real humans might be better at acting in general than animation, and as such more fit for slice-of-life dramas and such, but with so much live-action nowadays being essentially part-CGI comic books, full animation's skill for telling fantasy stories while keeping believability in its own world seems kind of underused.

[Lord Harlock]

In fact, cuteness is one of the enduring qualties of animation. The best example is in the The Rescuers. The character Penny's eyes are larger to make her cuter and more emotive as I recall. This is the same reason that many anime designs have bigger eyes. However, the true problem is perception of maturity.

Animation is seen as a children's medium. Even if the material itself becomes more mature in theme than say the latest sitcom, it will be described as immature based on the fact that its animated. Then again, the question of what's mature spews forth if we ponder it too long.

Maturity can not be described as merely sexual content and an increased amount of violence. No, it has to do with something deeper, but unfortunately, it seems that too often is all we get. Family Guy could be toned down for kids by removing any sexual references and the occasional super violent act. In the end, you still have a lot of fart jokes. So, maturity really isn't so clear-cut in my opinion. Though fart jokes are universally acceptiable in both younger and adult programing.

[launchpad25]

In fact, cuteness is one of the enduring qualties of animation. The best example is in the The Rescuers. The character Penny's eyes are larger to make her cuter and more emotive as I recall. This is the same reason that many anime designs have bigger eyes. However, the true problem is perception of maturity.Also, the bigger eyes on anime characters were influenced by the look of Betty Boop, who has large eyes, herself.

[Jave]

So a study proving realism invoked more emotion isn't going to be accepted?"Cuter" =/= "More real"

[FinnMacCool]

I think it's because, for the past century or so, America has had a real fetish going on for realism. Calling a movie, TV show, or book "fantastical" can go either way as a compliment or an insult, but calling one "gritty" or "realistic" is almost always used as a compliment. And, while animation is a great medium for doing lots of things, realism is not its strong suit. The whole point of using animation is that it can show things that would be impossible or insanely difficult/expensive to show in live action; however, if people don't want to see anything too far removed from reality, that's not going to seem too important.

[Antiyonder]

I think it's because, for the past century or so, America has had a real fetish going on for realism. Calling a movie, TV show, or book "fantastical" can go either way as a compliment or an insult, but calling one "gritty" or "realistic" is almost always used as a compliment. And, while animation is a great medium for doing lots of things, realism is not its strong suit. The whole point of using animation is that it can show things that would be impossible or insanely difficult/expensive to show in live action; however, if people don't want to see anything too far removed from reality, that's not going to seem too important.

Which has me wondering why those particular viewers don't just limit themselves to news broadcasts and newspaper, because television in general is suppose to be about escapism. And to me escapism is say Batman and crew fighting an oversized human moth, not generic tween character trying to be popular in high school.

[launchpad25]

Which has me wondering why those particular viewers don't just limit themselves to news broadcasts and newspaper, because television in general is suppose to be about escapism. And to me escapism is say Batman and crew fighting an oversized human moth, not generic tween character trying to be popular in high school.I sometimes wonder how funny it would be if the shoe was on the other foot, and people were being mocked for watching the evening news, tween sitcons, or reality shows. Then maybe these people would know how some of us feel when we're mocked for watching animation. Yeah, i know it's far fetched, but i just wanted to bring up that thought.

[Gokou Ruri]

Because again, people have preconcieved sterotypical views concerning cartoons. They don't based their dislikes on aspects such as stories and characters. It's not as if the animation community is any better at this. I've seen plenty of people here who instantly dismiss CG animation as inferior to 2D, regardless of content. "Oh, CG, blech, no thanks" Pretty ironic.


"Cuter" =/= "More real" The roboticist study was about realism. The animal one was about cuteness, and I agree the animal one wasn't really a good analogy, but I was just pointing out how appearance really affects the human psyche in terms of emotion. You will at least admit that human beings are able to relate to other human beings more than drawings, won't you?


I've often wondered why there aren't animated dramas, why all animated films and tv shows HAVE to be comidies, I think it's a combination of the marketing for animation and the overall creative design. There have been animated dramas, it's just usually they try to include tidbits that you won't find in a live-action drama, like a kid with dragon powers defending New York city. Animation is great for things you can't do in real life, but if you're going to animate a show about people talking to each other, then why bother using a medium that isn't suited for it? You can get the same effect in live-action, and then some because your audience will relate to real humans rather than drawings. Is there any real reason to animate Hannah Montana than just "because I want to"? No place in the world does that. A few individuals from random countries, maybe, but there's no place in the world where that is the norm.


I sometimes wonder how funny it would be if the shoe was on the other foot, and people were being mocked for watching the evening news, tween sitcons, or reality shows. Then maybe these people would know how some of us feel when we're mocked for watching animation. Yeah, i know it's far fetched, but i just wanted to bring up that thought. I don't know where you've been, but I've seen plenty of people bash reality TV and shows like Hannah Montana. The only difference is there's far more people who watch Hannah Montana than Kim Possible, so any insults directed at them won't have much effect. Like insulting a group of people by yourself, no real effect because numbers inspire confidence and social acceptance.

[Space Cadet]

There have been animated dramas, it's just usually they try to include tidbits that you won't find in a live-action drama, like a kid with dragon powers defending New York city. Animation is great for things you can't do in real life, but if you're going to animate a show about people talking to each other, then why bother using a medium that isn't suited for it? You can get the same effect in live-action, and then some because your audience will relate to real humans rather than drawings.


Just because the medium may not be best suited for it, people shouldn't at least try it out. Going by that argument, Grave of the Fireflies, Maison Ikkoku, A Scanner Darkly and some other things should not have been animated at all(I know A Scanner Darkly wasn't animated, but they could have done a straight-up live-action movie).

The argument can be used in reverse. Transformers has things you can't do in real life, yet there is a movie coming out July 4th. The Harry Potter books have many fantasy elements in them, so the movies should have been animated instead of being done in live-action.

[Gokou Ruri]

Just because the medium may not be best suited for it, people shouldn't at least try it out. Going by that argument, Grave of the Fireflies, Maison Ikkoku, A Scanner Darkly and some other things should not have been animated at all(I know A Scanner Darkly wasn't animated, but they could have done a straight-up live-action movie). Well, I did say a few people try it out, but judging by all the comments it seems like they want all or most dramas to be animated, for whatever reason. Live-action works just fine for them, so why fix something that's not broke?


The argument can be used in reverse. Transformers has things you can't do in real life, yet there is a movie coming out July 4th. The Harry Potter books have many fantasy elements in them, so the movies should have been animated instead of being done in live-action. Well, obviously they can since it's coming out. CG works wonders at blending reality and animation. You can do pretty much anything with live-action these days.

[launchpad25]

Just because the medium may not be best suited for it, people shouldn't at least try it out. Going by that argument, Grave of the Fireflies, Maison Ikkoku, A Scanner Darkly and some other things should not have been animated at all(I know A Scanner Darkly wasn't animated, but they could have done a straight-up live-action movie).Good counterpoint. On the surface, 'A Scanner Darkly' dose look like something that could've been made in live action.
The argument can be used in reverse. Transformers has things you can't do in real life, yet there is a movie coming out July 4th. The Harry Potter books have many fantasy elements in them, so the movies should have been animated instead of being done in live-action.I guess we can thank CGI for that.

[Ickis]

Despite the fact that a small to mid portion of the teenaged US public has a habit of "generlizing" stuff cartoons are rarely thought of as "just for kids" from what I've seen but then again I don't associate with the "general American teen public" that much. If I did ask one of them about cartoons I'd probably expect them to say "I usually watch Family Guy, that shows friggin awsome" or in some cases "Spongebob, Fairly Oddparents, and those older shows when they were on.".

[Jave]

The roboticist study was about realism. The animal one was about cuteness, and I agree the animal one wasn't really a good analogy, but I was just pointing out how appearance really affects the human psyche in terms of emotion. You will at least admit that human beings are able to relate to other human beings more than drawings, won't you?Definitely. I'm not even arguing that. But "relating" to something isn't the same as "make someone feel emotion"

I suppose the robot example doesn't really apply here because it's about making one lifeless thing be more human, while the comparision we're making it's about two different things, so you can't really make an analogy out of it.

Remember, the characters that show up in cartoons are created by humans. They showcase human emotions. It doesn't matter if the character is an animal, an alien, a plant, an imaginary friend, or anything like that. They're all human inside. That's why we feel emotions when we watch them, because we're watching the work of humans, just like you, me, or the people who work in live-action shows. I hope we can agree at least on that much.

I will agree though, that it might be harder to do in animation. While live-action usually just requires a good performance by the actor, animation needs a good artist, a good animator and a good voice actor. (Of course, there's also the writing, direction and music, which is pretty much similar in both cases)

[Jeff Harris]

I could be wrong, but the USA doesn't seem to have any notable organisations that are willing to fund and promote offbeat animation. I'd say that round about half of the UK's animation (roughly speaking - it's hard to quantify) is adult-oriented, and a good proportion of that seems to be non-comedy; a lot of the thanks for this has to go to Channel 4's funding schemes. Similarly, Canada has its National Film Board, which has produced a lot of great stuff over the years. Does the USA have an equivalent?No. We don't have any animation-specific organizations that are willing to fund and promote animation.

We have a lot of people saying that there should be groups like that, but they're all talk and aren't willing to do something like that.

That's why you see a lot more independent American animators producing stuff for themselves. The only problem is distribution. Back in the day, folks could find those adult-oriented cartoons on travelling outlets like Spike and Mikes, or the occasional airings on MTV, Bravo, or Night Flights. Nowadays, you have to rely on the internet or travelling shows like The Animation Show.

There aren't any outlets where independent fare can be seen in this country since everything is so corporate and homogenized. You only get to see independent shorts on television on very rare occasions, like the Nicktoons Network Film Festival and Adult Swim and MTV2's recent airings of shorts from The Animation Show.


Also, the bigger eyes on anime characters were influenced by the look of Betty Boop, who has large eyes, herself.Actually, the large eyes influence came after Betty Boop, but rather with Disney's Bambi. Osamu Tezuka, the father of manga and anime, was greatly influenced by that film, and it showed in fare like Kimba the White Lion and Astro Boy.

[CartoonSage]

There have been animated dramas, it's just usually they try to include tidbits that you won't find in a live-action drama, like a kid with dragon powers defending New York city. Animation is great for things you can't do in real life, but if you're going to animate a show about people talking to each other, then why bother using a medium that isn't suited for it? You can get the same effect in live-action, and then some because your audience will relate to real humans rather than drawings. Is there any real reason to animate Hannah Montana than just "because I want to"? No place in the world does that. A few individuals from random countries, maybe, but there's no place in the world where that is the norm.



I guess that's part of where the problem lies isn't it? Here we have a medium where we can do anything we want; animals can talk, sing and dance, muscle-clad monks can fignt in the sky, and we can visit a futuristic world where Japan's merchinaries are all cyborgs. The problem is when mainstream people see and hear this kind of thing they immediatly lose intreast, and honestly who can blame them? These scenarios are way over the top and very hard to believe, and no one without an imagination (i.e. teenagers/adults) would take it seriously.

[Antiyonder]

It's not as if the animation community is any better at this. I've seen plenty of people here who instantly dismiss CG animation as inferior to 2D, regardless of content. "Oh, CG, blech, no thanks" Pretty ironic.
But do they dismiss the viewers who enjoy CG, like those who dismiss animation in general.


I guess that's part of where the problem lies isn't it? Here we have a medium where we can do anything we want; animals can talk, sing and dance, muscle-clad monks can fignt in the sky, and we can visit a futuristic world where Japan's merchinaries are all cyborgs. The problem is when mainstream people see and hear this kind of thing they immediatly lose intreast, and honestly who can blame them? These scenarios are way over the top and very hard to believe, and no one without an imagination (i.e. teenagers/adults) would take it seriously.

Then why do those particular viewers watch TV when they can go outside and experience realisim at the fullest? I'll never understand that. Sure a bit of realisim is welcome, but too much defeats the point of escapisim.

[Gokou Ruri]

Then why do those particular viewers watch TV when they can go outside and experience realisim at the fullest? I'll never understand that. Sure a bit of realisim is welcome, but too much defeats the point of escapisim. Isn't that pretty much saying "Cartoons should be comedic, since they're suppose to be escapism"? There's different levels of realism. Heroes, and stuff like DC Comics handles superpowers in a realistic way and setting. Real people, real consequences. Meanwhile, something like, say, One Piece or Xiaolin Showdown, where it's pretty wacky and outrageous with it's super powers, isn't realistic. Just because it's serious/handled maturely doesn't mean there's no point in watching it. You're still tuning in to see what happens and escape your life for an hour, it's just you do so with a serious show instead of a goofy one.

[Antiyonder]

Isn't that pretty much saying "Cartoons should be comedic, since they're suppose to be escapism"? There's different levels of realism. Heroes, and stuff like DC Comics handles superpowers in a realistic way and setting. Real people, real consequences. Meanwhile, something like, say, One Piece or Xiaolin Showdown, where it's pretty wacky and outrageous with it's super powers, isn't realistic. Just because it's serious/handled maturely doesn't mean there's no point in watching it. You're still tuning in to see what happens and escape your life for an hour, it's just you do so with a serious show instead of a goofy one.

Now you're taking what I said out of context. You want to disagree? Fine, but don't twist someones words around. I said a bit of realisim is welcomed. The DC shows you mentioned does a good job at balancing realisim with escapism. I'm refering to the shows that are nothing but realisim. It's really hard to view a show as escapisim if it's a carbon copy of everyday life.

[Bones Justice]

I've always wondered.. what's wrong with serious live-action shows? Animation fans seem to dismiss them in a similar way every else dismisses serious animation. I'd say just enjoy a show regardless of what medium it's in and stop holding out for serious animation. Researchers have proved live-action is just easier to invoke an emotional response out of people, which is usually what is being aimed for in serious media. Just go enjoy 24, Heroes, Prison Break, and all the other serious shows on television. Doesn't matter if they're animated or not.

Actually, I do enjoy 24 and Heroes but as others have pointed out, live-action is still really limited in terms of what they can do, even with a huge budget. Neither of those live-action shows do half of what Ghost in the Shell or Justice League Unlimited (in terms of sets and effects) can do despite considerably larger budgets.

I don't have any statistics but my personal experience is that all of the adults that I work with dismiss animation as kid's stuff, whether it's Batman TAS, Futurama, Family Guy, or anything animated. I usually get a groan from the collective group when I change the channel at work to anything animated, with one expection -- anything 3D animated is "okay", for example Shrek or The Incredibles are considered acceptable to watch for some reason.

I'm gonna go out on a limb, though, and say that I "know" that if any of the recent Spider-man movies starring Tobey Macquire had been animated instead of live-action, they would have totally bombed in the theater. I don't care if they did the exact same script, scene for scene the same, if it was animated then it would never have been taken seriously. Why? Because most adults in the USA don't take animation seriously. They want the fantastic stories of superheroes or magical creatures but they don't want to admit it. Make it live-action and it will be a hit even if it means far more limitations to the story than would be needed with animation.

[launchpad25]

Actually, I do enjoy 24 and Heroes but as others have pointed out, live-action is still really limited in terms of what they can do, even with a huge budget. Neither of those live-action shows do half of what Ghost in the Shell or Justice League Unlimited (in terms of sets and effects) can do despite considerably larger budgets.

I don't have any statistics but my personal experience is that all of the adults that I work with dismiss animation as kid's stuff, whether it's Batman TAS, Futurama, Family Guy, or anything animated. I usually get a groan from the collective group when I change the channel at work to anything animated, with one expection -- anything 3D animated is "okay", for example Shrek or The Incredibles are considered acceptable to watch for some reason.

I'm gonna go out on a limb, though, and say that I "know" that if any of the recent Spider-man movies starring Tobey Macquire had been animated instead of live-action, they would have totally bombed in the theater. I don't care if they did the exact same script, scene for scene the same, if it was animated then it would never have been taken seriously. Why? Because most adults in the USA don't take animation seriously. They want the fantastic stories of superheroes or magical creatures but they don't want to admit it. Make it live-action and it will be a hit even if it means far more limitations to the story than would be needed with animation.I guess people don't want to embrace characters rendered in pencil because it dosen't look 'realistic' enough to them. That's probably why CGI is successful these days because it literally brings cartoon images to life. I also find it amazing that the same people who dismiss sci-fi, and fantasy will plunk down 8 bucks to go see those same movies. As long as it's not done in pencil, they'll take anything seriously.

[Gokou Ruri]

Actually, I do enjoy 24 and Heroes but as others have pointed out, live-action is still really limited in terms of what they can do, even with a huge budget. Neither of those live-action shows do half of what Ghost in the Shell or Justice League Unlimited (in terms of sets and effects) can do despite considerably larger budgets.

You're under the assumption the writers actually want to do what those two shows do. What exactly does 24 and Heroes need that Ghost in the Shell and JLU do? Jack Bauer doesn't fight robots, walking tanks, or anything sci-fi like Motoko does. Heroes is about the drama aspect of super powers, and was never meant to be about big super hero fights, so it wouldn't make much sense to animate it since they'd still just be standing around talking with the occasional fist/gunfight. It's more about the writing than any "limitations", since movies such as IRobot, Matrix, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings have shown we can do pretty much anything with CG.

[Antiyonder]

It's not as if the animation community is any better at this. I've seen plenty of people here who instantly dismiss CG animation as inferior to 2D, regardless of content. "Oh, CG, blech, no thanks" Pretty ironic.

Yuo never did answer my question though. Do fans of non CG Animation make generalized statements towards those who do like CG animation? Statement like it's kids stuff? If the answer is no, then it isn't exactly the same.

And I hope you don't mean that everyone in the animattion community is that way. I enjoy both regular and CGI animation and the occasional live action.


I don't have any statistics but my personal experience is that all of the adults that I work with dismiss animation as kid's stuff, whether it's Batman TAS, Futurama, Family Guy, or anything animated. I usually get a groan from the collective group when I change the channel at work to anything animated, with one expection -- anything 3D animated is "okay", for example Shrek or The Incredibles are considered acceptable to watch for some reason.

I'm gonna go out on a limb, though, and say that I "know" that if any of the recent Spider-man movies starring Tobey Macquire had been animated instead of live-action, they would have totally bombed in the theater. I don't care if they did the exact same script, scene for scene the same, if it was animated then it would never have been taken seriously. Why? Because most adults in the USA don't take animation seriously. They want the fantastic stories of superheroes or magical creatures but they don't want to admit it. Make it live-action and it will be a hit even if it means far more limitations to the story than would be needed with animation.

Again that's because they spend so much time convincing themselves and others that animation is for children or the 40 year old virgin. And as they say, if you tell yourself the same thing many times, you'll believe it to be true. My bet that if you were to ask your coworkers about their dislike towards cartoons, their reason will more than likely have to do with the 40 yrs old virgin rather than pertaining towards writing or characterizations

[Alph]

You're under the assumption the writers actually want to do what those two shows do. What exactly does 24 and Heroes need that Ghost in the Shell and JLU do? Jack Bauer doesn't fight robots, walking tanks, or anything sci-fi like Motoko does. Heroes is about the drama aspect of super powers, and was never meant to be about big super hero fights, so it wouldn't make much sense to animate it since they'd still just be standing around talking with the occasional fist/gunfight.

I don't think anyone is assuming what the writers want. The main question isn't "Why aren't all dramas animated?" It's just that the people here want cartoons that are like JLU, Gargoyles, or TMNT2K3, in terms if fantastic worlds and settings (not to mention the excellent fighting choreograohy) but with the same censorship limitations that 24 and Heroes have.

We already know that there are writers out there who want the same thing as us. Otherwise we wouldn't get shows like JLU and Gargoyles that push the envelope so much.


It's more about the writing than any "limitations", since movies such as IRobot, Matrix, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings have shown we can do pretty much anything with CG.

Notice all those you mentioned are big budget movies. With TV shows, stuff like Heroes, Smallville, and Stargate is the best you're gonna get. So it does have alot to do with limitations.

I don't think that it has to do with writers not wanting to do shows in a fantastic setting. It has more to do with the target demographic being biased against the medium that would allow writers the freedom to use such a setting with the budget they have (by that I mean animation).

[FinnMacCool]

There's also censorship to consider. The kind of bloodspray that Kill Bill had to put in black & white to avoid an NC-17 rating is more or less rivalled by many episodes of Samurai Champloo, which got a TV-14 rating. In terms of depicting violence, you can get away with a lot more using animation than you can using live action.

[Gokou Ruri]

Yuo never did answer my question though. Do fans of non CG Animation make generalized statements towards those who do like CG animation? Statement like it's kids stuff? If the answer is no, then it isn't exactly the same. No, but I've also never been criticized for stating I like a cartoon either. Pretty much anyone I talk to at my college likes Spongebob/Family Guy/Ninja Turtles/Simpsons or some other cartoon themselves. Perhaps the older generation in their 40's/50s might experience it, but I'd say my current generation has been raised on cartoons from the 90's/00's and are more open and accepting of them. Similar to how there's less racism in this generation compared to a WWII generation who was taught to hate Germans/Japanese by either the media or their parents who were soldiers in the war.


And I hope you don't mean that everyone in the animattion community is that way. I enjoy both regular and CGI animation and the occasional live action. Not at all, but I've noticed a lot of people who think of CG as the bane of the animation world. Saying it's lifeless, ugly, or some other stuff that depend more on the writing and technique than the format.


I don't think anyone is assuming what the writers want. The main question isn't "Why aren't all dramas animated?" It's just that the people here want cartoons that are like JLU, Gargoyles, or TMNT2K3, in terms if fantastic worlds and settings (not to mention the excellent fighting choreograohy) but with the same censorship limitations that 24 and Heroes have. Fair enough, but that wasn't really Bones Justice's point from the words he used.


Notice all those you mentioned are big budget movies. With TV shows, stuff like Heroes, Smallville, and Stargate is the best you're gonna get. So it does have alot to do with limitations. They said from the beginning Heroes wasn't about fights, though. Smallville is the same way. They all revolve around the drama aspect and how people interact with each other.


There's also censorship to consider. The kind of bloodspray that Kill Bill had to put in black & white to avoid an NC-17 rating is more or less rivalled by many episodes of Samurai Champloo, which got a TV-14 rating. In terms of depicting violence, you can get away with a lot more using animation than you can using live action. Kill Bill had far more violence than Samurai Champloo does, so that's not really a good example. Also, are you comparing the movie rating to a TV show, or the TV airing of the Kill Bill movie?

[Antiyonder]

No, but I've also never been criticized for stating I like a cartoon either. Pretty much anyone I talk to at my college likes Spongebob/Family Guy/Ninja Turtles/Simpsons or some other cartoon themselves. Perhaps the older generation in their 40's/50s might experience it, but I'd say my current generation has been raised on cartoons from the 90's/00's and are more open and accepting of them. Similar to how there's less racism in this generation compared to a WWII generation who was taught to hate Germans/Japanese by either the media or their parents who were soldiers in the war.

But there are still some teens/adults who still play the cartoons are for kids/virgins card. And while I've read complaints toward CG Animation, I haven't seen fans of it bashed.

[Gokou Ruri]

But there are still some teens/adults who still play the cartoons are for kids/virgins card. Of course, you can't expect everyone to agree on the same thing. There will always be people with their own opinions. That won't change no matter what you do. However, what can happen is there being more people who are open to animation in this day and age compared to a decade or two ago, which goes back to my experience at my college. Shows like Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, and even Spongebob have made animation much more mainstream and acceptable in society compared to an older generation from the 70s and 80s.

[Jester2415]

Why isn't animation in the USA taken seriously? For one, how many animated shows and films are actually... ummm... serious? Almost all are comedies, and moments of seriousness are few and far between. I think it has more to do with genre than anything else. Look at comics, some awesome books are out there of all sorts and genres. But sadly its the superhero genre that dominates... and the industry has suffered because of it. Until more successful and serious animations are made I don't see the current trend of Ogres and Penguins stopping anytime soon.

[Kaoru]

I think it's because, for the past century or so, America has had a real fetish going on for realism. Calling a movie, TV show, or book "fantastical" can go either way as a compliment or an insult, but calling one "gritty" or "realistic" is almost always used as a compliment. And, while animation is a great medium for doing lots of things, realism is not its strong suit. The whole point of using animation is that it can show things that would be impossible or insanely difficult/expensive to show in live action; however, if people don't want to see anything too far removed from reality, that's not going to seem too important. When I watched Spirited Away, the use of the doppler effect in one scene was the icing that made me think that movie should get an oscar. I didn't even know it had until later, but that didn't make more adults see it. Although I've only seen it once and found it boring, but I'll see it again and maybe change my mind.

Would Grave of the Fireflies beconsidered mature? Contrary to all reviews, I think that's a dreadful movie. Killing off everyone with sudden illness is not art.
I don't see the current trend of Ogres and Penguins stopping anytime soon. Don't forget fish, forest creatures and small animals. But again this is just the US industry for Western audiences.

[tb4000]

Now when TMNT was released back in March, pretty much most guys I know were like, "yeah, I'm gonna see that, dude!" Granted, part was nostalgia, but because the marketing painted it as a more gritty animation with some bits of humor, but angst and depth, mostly due to Raph and Leo.

[Bones Justice]

You're under the assumption the writers actually want to do what those two shows do. What exactly does 24 and Heroes need that Ghost in the Shell and JLU do? Jack Bauer doesn't fight robots, walking tanks, or anything sci-fi like Motoko does. Heroes is about the drama aspect of super powers, and was never meant to be about big super hero fights, so it wouldn't make much sense to animate it since they'd still just be standing around talking with the occasional fist/gunfight. It's more about the writing than any "limitations", since movies such as IRobot, Matrix, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings have shown we can do pretty much anything with CG.


Fair enough, but that wasn't really Bones Justice's point from the words he used.

You misunderstood me completely. I never said that the writers of 24 wanted to use robots. I was talking about budgets for television shows.

My point is that shows like Ghost in the Shell or Justice League Unlimited would never even be attempted live-action on television due to budget limitations. The most that any live-action show can hope for is on the level of what 24 does. Television networks would never agree to produce anything beyond that kind of budget so dramas are the most we can hope to see in live-action.

But I think you're wrong that no writers want to create live-action superhero or fantasy action shows. As you pointed out, we've got The Matrix series or Lord of the Rings. But none of those ideas in live-action could exist outside of a large movie budget; never on television. I'm sure that a network would jump all over a live-action Batman television series if they could have the sets and effects like Batman Begins on a 24-level budget. Or maybe a The Matrix television series on a Heroes-level budget. But they can't. So those kinds of shows never get made; instead, we get dramas about Jack Bauer or superheroes because television can afford those in live-action.


Why isn't animation in the USA taken seriously? For one, how many animated shows and films are actually... ummm... serious? Almost all are comedies, and moments of seriousness are few and far between. I think it has more to do with genre than anything else. Look at comics, some awesome books are out there of all sorts and genres. But sadly its the superhero genre that dominates... and the industry has suffered because of it. Until more successful and serious animations are made I don't see the current trend of Ogres and Penguins stopping anytime soon.

I agree with you but is it cause or effect? A lot of animated comedies get made because that's what adults in the USA are not "embarrassed" to go see. Most of them won't go see a "serious" film unless it's live-action. I'm guessing that more adults went to see Batman and Robin than went to see Mask of the Phantasm but the latter is clearly a more serious (and entertaining) movie.

For the record, I don't hate 3D animation. I like a lot of movies made that way. But it burns me that adults will glom all over Finding Nemo just because it's 3D. If that movie were made in 2D, few adults would have seen it.

[Gokou Ruri]

Look at comics, some awesome books are out there of all sorts and genres. But sadly its the superhero genre that dominates... and the industry has suffered because of it. Superhero isn't a genre, it's a concept. Within that concept, you can have multiple genres depending on the title (drama, romance, action, comedy, etc) so I'm not sure why you're upset super heroes are popular. They have just as much going for them as any other concept or genre out there.


My point is that shows like Ghost in the Shell or Justice League Unlimited would never even be attempted live-action on television due to budget limitations. The most that any live-action show can hope for is on the level of what 24 does. Television networks would never agree to produce anything beyond that kind of budget so dramas are the most we can hope to see in live-action.

But I think you're wrong that no writers want to create live-action superhero or fantasy action shows. As you pointed out, we've got The Matrix series or Lord of the Rings. But none of those ideas in live-action could exist outside of a large movie budget; never on television. I'm sure that a network would jump all over a live-action Batman television series if they could have the sets and effects like Batman Begins on a 24-level budget. Or maybe a The Matrix television series on a Heroes-level budget. But they can't. So those kinds of shows never get made; instead, we get dramas about Jack Bauer or superheroes because television can afford those in live-action. Fair enough. Though what about Xena? Firefly? Star Trek/Gate? Those shows seem fine to me, even if they're not movie-budget like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.

[Jester2415]

"Superhero isn't a genre, it's a concept. Within that concept, you can have multiple genres depending on the title (drama, romance, action, comedy, etc) so I'm not sure why you're upset super heroes are popular. They have just as much going for them as any other concept or genre out there."

Ummm... its a genre, sorry. Genre - a group of art sharing the same setting, mood, and format. Same as any film involving cowboys, gun fights, and Clint Eastwood would be considered a Western. Men in tights, super powers, saving ladies in trouble... you get the super hero genre.

Imagen if all movies in the theaters were 90% horror films... you get an idea of the kind of staleness a industry can get. No room for innovation, new ideas, or anything outside the money making box. I have nothing against the superhero genre or animated penguins. It's just I don't like eating hot dogs everyday, a nice salad would hit the spot now and then.

[Gokou Ruri]

Ummm... its a genre, sorry. Genre - a group of art sharing the same setting, mood, and format. Same as any film involving cowboys, gun fights, and Clint Eastwood would be considered a Western. Men in tights, super powers, saving ladies in trouble... you get the super hero genre.

So you're saying Batman is the same as Naruto? Jonah Hex is the same as Green Lantern? X-Men is the same as Kim Possible? That's ridiculous. The concept of people fighting bad guys with powers or abilities is just that, a concept that's too general to all be lumped together with each other. An example of the different genres in superheroes is Western (Jonah Hex), Political (Ex Machina, V for Vendetta), Comedy (Plastic Man), Horror (Spawn, certain Batman stories), Pulp Fiction/Noir (The Spirit), Spy Thriller (James Bond, Birds of Prey), and Sci-Fi (Adam Strange, Buck Rogers, Green Lantern)

Sort of impossible to lump them all together in one genre. The closest you could do is say they're all action series.

[Nobuyuki sama]

"Superheroes" is a genre, comics (and animation) is a medium.

[BCVM22]

"Superheroes" is a genre, comics (and animation) is a medium.

That's oversimplifying matters to an erroneous extent. As has been said several times previously, "superheroes" is an umbrella term essentially used to describe any heroic character capable of utilizing an ability or abilities that baseline humanity can't. Underneath that umbrella term can fall nearly any genre, from sci-fi to action to horror to comedy to crime to fantasy to countless others. It is most certainly not strictly a genre unto itself.

[MonkeyFunk]

Well, this topic's done for.

[Nobuyuki sama]

That's oversimplifying matters to an erroneous extent. As has been said several times previously, "superheroes" is an umbrella term essentially used to describe any heroic character capable of utilizing an ability or abilities that baseline humanity can't. Underneath that umbrella term can fall nearly any genre, from sci-fi to action to horror to comedy to crime to fantasy to countless others. It is most certainly not strictly a genre unto itself.
I respectfully disagree with your trying to cover everything with such a large blanket term. Jonah Hex, The Spirit and James Bond (to name 3 of Galentone's examples) are not superheroes.

[FinnMacCool]

See, when we talk about genres, there are really two sorts of genres.

First, there's Drama, Comedy, Horror, and Suspense (and possibly Romance, depending on how you look at). There's no required content for any of these genres, merely that they try to evoke a certain emotion. Comedies make you feel amused, Dramas make you feel empathetic with the characters, Horrors make you feel scared, etc.

Then there are more concept driven genres, like Western, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Historical Fiction, and (again) possibly Romance. These genres are defined by the setting and/or basic tropes they use to tell a story, not by the emotion they invoke, so most stories in these genres also fit into the first kind of genre (Dramatic Westerns, Comedic Fantasy, Horrorific Historical Fiction).

Superheroes is one of the second kinds of genre; people with superpowers and usually costumes or unusual appearances fighting evil people is only a little less broad than the Western genre, and nowhere near as broad as Science Fiction or Fantasy. However, just because Superheroism is a genre doesn't mean superhero stories can't fall under lots of other genres; most are either Science Fiction or Fantasy (often both), plenty have large amounts of Drama involved, many have Comedy, and I'm sure I could track down quite a few Horror or Suspense themed superheroes if I tried.

[Bones Justice]

Fair enough. Though what about Xena? Firefly? Star Trek/Gate? Those shows seem fine to me, even if they're not movie-budget like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.

Well, that may be one of the reasons why we can't agree on this subject. As much as I liked Firefly, Star Trek, and SG-1, none of them come close to the "special effects" seen in Justice League Unlimited. The flying character scenes alone would have gone way over those live-action show's budgets. I was not a big Xena fan but I watched enough to know that it didn't even top SG-1 at it's best, either. Or compare any Star Trek series to Clone Wars -- nothing that Star Trek ever did compared, in my opinion.

Also, Firefly's fanbase was very strong but the ratings couldn't justify the budget to the network. Same goes for Enterprise. Both of these shows could have been made for a fraction of the live-action budget if done in animation instead.

When you think about it, the only way even the big-budget live-action movies have been able to compete with the "special effects" of Justice League Unlimited has been to animate them. True, it's a lot more realistic looking computer animation, but it's animation all the same. It's relatively obvious animation when Neo battles multiple Agent Smith's in The Matrix Reloaded, for example. Or how about how many people complained about the CG-Hulk in the same-titled big-budget movie a few years ago? Animating space ships for live-action is one thing, but it takes a big budget to make CG-animated people that can pass for live-action.

[Gokou Ruri]

I respectfully disagree with your trying to cover everything with such a large blanket term. Jonah Hex, The Spirit and James Bond (to name 3 of Galentone's examples) are not superheroes.The thing is, superhero is a blanket statement that can describe pretty much any action hero. All they need to do is have some sort of ability/skill and use it to fight bad guys (which fits a lot of characters, as mentioned.)Heck, DC bills Jonah Hex as a superhero, since he's in the DCU and everything. Just like Disney billed Kim Possible as a teen superhero.


When you think about it, the only way even the big-budget live-action movies have been able to compete with the "special effects" of Justice League Unlimited has been to animate them. True, it's a lot more realistic looking computer animation, but it's animation all the same. It's relatively obvious animation when Neo battles multiple Agent Smith's in The Matrix Reloaded, for example. Or how about how many people complained about the CG-Hulk in the same-titled big-budget movie a few years ago? Animating space ships for live-action is one thing, but it takes a big budget to make CG-animated people that can pass for live-action. That sort of compliments both our arguments. I think CG is best when it's used to blend live-action actors and objects/settings with CG characters/objects/settings. One thing that irked me about JLU were the jets, which you could tell were CG because of how they stood out from the 2D animation/backgrounds, but the Ents in Lord of the Rings looked pretty real since the background and actors were also realistic looking. What animation can't attain on its own (realism), it can be achieved when paired with live-action to augment it.

Though I wouldn't use Clone Wars as an example.. that was over-the-top even for Star Wars (Overpowered Jedi taking out 100s of people, jumping around like they can fly, over-stylized action, etc) but that's mostly because of Genndy's over-exaggerated style rather than being animated (the new Clone Wars CG DTV looks to be far more realistic/down-to-earth, as Star Wars should be.) So while animation works for the over-the-top stuff, I think a main point was "realistic/serious animation", which you wouldn't want all the over-the-top advantage of animation.

[TKnHappyNess]

Any of the cartoons released now are boring. Some make an attempt as having anime-esque animation, but you can't imitate what's already perfect over in Japan. Plus the cartoons these days are designed for little kids since they assume us older people don't watch cartoons anymore.

[Justy]

While animation is still not readily accepted in the U.S. as a medium for telling challenging stories, the situation has overall improved over the last 20 years, particularly on television. Many good shows have been created in the last few years and some have found a good audience. Unfortunately, most, if not all of these were targeted for an audience below 16. Obvously, I am not considering the numerous prime-time animated shows that have similar formulas (Family Guy, American Dad, Simpsons, etc). A few attempts at serious theatrical animation (Titan AE spring to mind) have been met with less than stellar box office. Until somone breaks through with a successful serious to semi-serious animated feature that has big box office, I'm afraid we'll continue to get the same type of feature, probably in CGI.

It's interesting to note that the Japanese were influenced by Disney films when their animation industry started. Over the years, Disney contiuned making features aimed primarily at families and children, while the industry in Japan found success entertaining audiences on many different age and intelligence levels.

It's my contention that artists (and particularly writers) have been influenced by the rise in popularity and exposure of Japanese animation over the last two decades. While using an anime-style kind of art (Totally Spies, Kappa Mikey, etc) can be considered as parodying, ripping-off, or just genuinely being influenced by anime, the art style can only go so far in making a project popular. It's the writing that's the key and we're seeing a number of shows written by non Japanese that have not only found a large audience, but are considered the best shows of their kind on TV (Avatar: The Last Airbender, Code Lyoko, Oban Star-Racers, and even episodes of Kim Possible and American Dragon: Jake Long). Now if the influence spreads to the execs and suits in charge of green-lighting projects....

Shameless plug starts here:
I will be hosting a panel at METROCON entitled "The Anime Effect" that will focus on the influence anime has had on animation around the world (particularly in the US) since the mid 90s, as well as a "Guilty Pleasures" panel on anime and animation. If you're in the area, hope you'll check them out. More information can be found at www.metroconventions.com (http://www.metroconventions.com).
End of Shamless plug

[Bones Justice]

That sort of compliments both our arguments. I think CG is best when it's used to blend live-action actors and objects/settings with CG characters/objects/settings. One thing that irked me about JLU were the jets, which you could tell were CG because of how they stood out from the 2D animation/backgrounds, but the Ents in Lord of the Rings looked pretty real since the background and actors were also realistic looking. What animation can't attain on its own (realism), it can be achieved when paired with live-action to augment it.

I've never really been bothered by that kind of stuff. The earliest example that I can remember was The New Adventures of Huck Finn (which I saw in re-runs, I ain't that old!). Despite being an obvious blend of live-action and animation, I really enjoyed it. I doubt a lot of their adventures would have been possible "as is" without the animation or a much larger budget. Anyways, I know that many of the 3D models in JLU were obvious but it never bothered me.



Though I wouldn't use Clone Wars as an example.. that was over-the-top even for Star Wars (Overpowered Jedi taking out 100s of people, jumping around like they can fly, over-stylized action, etc) but that's mostly because of Genndy's over-exaggerated style rather than being animated (the new Clone Wars CG DTV looks to be far more realistic/down-to-earth, as Star Wars should be.) So while animation works for the over-the-top stuff, I think a main point was "realistic/serious animation", which you wouldn't want all the over-the-top advantage of animation.

Well, I would use it as an example. How else could Jedi's have kept order in a galaxy with ships and weapons as powerful as shown in the Star Wars universe unless they could do all those amazing feats?

Likewise, what you refer to as "over-the-top" has become the norm for the big-budget live-action movies like The Matrix Reloaded, Spider-man 2, or Superman Returns. The only reason we're not seeing these sorts of "over-the-top" shows on television is due to budget constraints. I have no doubt that shows like The 4400 or Heroes would do bigger action effects if they could afford it. Of course, if they thought people would accept an animated show about super-powered beings, fantasy, or science fiction that was aimed at adults, they could have they could have an even greater freedom than the big-budget live-action films do.

I've often wondered what the response to a mature-themed animated television show would be if they actually previewed and advertised it as being for mature audiences. Or even if they did it for an animated movie in the theaters, what would the response be? I mean, they would need to come right out and say that it's rated R or has mature themes, not for children, what-ever. The only animated movie for adults that immediately comes to mind is Heavy Metal but I don't know what the adverts for it were like. I do remember seeing adverts for Mask of the Phantasm, though, and while the movie wasn't specifically made for adults, it was more mature than the live-action Batman & Robin. Yet the adverts for MOTP probably came across to most adults as a "kid's movie".

[Lavenderpaw]

Maturity can not be described as merely sexual content and an increased amount of violence. No, it has to do with something deeper

I could not agree with you anymore if I tried.

[Gokou Ruri]

It's interesting to note that the Japanese were influenced by Disney films when their animation industry started. Over the years, Disney contiuned making features aimed primarily at families and children, while the industry in Japan found success entertaining audiences on many different age and intelligence levels. And the kid's stuff continues to outsell all the "different age and intelligent" level stuff in Japan, so apparently they're not as far along as America is when it comes to adult animation.


It's my contention that artists (and particularly writers) have been influenced by the rise in popularity and exposure of Japanese animation over the last two decades. While using an anime-style kind of art (Totally Spies, Kappa Mikey, etc) can be considered as parodying, ripping-off, or just genuinely being influenced by anime, the art style can only go so far in making a project popular. It's the writing that's the key and we're seeing a number of shows written by non Japanese that have not only found a large audience, but are considered the best shows of their kind on TV (Avatar: The Last Airbender, Code Lyoko, Oban Star-Racers, and even episodes of Kim Possible and American Dragon: Jake Long). Now if the influence spreads to the execs and suits in charge of green-lighting projects.... So... what you're saying is the only way an American show can have good writing is if it's ripping off Japanese cartoons? That's a very questionable, not to mention insulting statement to be making. Putting it like that really just making it seem like you have a "American shows have no story/Japanese shows always have a story" mindset that is common with a lot of otaku. If you are indeed going to "teach" this stuff at conventions, you should at least do some research first


Likewise, what you refer to as "over-the-top" has become the norm for the big-budget live-action movies like The Matrix Reloaded, Spider-man 2, or Superman Returns. The only reason we're not seeing these sorts of "over-the-top" shows on television is due to budget constraints. Different types of "over-the-top". Luke was never picking up falling jets or flying through the air and moving at hyper-sonic-speed. I was only saying Genndy's Clone Wars isn't good to judge Star Wars because it's not what Star Wars is suppose to be. Mace Windu and Anakin were speeding around and doing a whole bunch of feats that were never in the movies; not because it wasn't possible, but because that's not the physics Star Wars was set in. Sure, animation is better for over-the-top stuff like that, but it was never meant to be like that in the first place, is all I was saying.


I have no doubt that shows like The 4400 or Heroes would do bigger action effects if they could afford it. Of course, if they thought people would accept an animated show about super-powered beings, fantasy, or science fiction that was aimed at adults, they could have they could have an even greater freedom than the big-budget live-action films do. I doubt it. The creator of Heroes said it was always about the drama, not the fights. Just like the comic books he was drawing influence from, the main focus was always the plot and characters, not the flashy super-hero fights. I doubt it would be as popular as it is today if they did focus on the fights rather than drama, since all the fans and critics seem to praise it for the writing, not the fights.

[Bones Justice]

Different types of "over-the-top". Luke was never picking up falling jets or flying through the air and moving at hyper-sonic-speed. I was only saying Genndy's Clone Wars isn't good to judge Star Wars because it's not what Star Wars is suppose to be. Mace Windu and Anakin were speeding around and doing a whole bunch of feats that were never in the movies; not because it wasn't possible, but because that's not the physics Star Wars was set in. Sure, animation is better for over-the-top stuff like that, but it was never meant to be like that in the first place, is all I was saying.

Okay. I disagree with you but I see what you're saying now.

I think there are two reasons why Luke was not doing the stuff from Clone Wars. The first was that the effects were not possibly to portray when Star Wars was made. Oh, they could have done something like it but it never would have looked good. The second is that Luke was not trained to the level that Jedis were when they were at their peak. Clone Wars was a Lucas-sanctioned product, as far as I know.



I doubt it. The creator of Heroes said it was always about the drama, not the fights. Just like the comic books he was drawing influence from, the main focus was always the plot and characters, not the flashy super-hero fights. I doubt it would be as popular as it is today if they did focus on the fights rather than drama, since all the fans and critics seem to praise it for the writing, not the fights.

I agree that Heroes was created to be a drama. But it was also created in an environment with budget limitations that doesn't allow "flashy super-hero fights". The creators knew this going in so they never included what you call "over-the-top". There are plenty of comic books that do stories just as dramatic as Heroes yet also include extreme super-battles; super-powers and drama are not mutually exclusive. Comic books don't have to worry about their effects budget so they can include both.

On the other hand, despite all the drama in Batman Begins or Spider-man, I doubt we will ever see either franchise turn out a dramatic movie about the character that doesn't also include, as you call it, "over-the-top" action. Why? Because the creators know going in that they will have the budget that a show like Heroes will never have.

My other question still stands, too. What if an animated Spider-man 4 was made for the theaters and was rated mature? Could it be sold to the public? What if they said up front, this film is not intended for children? Would it sell? Would it help if Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst did voice-overs and they promoted it as the next in the franchise?

[Gokou Ruri]

My other question still stands, too. What if an animated Spider-man 4 was made for the theaters and was rated mature? Could it be sold to the public? What if they said up front, this film is not intended for children? Would it sell? Would it help if Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst did voice-overs and they promoted it as the next in the franchise? If you mean an R-rated animated film, then I doubt it. Even live-action R-rated movies don't do nearly as well as PG-13 and below movies. You really need the kid demographic watching if you want it to be a real box-office hit, like Spider-Man and Pirates of the Caribbean are. If it was PG-13, then it'd have a much better chance.

[CartoonSage]

Man, this is still going on?...

The fact of the matter is that animation is in a fixed state right now, we have nothing but kiddie crap on t.v.. Cartooon Network and Nick are obiously comfortable with their current position because for the past 7 or 8 years all we've seen is garbage spewing out of them (except for a SMALL handful of exceptions) and as for movies, mainstreamers and the movie industry have this thing about animation, it seems that they think anmated films can ONLY be made for children and not for adults, or both! Also in the case of CG vs. 2D, people (mainstreamers and movie execs) seem to think that 2D animation is "a thing of the past" and that CG is the only choice for feature films (which isn't true). And another thing, animation also seems to be a "tool" of sors to the people who work on them, These people aren't the least bit passionate about cartoons and/or animation (like the people who work on EVERY Comedy Central cartoon... yes even South Park, I said it!) no one cares about timing, bounce and streach or any of the 12 principals anymore (except for features).

And also I've come to a conclusion about adult cartoons (that you all probibly already know), adults don't care about animation itself (pretty much all the adult swim origionals are prime examples) All adults care about is the writting and diolouge (sp?)

As for animated drama I think that anime series like GitS and Evangelion are about as close as were EVER going to get.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of it.. I'm just tired of it. I'm very pasionate about animation, as I'm sure everyone else is, and I want to see change, I want to see cartoons on t.v. that adults and kids can enjoy like in the 90's I want to see "good" 2D movies again and a LITTLE less CG, and I want to see LESS crappy adult cartoons like Drawn Togother, Stripperella, Lil' Bush and... Ugh the list goes on! As an animation enthusist I can truely say that if someone doesen't do something animation will never evolve into something better.

[Antiyonder]

Now I can see why animation isn't aimed squarely at adults (Aside from say Family Guy, American Dad and Adult Swim), but how can making a cartoon for all ages be a financial risk? You'd still have the kids who buy merchandice related to show, plus the adults who who like a full DVD set. The only difference between it being for kids only and all ages, is that you have a higher audience number.

[CartoonSage]

Now I can see why animation isn't aimed squarely at adults (Aside from say Family Guy, American Dad and Adult Swim), but how can making a cartoon for all ages be a financial risk? You'd still have the kids who buy merchandice related to show, plus the adults who who like a full DVD set. The only difference between it being for kids only and all ages, is that you have a higher audience number.


EXACTLY!! I don't get it either it seems Nick and CN are just stuck on stupid, altough, Ivader ZIM was a cartoon that was enjoyable to adults but was ment for kids.. and look what happened to that...

[Chris Wood]

It's not taken seriously because adults assume animation is kids stuff and thus no one bothers making mature programming. It's hard to change people's perceptions of a medium when they refuse to watch it in the first place.

[Justy]

And the kid's stuff continues to outsell all the "different age and intelligent" level stuff in Japan, so apparently they're not as far along as America is when it comes to adult animation.

Sales is not the issue--I'd venture to say that Pokemon video sales dwarf, say, GitS video sales in the U.S. How does this make America farther along than Japan as far as adult animation is concerned? I'm talking about the fact that, until fairly recently, the overwhelming majority of animated programming for American television and animated features created by American producers were targeted exclusively for children and family audiences. Only in the last decade or so have we seen attempts at targeting teens and young adults (Titan AE spring to mind for films and both Justice League series for television). The fact that exposure to the art and/or storytelling devices used in Japanese animation over the last decade has had an influence on today's artists and writers (some, of course...not all) is undeniable...


So... what you're saying is the only way an American show can have good writing is if it's ripping off Japanese cartoons? That's a very questionable, not to mention insulting statement to be making. Putting it like that really just making it seem like you have a "American shows have no story/Japanese shows always have a story" mindset that is common with a lot of otaku. If you are indeed going to "teach" this stuff at conventions, you should at least do some research first

How are shows like Avatar: The Last Airbender, Code Lyoko, and Oban Star-Racers "ripping off" Japanese cartoons? Are recent shows with excellent writing (Kim Possible, Ben 10, Dave the Barbarian, Brandy and Mr Whiskers) doing the same? I tend to think it is more the bar being raised by a more sophisticated product. There are shows that do kind of "rip off" anime--Totally Spies, Martin Mystery, Shuriken School--that aren't very good or average at best. Those can be rightly criticized (I do kind of like Kappa Mikey, though--it's more a homage to the format than a straight "rip off").

As someone who has been watching animation (TV and feature) for over 40 years, I have seen a lot of phases. The early 60s cartoons (Hanna Barbara and other studios) were great, but I knew I was seeing something different when watching shows like Astroboy, Gigantor, Kimba, and Marine Boy, even at that young an age. In my teens during the 70s, there were many good animated shows and movies, but the ones that really caught my eye were things like Battle of the Planets and, particularly, Star Blazers. Is it just a coincidence that awesome series like Gargoyles and Batman: The Animated Series appeared a few years after Robotech had laid the groundwork and exposed young viewers to a character-driven story instead of just a lot of disjointed fighting sequences (GI Joe, edited Transformers, etc)? I tend to think not. I consider my years of watching these trends, as well as the 20 years I have been involved in anime fandom (clubs, con viewings, con organizing, etc) more than enough research to express my views on this at a con panel.

[Dudley]

I don't know about ya'll, but I think things are improving to change people's opinion on cartoons. Thanks to Adult Swim, South Park, and mostly Family Guy, and action shows like Justice League, I've met a lot of adults, in their 20s and older, who are enjoying those cartoons. People will never be as enthusiastic about cartoons as we are, but I think progress is definitely being made to get people to view cartoons as more than just kids stuff.

What needs to be done now is release more animated movies that aren't G or PG to theaters in wide release.

[Gokou Ruri]

EXACTLY!! I don't get it either it seems Nick and CN are just stuck on stupid, altough, Ivader ZIM was a cartoon that was enjoyable to adults but was ment for kids.. and look what happened to that... The problem with that statement is that any show can be "enjoyed by adults". Spongebob is enjoyed by adults, Hannah Montana is enjoyed by adults, Avatar is enjoyed by adults. So it really doesn't mean anything. It's not like there's some guideline a show has to follow to appeal towards adults, it all comes down to the individual. I know adults who hated Zim, so there is really no "general conscience" to appeal.


Sales is not the issue--I'd venture to say that Pokemon video sales dwarf, say, GitS video sales in the U.S. How does this make America farther along than Japan as far as adult animation is concerned?. Sales equate to popularity, which is basically how widespread and accepted something is. Like I said, the fact adult shows like Family Guy, Simpsons, American Dad, and other similar shows are in the top ratings, while no adult shows at all are in Japan's top ratings, would suggust more American adults watch and enjoy animation. Animation has just as big of a stigma, in fact, probably more of a stigma in Japan than America (Look up Tsutomu Miyazaki, he pretty much gave animation a very bad stigma). That's why Death Note is stuck in a 2 AM slot where only the most hardcore otaku in Japan will watch it. Yet, people use it as an example of "mature animation" being accepted in Japan... 2 AM doesn't sound very "accepted" to me. Japan can make all the "adult animation" it wants, but if no one watches it, it doesn't really mean anything at all.



How are shows like Avatar: The Last Airbender, Code Lyoko, and Oban Star-Racers "ripping off" Japanese cartoons? Are recent shows with excellent writing (Kim Possible, Ben 10, Dave the Barbarian, Brandy and Mr Whiskers) doing the same? I tend to think it is more the bar being raised by a more sophisticated product. There are shows that do kind of "rip off" anime--Totally Spies, Martin Mystery, Shuriken School--that aren't very good or average at best. Those can be rightly criticized (I do kind of like Kappa Mikey, though--it's more a homage to the format than a straight "rip off"). Totally Spies "rips off" Charlie's Angels and James Bond, actually (Though I'd call it more of a "parody" myself) Shuriken School I don't find anything having to do with Japan's animation, and Kappa Mikey is a given since that's the whole premise of the show. Martin Mystery I can't comment on since I've only seen about two episodes.


Is it just a coincidence that awesome series like Gargoyles and Batman: The Animated Series appeared a few years after Robotech had laid the groundwork and exposed young viewers to a character-driven story instead of just a lot of disjointed fighting sequences (GI Joe, edited Transformers, etc)? Batman: The Animated Series was based on the Tim Burton movies and the original comic series. Greg Weisman is also a comic book writer/fan, so it's nothing new to him. So yeah, I'd call it a coincidence.

[Antiyonder]

The problem with that statement is that any show can be "enjoyed by adults". Spongebob is enjoyed by adults, Hannah Montana is enjoyed by adults, Avatar is enjoyed by adults. So it really doesn't mean anything. It's not like there's some guideline a show has to follow to appeal towards adults, it all comes down to the individual. I know adults who hated Zim, so there is really no "general conscience" to appeal.

True any show can be enjoy, but the ones you listed succeed more than others. What determines whether or not all age groups is if the writer and the rest of the creative team enjoy putting the show. That doesn't mean everyone will enjoy it, but it ensures that the majority will.

Since Gargoyles and Batman The Animated Series has been brought up, why do you suppose those shows are fondly spoken throughout the fandom for the most part? Character oriented stories, dark tones, story arc formats? Doesn't hurt, but those aren't the exact reasons as most would think. It's because the people behind them enjoyed putting the show together as much as the viewers enjoy watching.

As Greg Weisman would put it, how can you expect others to enjoy the results of your work if you didn't enjoy doing it yourself? As for why Bruce Timm wanted to do all of those shows, sure he needed to make a living, but one of the Batman Beyond commentaries has him saying that these are the kind of shows he would have wanted to see in his childhood.

Shows that guarantee (not promise) all age groups enjoyment are the ones that the crew enjoy making as opposed to the disgruntled types who say, "It's just a stupid cartoon, give me my freakin paycheck."

[launchpad25]

Quite frankly, I'm tired of it.. I'm just tired of it. I'm very pasionate about animation, as I'm sure everyone else is, and I want to see change, I want to see cartoons on t.v. that adults and kids can enjoy like in the 90's I want to see "good" 2D movies again and a LITTLE less CG, and I want to see LESS crappy adult cartoons like Drawn Togother, Stripperella, Lil' Bush and... Ugh the list goes on! As an animation enthusist I can truely say that if someone doesen't do something animation will never evolve into something better.I feel the exact same way about the current state of animation as you do. :(

The problem with that statement is that any show can be "enjoyed by adults". Spongebob is enjoyed by adults, Hannah Montana is enjoyed by adults, Avatar is enjoyed by adults. So it really doesn't mean anything. I don't know about you, but i could never watch 'Hannah Montana'.

[Gokou Ruri]

As Greg Weisman would put it, how can you expect others to enjoy the results of your work if you didn't enjoy doing it yourself? As for why Bruce Timm wanted to do all of those shows, sure he needed to make a living, but one of the Batman Beyond commentaries has him saying that these are the kind of shows he would have wanted to see in his childhood. Maybe, though there's plenty of counter-examples. Jhonen Vasquez hated Invader Zim, and Peter Chung hated working on Rugrats, and those two series seem to be liked by an older crowd.


I don't know about you, but i could never watch 'Hannah Montana'.That's fine, but there's plenty who do. Can't appeal to everyone, after all.

[Jave]

Jhonen Vasquez hated Invader ZimWHAT?!

PROOF. EVIDENCE. NOW.

[Antiyonder]

Then there's of course lack of variety.

Nowadays every cartoon has to be about an insecure kid and their crappy school life. For every Gary Colemen you had Real Ghostbusters, Scooby Doo you had Star Trek The Animated Series, Goof Troops had Bonkers. I mean not every show has to place the target audience in the cartoon.

[HG Revolution]

Maybe, though there's plenty of counter-examples. Jhonen Vasquez hated Invader Zim, and Peter Chung hated working on Rugrats, and those two series seem to be liked by an older crowd.

Jhonen liked Invader ZIM in its first season, but the production problems in the second got him really annoyed (the second season episodes are generally considered to be lower-quality than the first). Peter Chung didn't create Rugrats and mostly worked as an animator, so Klasky and Csupo's opinions of the show carry more weight.

[CartoonSage]

WHAT?!

PROOF. EVIDENCE. NOW.

Well, theres this:
http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Jhonen+Vasquez+invades+SuicideGirls/

But Jhonen didn't hat ZIM he hated nickolodeon.

[Gokou Ruri]

WHAT?!

PROOF. EVIDENCE. NOW. Well, like HG Revolution and the interview Cartoon Sage posted, he more or less hated it near the end because of how horrible the production was and what Zim ended up becoming (a marketable show with Gir plushies and other items). He also mentioned how he hates the fact a bunch of kids and "posers" bother him about it when they never read his other work. Also how after Zim, the only offers he ever got for another show was "make a Zim clone for our network!" and he was basically type-casted when it came to making any other show. It's weird because he'll often switch back and forth from saying he hates the show to "I hate what it did" to "I don't care" or something, like some sort of running joke. It's kind of hard to tell what exactly he's saying since it seems to vary from interview to interview :sweat:. But to me he always seems displeased with Zim and how it turned out.

[Jave]

Well, like HG Revolution and the interview Cartoon Sage posted, he more or less hated it near the end because of how horrible the production was and what Zim ended up becoming (a marketable show with Gir plushies and other items). He also mentioned how he hates the fact a bunch of kids and "posers" bother him about it when they never read his other work. Also how after Zim, the only offers he ever got for another show was "make a Zim clone for our network!" and he was basically type-casted when it came to making any other show. It's weird because he'll often switch back and forth from saying he hates the show to "I hate what it did" to "I don't care" or something, like some sort of running joke. It's kind of hard to tell what exactly he's saying since it seems to vary from interview to interview :sweat:. But to me he always seems displeased with Zim and how it turned out.Yeah, for the info I've gathered myself it seemed he actually enjoyed writing and designing for the show, but couldn't really achieve what he wanted due to Network executives pushing him around. He didn't like most of the end product, but he did like the characters and the show per se.

[Bones Justice]

If you mean an R-rated animated film, then I doubt it. Even live-action R-rated movies don't do nearly as well as PG-13 and below movies. You really need the kid demographic watching if you want it to be a real box-office hit, like Spider-Man and Pirates of the Caribbean are. If it was PG-13, then it'd have a much better chance.

I agree. I'm not talking about making an R-rated animated film, though. Plenty of films that aren't made strictly for kids are rated PG or PG-13, like the movies you mentioned. Mask of the Phantasm was PG, if I recall correctly, yet most adult movie-goers shunned it as a "kid's movie". Yet those same adults were going to see the live-action Batman movies in much greater numbers. I think anyone who's seen Mask of the Phantasm and Batman and Robin will agree that the former has a more mature story. Anyways, I think they did a poor job of advertising Mask of the Phantasm to adults.

In all of the talking about budgets and everything else, I never got the chance to say that I personally think superhero films look better animated anyways. I much prefer the look of Superman The Animated Series to that of any of the feature films, for example. I did enjoy all of the Reeve's Superman films but they were no match for the animated Superman, in my opinion.



Batman: The Animated Series was based on the Tim Burton movies and the original comic series.

I have to disagree with you on this one. The animated series is not based upon the Burton films at all; the only thing the two have in common is that they are both based upon the comic book character. Batman by Burton did a lot to greenlight the animated series but otherwise, they are very different versions of Batman. The supporting characters are very different, as well.



What needs to be done now is release more animated movies that aren't G or PG to theaters in wide release.

I'd like to see that happen but unfortunately, I don't think anyone can convince the studios to do it. Anything not "kiddie-stamped" tends to fail at the box office in the USA.



It's not taken seriously because adults assume animation is kids stuff and thus no one bothers making mature programming. It's hard to change people's perceptions of a medium when they refuse to watch it in the first place.

I totally agree. That's why I'd like to see somebody try a PG-13 animated movie that is very blunt about the fact that their movie isn't just for kids. Look at the movie Titan AE, for example. One look at the advert and most people have got to be thinking "rated G", "kid's movie", "family film", etc. Why? Because it's animated. It doesn't even matter if they say "rated PG" in the advert, though, that's never enough to get the point across.

---

In all of the talking about budgets and everything else, I never got the chance to say that I personally think superhero films look better animated anyways.

[Gokou Ruri]

I agree. I'm not talking about making an R-rated animated film, though. Plenty of films that aren't made strictly for kids are rated PG or PG-13, like the movies you mentioned. Mask of the Phantasm was PG, if I recall correctly, yet most adult movie-goers shunned it as a "kid's movie". Yet those same adults were going to see the live-action Batman movies in much greater numbers. I think anyone who's seen Mask of the Phantasm and Batman and Robin will agree that the former has a more mature story. Anyways, I think they did a poor job of advertising Mask of the Phantasm to adults. I never saw Mask of the Phantasm in theathers, and I was a kid, so I suppose I have to agree about the advertisements, since I didn't even know about it until it came to DVD. :sweat:


In all of the talking about budgets and everything else, I never got the chance to say that I personally think superhero films look better animated anyways. I much prefer the look of Superman The Animated Series to that of any of the feature films, for example. I did enjoy all of the Reeve's Superman films but they were no match for the animated Superman, in my opinion. The Superman movies haven't really been good in general, in my opinion. Superman Returns tried to focused more on the drama than the fights, which is really the main reason people go to see the movies, to be honest here, the drama is secondary. There wasn't any fighting at all in it. I found Fantastic Four to be a more enjoyable movie than it. So I agree, I prefer the animated Superman stuff like Fletcher's and Timm's series.


I have to disagree with you on this one. The animated series is not based upon the Burton films at all; the only thing the two have in common is that they are both based upon the comic book character. Batman by Burton did a lot to greenlight the animated series but otherwise, they are very different versions of Batman. The supporting characters are very different, as well. Sure, they're different, but Timm and Dini have often noted their influence/dependency on the movie for the existence of their series.


The stablished its own identity separate and distinct from original series was partially inspired by Tim Burton's 1989 blockbuster Batman film, and initially took as its theme a variation of music written by Danny Elfman for the film (later episodes of the series used a new theme written in a similar style by Shirley Walker). Another strong influence was the acclaimed Superman cartoons produced by Fleischer Studios in the 1940s. The series premiered in 1992, a few months after the successful release of the second Batman movie, Batman Returns. Although the creators behind Batman: The Animated Series are quick to point out that without the Tim Burton movies this show might never have been made, their Batman quickly Burton's stylized but substantially empty movies. The movies, which might be bad when you watch them now, basically paved the way for a darker, more serious Batman to be accepted in the mainstream society, where most non-comic book readers always associated him with the goofy Adam West's incarnation.

[launchpad25]

I agree. I'm not talking about making an R-rated animated film, though. Plenty of films that aren't made strictly for kids are rated PG or PG-13, like the movies you mentioned. Mask of the Phantasm was PG, if I recall correctly, yet most adult movie-goers shunned it as a "kid's movie". Yet those same adults were going to see the live-action Batman movies in much greater numbers. I think anyone who's seen Mask of the Phantasm and Batman and Robin will agree that the former has a more mature story. Anyways, I think they did a poor job of advertising Mask of the Phantasm to adults.I should consider myself luck to have seen 'Mask Of The Phantasm' on the big screen instead of 'Batman & Robin'. 'Phantasm' was clearly the better of the two.
That's why I'd like to see somebody try a PG-13 animated movie that is very blunt about the fact that their movie isn't just for kids. Look at the movie Titan AE, for example. One look at the advert and most people have got to be thinking "rated G", "kid's movie", "family film", etc. Why? Because it's animated. It doesn't even matter if they say "rated PG" in the advert, though, that's never enough to get the point across.Which was a real shame because 'Titan A.E.' was such a bold film that dared to be mature, and an animated Sci-Fi movie. Very underrated film in my opinion.
Superman Returns tried to focused more on the drama than the fights, which is really the main reason people go to see the movies, to be honest here, the drama is secondary. There wasn't any fighting at all in it. I found Fantastic Four to be a more enjoyable movie than it. So I agree, I prefer the animated Superman stuff like Fletcher's and Timm's series.I agree that 'Superman Returns' was a big letdown for me. Mostly due to the drama outweighing the action, and the issue of Superman having a kid out of 'wedlock' among amy other questionable flaws.
Sure, they're different, but Timm and Dini have often noted their influence/dependency on the movie for the existence of their series. The movies, which might be bad when you watch them now, basically paved the way for a darker, more serious Batman to be accepted in the mainstream society, where most non-comic book readers always associated him with the goofy Adam West's incarnation.I have a friend who only likes the Adam West 'Batman', and could not get into the dark, serious incarnations of the character. He's probably dosen't know that much about the comics because he only knows these characters through syndicated reruns on television. So i had to explain his origin to him, and why he dresses like a bat. (Bats aren't suppose to be funny.)

[Antiyonder]

Yeah, for the info I've gathered myself it seemed he actually enjoyed writing and designing for the show, but couldn't really achieve what he wanted due to Network executives pushing him around. He didn't like most of the end product, but he did like the characters and the show per se.

Have their been any shows that were head by those like Weisman and Timm, who didn't do so good a job putting a show together?

[Cactusjack1999]

One single word:

Disney.

[Bones Justice]

I never saw Mask of the Phantasm in theathers,

It was sad. When I saw it, the theater was mostly empty except for some kids. Compared to when I saw Batman, which was packed with adults. Now, I liked Batman; it's the only live-action Batman movie that I really enjoyed. I saw the next two in the theaters and they really stunk but they were also packed with adults. I kept thinking they did not know what they were missing (Phantasm). I skipped out on Batman and Robin but saw it years later on cable; it really stunk, too. I saw Batman Begins on DVD and thought it was okay but too fanboy-ish for my tastes.



The Superman movies haven't really been good in general, in my opinion. Superman Returns tried to focused more on the drama than the fights, which is really the main reason people go to see the movies, to be honest here, the drama is secondary. There wasn't any fighting at all in it. I found Fantastic Four to be a more enjoyable movie than it. So I agree, I prefer the animated Superman stuff like Fletcher's and Timm's series.

Agreed, totally. But I even meant that I prefer the look of most animated Superman projects to the live-action stuff. I don't know if it's because he started as a 2D image in a comic book or what it is, but he just seems more right that way. For what it's worth, I thought Supes looked alright in 3D in the PS2 game, Shadow of Apokolips, but it was intentionally made to look like Superman: The Animated Series.




The movies, which might be bad when you watch them now, basically paved the way for a darker, more serious Batman to be accepted in the mainstream society, where most non-comic book readers always associated him with the goofy Adam West's incarnation.

It's funny that you mention that because I grew up watching Adam West Batman re-runs as a kid. But I was too young to realize what "camp" was and thought they were serious stories. I have not watched them as an adult so I don't know what I would think of them now. But I recognize that the tone is a lot different.


I should consider myself luck to have seen 'Mask Of The Phantasm' on the big screen instead of 'Batman & Robin'. 'Phantasm' was clearly the better of the two.

Yeah, it was great, wasn't it? Heck, they could probably show it in theaters now and the general public would think it was new. Do you remember the adverts on television? I didn't realize it at the time but thinking back on it, they never tried to "sell" the movie as a feature for adults. They shouldn't have to do that except for the perception that most adults in the USA had (or still have) towards animated movies. I'm sure a lot of adults that had seen the live-action Batman movies just ignored the adverts for Phantasm because they assumed animated = kid's movie.



Which was a real shame because 'Titan A.E.' was such a bold film that dared to be mature, and an animated Sci-Fi movie. Very underrated film in my opinion.

Same thing happened with this movie. When I saw it, it was mostly kids in the theater. It wasn't my favorite scifi movie but it was alright. I thought it had a lot of concepts that probably went over the heads of much of the young audience there.

By the way, have you ever seen Starchaser: The Legend of Orin? Great movie and another example of an animated scifi movie meant for an older audience than it probably got.



I agree that 'Superman Returns' was a big letdown for me. Mostly due to the drama outweighing the action, and the issue of Superman having a kid out of 'wedlock' among amy other questionable flaws.

Yeah, I was disappointed in Superman Returns. I don't think most adults realize that the animated series from the 1990's totally owns all of the live-action stuff both in story and action/adventure. But it's hard to get adults to even sit down and watch any of it because it's animated.



(Bats aren't suppose to be funny.)

What about Bartok The Magnificent? :p Only joking, I never saw that sequel though I did go with my S.O. to see Anatasia in the theater. That's not really my kind of film but she really enjoyed it. I have to say that except for the villain, it was an impressive animated film with lots of drama that adults could enjoy. I'm not sure how it did at the box-office but I recall the theater being a lot fuller than for Mask of the Phantasm.

[Alex Toon]

One single word:

Disney.
I wouldn't go so far as to say Disney's the only problem, but you have a point.
Look at how much Disney changed from the stories their movies were based on. From what I know, Pinocchio was supposed to have been killed in the original,and Sleeping Beauty was raped by the man who saved her. IMO,the only "Disney-fied"movie that actually keeps close to the original source is Mulan

[Bakasama]

I wouldn't go so far as to say Disney's the only problem, but you have a point.
Look at how much Disney changed from the stories their movies were based on. From what I know, Pinocchio was supposed to have been killed in the original,and Sleeping Beauty was raped by the man who saved her. IMO,the only "Disney-fied"movie that actually keeps close to the original source is Mulan

uh, I read the earliest version of "Sleeping Beauty", "Sun, Moon, and Talia". The man doesn't save her, he just rapes her and she gives birth to twins months later. One of them sucked out the poisoned splinter and then she wakes up. Then she goes looking for the father of the twins.

You should understand by the time Disney got around to that story, Sleeping Beauty was already a more sanitized version of the original story. Although I do remember a version where the wicked witch was condemned to wear red hot iron shoes and danced until she died.