Adventure Time - News & Discussion Thread

[Daikun]

Wait, wait, wait...

Fred Seibert...and CARTOON NETWORK?!

They're actually back together?

[Nexonius]

I guess so. Flapjack and Adventure Time?! How Existential!

Maybe if Frederator can also transfer its Random Cartoons show from Nick and absorb it into CN's Cartoonstitute.

That'll be pretty nice to see.

[Mickialla]

Ummm.....ok.....

This is extremely strange and random. For one, why would Cartoon Network pick up a short that, if it did become a series, would most likely become one at Nick, the home of Frederator?

I haven't seen Adventure Time myself yet, but I've seen stills of it. And from what I've seen, the art looks absolutely horrendous. It looks like it was done on Microsoft Paint. I've already expressed my dislike of the way Flapjack looks, so I'm REALLY going to hate this (Ironically enough, Adventure Time creator Pen Ward does a lot of storyboards for Flapjack . A lot of his style can be seen because he boards a lot of episodes. Episodes like "Kid Nickels" are screaming with Pen Ward's drawing style, which frankly I dislike).

People are saying the short is funny, but to me, it takes more than just comedy to make a good cartoon. The art and character designs play a big part for me, and so does the voice acting. I'm telling you, if this show really is coming to Cartoon Network, they're going to have to change the WHOOLEE look of this show because I'm not feeling it at all. It doesn't fit Cartoon Network whatsoever. At least Flapjack contains SOME of the Cartoon Network style in characters like Flapjack, K'Nuckles, Bubbie, and Peppermint Larry. Everything about Adventure Time looks weird. I'm going to watch the short online on... a video site, and then I'll add to my thoughts on the show, but right now, I'm not content. I've seen Pen Wards work on Flapjack, and his drawing style is very strange. He draws his eyes as dots, and his character's arms are always long and flailing. It's very strange. If this show becomes a series on Cartoon Network, then we'll have TWO weird looking shows revolving around adventure.

----EDIT---: Ok, having just watched Adventure Time, I just simply want to say how funny I found this show to be. The premise is so random and plain old dumb that it's funny. The random outburst of "Rhombus!" and "Mathematical!" are hilarious. And the voice acting and timing and animation isn't bad either.

It's everything about the art that sickens me. I know the art is purposely made to look dumb to add to the hilarity of the short, but I don't feel it. If and when it becomes a series, whether it's produced in-house at Cartoon Network Studios or whether Frederator (Ah, Fred Seibert with Cartoon Network, good times) produces, the character designs need to be revised to look less weird. Especially Jake (the dog) he's the weirdest looking character on the whole show in my opinion.

On a random note, this isn't the first place I've heard that Adventure Time is coming to Cartoon Network. Thurop van Orman (creator of Flapjack) left a reply on his DeviantART page saying that Adventure Time is coming to Cartoon Network.

So, when this becomes a series, we're probably going to have two extremely different, but both EXTREMELY ugly shows based around Adventure. And then we have the Fantasy-Adventure block. Adventure seems to be becoming a major theme at CN.

Just saying it one more time, FIX THE CHARACTER DESIGNS. I HATE UGLY CHARACTERS. That is all.

[Racattack!Force]

This is extremely strange and random. For one, why would Cartoon Network pick up a short that, if it did become a series, would most likely become one at Nick, the home of Frederator?

Um, it is becoming a series. That's what Fred meant. If you go to the Fanboy production blog, you would see that they are already 1/4 way into production for Nick. But I must agree, the art needs to the better. But since there are already a bucketload of Adventure Time T-shirts, I think it's too late for that.

Maybe if Frederator can also transfer its Random Cartoons show from Nick and absorb it into CN's Cartoonstitute.

That would be a dream come true, since some of those shorts are pretty great.

[Mickialla]

Um, it is becoming a series. That's what Fred meant. If you go to the Fanboy production blog, you would see that they are already 1/4 way into production for Nick. But I must agree, the art needs to the better. But since there are already a bucketload of Adventure Time T-shirts, I think it's too late for that.

Well, they can make new T-Shirts!!

Sorry, I just feel like art plays a big role in making a cartoon good. Honestly, if the art was better in this show, it would be one of the best cartoons ever. The thing is, Cartoon Network needs to be the Cartoon Network. It needs to be the place with the best cartoons on TV. That means they need to be good writing-wise and visually as well.
Back in the days when Cartoon Network was just beginning it's Golden Age and Hanna-Barbera was rising up again under the influence of Cartoon Network and Fred Seibert, the What A Cartoon! project helped to make cartoons artist-driven once again. It reverted to the method of the 50's to give power back to the artists to create good cartoons. And what'd we get out of that?? Dexter, Johnny Bravo, Cow and Chicken, Powerpuff Girls and Courage the Cowardly Dog; which became the most popular cartoons of the modern generation. And they started out with the goal of being artist-driven.
Adventure Time, on the other hand, is completely writer-driven. Honestly, I believe a cartoon needs to be both visually appealing and funny at the same time, but look at how good WAC! worked when H-B and Cartoon Network decided to give power back to the artists.

I might just be rambling. All I want is better character designs.

[PC!]

I've seen Pen Wards work on Flapjack, and his drawing style is very strange. He draws his eyes as dots, and his character's arms are always long and flailing. It's very strange.

How is it strange for CARTOON characters to have dot eyes and long, flailing arms?

[Sammie]

How is it strange for CARTOON characters to have dot eyes and long, flailing arms?

I don't think it's strange at all. And Mickialla the Powerpuff girls does not have any hands or feet.They have big eyes and heads with a small body. They also don't have any nosie. There just cartoons. I am just saying that there are alot of good cartoons out there that are drawn crazy and PPGs are one of them.

[Racattack!Force]

Besides, the art style is one of things I like this cartoon for. It's so simple and childish. It like if you told a 8 year-old to draw the craziest thing he could think of and add some stuff he/she learned from school in it.

[Dudley]

The only problem with the art is that the colors are too bright.

[Mickialla]

How is it strange for CARTOON characters to have dot eyes and long, flailing arms?

I don't think it's strange at all. And Mickialla the Powerpuff girls does not have any hands or feet.They have big eyes and heads with a small body. They also don't have any nosie. There just cartoons. I am just saying that there are alot of good cartoons out there that are drawn crazy and PPGs are one of them.

Besides, the art style is one of things I like this cartoon for. It's so simple and childish. It like if you told a 8 year-old to draw the craziest thing he could think of and add some stuff he/she learned from school in it.

The only problem with the art is that the colors are too bright.

Oh c'mon. You guys know the art style is weird. Yes, the Powerpuff Girls have huge eyes with round heads, no hands or feet or fingers or toes, but it's the way that they're drawn that makes them look normal. It sounds crazy, I know. But the way it's inked and the way it's colored and the way it's shaded, if you watched it, you could conclude that it was a professional cartoon made by real animators for TV. Then you take a look at Adventure Time's character designs, it's backgrounds, it's colors and shading. If I didn't know that Adventure Time was made for TV and I saw it on Youtube, I would conclude that it was just another one of those cheap unprofessional flash animation cartoons that are all over the internet (only Adventure Time does have decent animation). Not only are the colors too bright, there's no shading, and the backgrounds are flat. Plus with the Powerpuff Girls, even though the girls look a bit out of place, all of the other characters' limbs and facial features are regular; it's only the girls who look more outrageous. With Adventure Time, everyone looks deformed.

Some people might find the simple, kiddy, Microsoft Paint-y, dot eye and long limb-y style appealing and fresh, but I don't like it. To me I feel like Cartoon Network is the legacy of Hanna-Barbera's Golden Age. That they should mirror the style of Hanna-Barbera's best: Huck, Quickdraw, Flintstones, Jetsons, Yogi Bear. We've seen that "mirroring" in Dexter, Bravo Cow and Chicken, Powerpuff, Grim Adventures, Foster's, even a tad in Chowder and Flapjack. Not with Adventure Time. They need to fix that.

[Space Cadet]

Oh c'mon. You guys know the art style is weird. Yes, the Powerpuff Girls have huge eyes with round heads, no hands or feet or fingers or toes, but it's the way that they're drawn that makes them look normal. It sounds crazy, I know. But the way it's inked and the way it's colored and the way it's shaded, if you watched it, you could conclude that it was a professional cartoon made by real animators for TV. Then you take a look at Adventure Time's character designs, it's backgrounds, it's colors and shading. If I didn't know that Adventure Time was made for TV and I saw it on Youtube, I would conclude that it was just another one of those cheap unprofessional flash animation cartoons that are all over the internet (only Adventure Time does have decent animation). Not only are the colors too bright, there's no shading, and the backgrounds are flat. Plus with the Powerpuff Girls, even though the girls look a bit out of place, all of the other characters' limbs and facial features are regular; it's only the girls who look more outrageous. With Adventure Time, everyone looks deformed.

Some people might find the simple, kiddy, Microsoft Paint-y, dot eye and long limb-y style appealing and fresh, but I don't like it. To me I feel like Cartoon Network is the legacy of Hanna-Barbera's Golden Age. That they should mirror the style of Hanna-Barbera's best: Huck, Quickdraw, Flintstones, Jetsons, Yogi Bear. We've seen that "mirroring" in Dexter, Bravo Cow and Chicken, Powerpuff, Grim Adventures, Foster's, even a tad in Chowder and Flapjack. Not with Adventure Time. They need to fix that.

Except that's limiting the creator's vision when you tell him to change the character designs to match those from previous CN series. One of the good things about animation is that you can have your own unique art style and still make it work. An example is Sheep in the Big City. That show has a much more simpler art style than those shows you mentioned, yet the show was still able to work and be funny.

There shouldn't be some standard that all new CN original series have to meet some criteria before they can be made. The artist should be able to make what he/she wants to make. Doesn't that go against the artist-driven show you were championing a couple posts back?

[Racattack!Force]

Okay Mickialla, time for you to decide. Do you want an artist-driven show or not? Because the current style is the creators vision, and the way he intended it. If you want him to change the style, it wouldn't be artist-driven anymore. So choose dude.

[Mr. Ralph]

i don't see anything wrong with the art style or animation at all. it doesn't have to look like all the other "great" shows just to be good. it has its own charm and i like that!!

[creativerealms]

I vagely remember Adventure time, it was funny. Another potetully good pick up for Cartoon Network.

[Lychii]

Personally, I'd rather have a series with "bad" art but a strong plot rather than a series with "good" art and a weak plot. You can always overlook art. Writing, not so much.

Anywho, this is great news! Hopefully it'll fare well as a series. I'm going to assume that they're going to change the art style a bit for this series. Whoever said it, can you post a link to Thurop saying that AT was going to become a series?

[lemonhead75]

That cartoon was exactly what I would make if I had time, money, and a attention span.

I am going to enjoy this greatly.

[Mickialla]

Except that's limiting the creator's vision when you tell him to change the character designs to match those from previous CN series. One of the good things about animation is that you can have your own unique art style and still make it work. An example is Sheep in the Big City. That show has a much more simpler art style than those shows you mentioned, yet the show was still able to work and be funny.

There shouldn't be some standard that all new CN original series have to meet some criteria before they can be made. The artist should be able to make what he/she wants to make. Doesn't that go against the artist-driven show you were championing a couple posts back?

Okay Mickialla, time for you to decide. Do you want an artist-driven show or not? Because the current style is the creators vision, and the way he intended it. If you want him to change the style, it wouldn't be artist-driven anymore. So choose dude.

Ok, ok! You guys got me on that one. This is Pen Ward's own drawing style. Who am I to say that he should change his style or else I'm not watching it?? I still don't like the art style at all, but I'm still going to watch the show because it's really funny. Even if, to me, the balance between the writers and the artists is not balanced, it completes the creators vision. That doesn't mean I don't uphold my belief that Cartoon Network should uphold a distinct "style" that mirrors the H-B legacy. But I can't hate the show if it doesn't I guess. Besides, I'm sure the art will be tweaked to fit a TV series once it begins production, so maybe it'll look less Microsoft Paint-ish in the future.

[strawberryjuice]

Dude!, no way

I'm so glad this short is becoming a show!! and now on cartoon network, awesome!!

[judyindisguise]

Okay Mickialla, time for you to decide. Do you want an artist-driven show or not? Because the current style is the creators vision, and the way he intended it. If you want him to change the style, it wouldn't be artist-driven anymore. So choose dude.

I think the real question is: is the guy an artist, and is that cartoon art? Because I don't think so. It's hideous. I agree with Mickialla. Flapjack is hard enough on the eyes, and its look is one of the things that keeps me from really digging it, as opposed to being sporadically entertained by it. My nephews plain hate it, which surprised me because they're so into pirates right now. As for AT, I'm sorry, but I think it is yet another example of an artist trying to create a unique vision, only to find that his artistic reach is way beyond his grasp.

And the screeching from that "rainbowcorn" got on my nerves big time.

Personally, I'd rather have a series with "bad" art but a strong plot rather than a series with "good" art and a weak plot. You can always overlook art. Writing, not so much.

As we all discovered with World of Quest. (That waste of potential still hurts me, deep inside ). But in this case, I'm not sure that the writing can overcome the art. Maybe if I close my eyes while "watching" AT and pretend it's radio. Like Prairie Home Companion. With rainbowcorns...

[Mickialla]

I think the real question is: is the guy an artist, and is that cartoon art? Because I don't think so. It's hideous. I agree with Mickialla. Flapjack is hard enough on the eyes, and its look is one of the things that keeps me from really digging it, as opposed to being sporadically entertained by it. My nephews plain hate it, which surprised me because they're so into pirates right now. As for AT, I'm sorry, but I think it is yet another example of an artist trying to create a unique vision, only to find that his artistic reach is way beyond his grasp.

And the screeching from that "rainbowcorn" got on my nerves big time.

EXACTLY!!! Even though I've already said that I should respect the creator's vision, which makes it artist-driven, Pendleton Ward is definitely in the animation industry as a talented WRITER in comparison to a talented ARTIST. Pen Ward did go to California Institute of the Arts (a lot of talented people went there, a lot of them also work(ed) for Cartoon Network) to study animation, but his shorts display talent in writing, not artistry. I was reading an interview with Seth McFarlane (creator of Larry and Steve for WAC!, which became the prototype for Family Guy. He also created American Dad and the Cleveland Show) a few days ago. He was talking about how he was a part of the artist-driven WAC! project and how he felt out of place because he was a writer in animation, not an artist. Of course, the art for Larry and Steve turned out better in his situation, but still. How can a work be artist-driven if the creator isn't an artist, but a writer??