cartoon network:childs network?---cartoons for children?

[joker]

i think not. but a lot of people seem to think it is. most people think cartoons are aimed only at children, and people give me odd looks when i tell them that, i a 15 year old does watch cartoons. but lets just look at the cartoons for cn for a moment. most of the cartoon cartoons dont seem like childrens cartoons at all, with the exception of power puff girls. there are so many jokes on thsese shows that a child wouldnt get, espacially from dexter, they have all sorts of scenes in the show making fun of stuff from the 80's that most children wouldnt get. im glad i know a lot about the 80s/seen most of the crappy sci-fi horror movies from the 80s or i wouldnt get a lot of the jokes either. and johny bravo, ive noticed a lot of sexual jokes, although small, still they are there and a child wouldnt get those either. and not just the shows on cn but others also. some of the older shows on kids wb(not the garbage they show today) like freakizoid and animainiacs. are filled with jokes aimed at older tv watchers. a good example. in one freakiziod episode freakizoid says "this house is clean" mocking the little old lady from polterguist. most children wouldnt find this funny, i thought it was hysterical. and even nick had some cartoons of its own that were not for children. actually just one, and you know what which one im talking about, ren and stempy. i loved this show, but now it is unwatchable, since its been butchered. aside from all this ranting, do you think there are more cartoons for older viewing audiences than thought to be by the general public? i know i do.

and another question:why do most people think that cartoons are just for children? originaly, loony toons featuring bugs and company, was for adults.

[I.R Joey]

preaching to the converted dude, but you're right. I think we're in for a change though when this generation of kids grows up.

[joker]

sorry, amist all my rambling, my main question was, why do adults/who ever think that cartoons are only for children

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Adults probably think Cartoons are for kids because of the cruddy 70s-80s cartoons. In the 70s, we had stuff like SchoolHouse Rock, and the 80s were full of virtual 'cartoon'mercials, where most series were basically half-hour programs advertising a toy (a good example o' today is Max Steel).
The 90s saw a cartoon revival, and in some way the audience IS growing up a bit-simply look at Toon Zone's members itself as an example; most of us are at least driving age. And yes, the 90s went from commercial shows to more original, more adultish fare-see Animaniacs as an example.
Problem is, today's adults are still remembering the 70s-80s as the cartoon example....

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

A lot of things hold animation back. Truly "adult" programs require a high degree of subtlety, something even veteran animators have told me is difficult to do in animation. Animation is about "exaggeration," or so they say. I agree to an extent, but I think there is a line between over-exaggeration and exaggeration.

I think animation is still trying to find the best way to be subtle without over-exaggerating. The Simpsons is good at times, but it seems animation excels at parodies rather than drama.

Which brings me to what people look for in cartoons. Traditionally, people watch cartoons "for a good laugh." The Simpsons has done nothing to break this stereotype, as good as it was. Occasionally The Simpsons finds emotion in its episodes (though it's been backpedalling as of late) but truly poignant stuff you can take seriously is few and far between.

On the other hand, when you try to tackle something in animation more realistically, people brush it off and say, "Why do this in animation when you can do it live-action?"

So you see, you're d*mned if you do it, and you're d*mned if you don't.

Thoughts? Additions?

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Well said, Jojo. About the only good shot animation has with adults right now is with the Simpsons, and yet they aren't taking chances anymore...seems all the emotion is gone (though I remain confident that we'll starting to get a BIT of an upswing lately). Most other prime-time toons are like Family Guy and Futurama, certainly good for laughing, but for advancing respect of animation for drama or emotion-no...so prime time is surprisingly not a good outlet to enhance non-comedy animated stuff...

....as for switching to live action, well, if they could do that project in animation, I say KEEP it animated. That'll be one of the few ways we can get respect for animation...

[Singin' Stray Cat]

Originally posted by BourgeoisBuffoon
Adults probably think Cartoons are for kids because of the cruddy 70s-80s cartoons. In the 70s, we had stuff like SchoolHouse Rock, and the 80s were full of virtual 'cartoon'mercials, where most series were basically half-hour programs advertising a toy (a good example o' today is Max Steel).
The 90s saw a cartoon revival, and in some way the audience IS growing up a bit-simply look at Toon Zone's members itself as an example; most of us are at least driving age. And yes, the 90s went from commercial shows to more original, more adultish fare-see Animaniacs as an example.
Problem is, today's adults are still remembering the 70s-80s as the cartoon example....

True that. Plus today there's also a handful of rather tame cartoons that are specifically made for very young kids (I'm thinking of shows like "Dragon Tales," "Arthur," and anything on Nick Jr. as I type this). This practice is fine and good, and personally I have no problem with it, but these cartoons do help reinforce the notion that "cartoons" (or any animated programs for that matter) are only for kids, despite lots of examples of the contrary.

However, I think that the idea of cartoons being only for kids is slowly eroding away. For example, when the entertainment writer in the local newspaper here goes over the TV program highlights each evening, he frequently includes episodes of Powerpuff Girls and Cartoon Network premieres (such as Samurai Jack) in the listings. Many times they even make it to the headlines, beating out sitcoms (bleah) and other live-action shows. Other occasional articles in this same newspaper discuss cartoons. I clipped one by a female author who talked about guys' attitudes toward female cartoon characters (such as Jessica Rabbit and even Ms. Pac-Man!) Another one I wish I still had compared the movies Shrek and Tomb Raider, saying basically that in several aspects, Shrek was the superior film.

What I'm saying is, there are a growing number of people that are willing to talk intelligently about cartoons - just like we are here - and not just dismiss them as "mindless kidvid," as one author called it. Let's hope this new attitude toward animation is the one that eventually wins out over time, instead of the pessimistic one that came about because of the cartoon/ad blitz of the '70's and '80's.

[Calhoun07]

Originally posted by joker
sorry, amist all my rambling, my main question was, why do adults/who ever think that cartoons are only for children

The parents who I've seen think this never sit down and watch the cartoons with their children, so I think it's just a lack of understanding or whatever about the medium that keeps them locked in that mind set. But it's interesting to see that these parents who don't watch todays cartoons with their kids will get all nostolgic for cartoons from their child hood. I really don't have an answer of how to get these parents watching todays cartoons to see that there is more than just kid stuff going on in them. But hopefully their kids will grow up with a love for the form and eventually turn them around.

[bushnader666]

Cartoons are supposes to be FUNNY. Not dramatic, not educational, not informative, not sci-fi action, but FUNNY. The greatest cartoons were very funny, in gags, dialogue, drawings, music, etc.

The VERY DECLINE of animated cartoons in the US started in the mid 1950's when studio execs were convinced that cartoons were not really supposed to be funny, that they were just fillers. Budgets plunged. In the 60's, animaton enjoyed a brief renaissance because they needed to be funny once more, but budgets declined and cartoons turned into advertisements. By the 70's, morons decided that cartoons needed to be educational. Quality went down the DRAIN. US aniamation basically died. Nowadays, they outsource the actual aniamtions overseas. As previously mentioned, 80's toons were mostly ads, with some other non-funny cornball fluff. Cartoons were supposed to be safe, soft, cornball, PC, multi-ethnic fests designed to be as PC as possible to attract ad $$$ while avoiding the PC cops.

Ah. The 1990's. A mixed bag. But thanks to the insistance that animation do more than be FUNNY, the magic of the "Golden Age" will NEVER be realized.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Cartoons and animation can be a form of communication that can tell us something that can be more than just a laugh. As long as people do not screw up, we can have animation give drama and emotion as well as comedy. Yes, toons can be funny, but they can also be so much more!

[I.R Joey]

Animation is a means of artistic expression not an entertainment tool for kids.

[Mr. Obsession]

Originally posted by bushnader666
Cartoons are supposes to be FUNNY. Not dramatic, not educational, not informative, not sci-fi action, but FUNNY. The greatest cartoons were very funny, in gags, dialogue, drawings, music, etc.

While I partially agree with your reasons for the decline of animation in the country during the 60's & 70's. I disagree that animation is only supposes to be funny. Yes comedy is where animation began, however comedy is only one genre. Would you restrict all of television to sitcoms, because that's where television started?

[Calhoun07]

I also agree that cartoons can be more than just funny, slapstick comedies, or what have you. Why pigeonhole an entire spectrum of artistic expression into one genre? Maybe the instances where cartoons became less than innovative are valid, but there are also just as many, if not more, examples of cartoons being used as serious expression. Action and adventure, science fiction and fantasy, drama and suspense, these are genres that have outstanding examples in animation of how animated programs and movies outside of comedy can work.

Another thing, and I may be mistaken, but I believe it is primarily an American view that cartoons should be made just for kids, where as in Japan and in the European countries and elsewhere in the world, animation is on par with the serious live action movies that are released side by side with animated features. Likewise with animaton on TV.

[Nightflower]

The pasture on the other side is always greener, eh?

Well, while I agree that the potential of animation is really not being explored, I think sometimes you have to think realistic. Saying that the "tame" cartoons for little kids is not helping the "cause" and reinforcing the mindset that cartoons is for children is a little ridiculous. First of all, the "cause" is practically still on the ground, non-existent. Secondly, even if cartoons are awesome for the general audience ALSO, they're GREAT for kids *especially*. Why mess with a good thing?

I'm not against the idea, in fact I agree with you all. I love animation, and I hope to work in the field (Sheridan college..*crosses fingers*) I think it's an awesome field for superheroes, high fantasy, sci-fi, etc. Its exaggerations and little limits (The only limit is the animators' imagination) is great for comedy. But when it comes to drama... I think drama and more serious issues should be involved within another genre, but not made the key focus. Otherwise, you can do what Jojo said and make it live-action. There are several subtleties that are difficult to replicate in animation, like sexual tension (Well, I guess we'll never know because sex is kept quite closed-lid for children, but there's always Catwoman and Batman).

[bushnader666]

Perhaps I wan't clear on animation vs. cartoons.

I meant that cartoons were supposed to be funny. Animated theatrical cartoons from WB and MGM are the cream of the crop in that category. As for animation, it's a very broad term. But in my opinion, cartoons are the best forms of animation.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Oh....okay! I know what bushnader's talking about. If so, yes, carttons, are still gonna primarily be funny. But they do not just have to be for kids, look at The Critic, Futurama, or The Simpsons. These are more suited for adult tastes...

Hm....well, as for the people in Nightflower's camp, I'm sure animation can still do subtle things, but we need to make it so that animation can prove it is mature enough to handle emotion and the like. It has never gotten the chance to show itself to do drama like that, that's all.

....And I probably flubbed up my argument in paragraph two...

[Tim Drake]

American animation tends to focus on funny and kid friendly because that's where the companies often make their money. The stigma that cartoons are for kids while it is breaking down is still very strong. You really can't blame the companies for caving in. Look at Titan AE. Its a decent animated action film. Its still not very intense and still caters to kids somewhat. I think Fox was hesitant to stray too far from mainstream concepts of animation. It didn't have five musical numbers so it did poorly. Even Disney wasn't able to break the stereotype. The budget for Atlantis their animated action movie was huge but it didn't bring in the same amount of money that Disney is used to.

Ok make a long story short. The stigma of animation in America holds the companies down. I pray for the day when animation gets the respect it deserves like in Japan.

[Jack]

Even though funny cartoons were the norm durring the goilden age of theatrical cartoons, there were still many serious and educational cartoons made. Your tastes may be different, but I think "Peace On Earth" is an excellent cartoon that is quite serious, despite the cute talking animals. It certainly couldn't be made today. Then you have "Fantasia," a fantastic artsy cartoon when you look at every segment individually. There's also "Old Glory," "Hell Bent For Election," "Superman," and the many educational films released by 20th Century Fox (I think that's the company, but I don't recall) that were either funny and education or serious.


Jack

[bushnader666]

And don't forget about WWII-era cartoons like the Snafu ones that had a serious message AND were funny. Cartoons like "Red Hot Riding Hood," "Russian Rhapsody" and "Book Revue" are not kiddy oriented at all. The humor is edgier, the gags sharper, the timing is extremly sharp and the animation is top notch. These are the cream of the crop, in terms of cartoons.

Then there are the cartoons that try to be funny, but absolutely FAIL. (ex. scooby doo ed edd eddy capt planet chuck jones tom and jerrys johnny bravo kids next door daffy speedy 1964+ road runner.............). These are cartoons that stink. Period. Music is canned muzak (or 70-90's pseudo pop), animation is flat and boring, timing is way off, and the gags redefine corniness. Everything is done by committee. Gone are people like Bob Clampett, Tex Avery, Friz Freleng, Carl Stalling, Rod Scribner, Bon McKimson, Mel Blanc......Almost no one wants to be funny. (exceptions: Animaniacs [soon to be mauled by orange Nick blobs], PPG, Dexter's Lab [although overly rerun]) In nearly all animated features, funny or not, big name celebrities MUST provide voices, no matter how little vocal talent (or overall talent) they have.

Now with scooby doo, ed edd eddy and PC censor cops mauling anything they can find, the future of "cartoons" looks grim indeed. Sure, there will be exceptions, but most cartoons today range from mediocre to pure garbage.

[The Mad Hatter]

I can understand what Nightflower is saying. Worldwide, animation's largest fan base is children, and children shouldn't be ignored. Just because animation is made with children in mind doesn't mean that it lower's people's perceptions of the medium.

HOWEVER, I think that the main thing that has dragged animation down for Americans is the difference between something that's truly kid-friendly and a studio exec's perception of kid-friendly.

Example number one: any given Looney Tune. Sure, they're easy to follow and have lots of broad humor that kids eat up with a spoon. But they often contain very witty lines and cultural references that adults can enjoy too. This cartoon is completely kid-friendly, but adults aren't left out either.

Example number two: Zeta. Studio execs really have low expecations for what kids can comprehend, so there aren't any huge plot twists. Character development is nill. Fight scenes are watered down. Is this cartoon kid-friendly? Yes, but adults will find absolutely nothing here that'll keep them interested.

So I think the problem here isn't cartoons that kids can watch. The problem is the all-consuming mandate to make everything so "kid-friendly" that the cartoon becomes condescending and unwatchable to anyone over the age of 12. Come to think of it, this trend may be why Americans buy into the stereotype that cartoons are just for kids, because that's the only people they catered to.