Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
The rest of the forum suffers from the "a jack of all trades is a master of none" syndrome. You can talk about anything, but the quality of the discussion is far below that of a dedicated forum whose users are well-versed in the subject matter. Compare a real animation forum, for example, to the "everything before Batman and Gargoyles was crap" crowd of TV Tropes' Western Animation forum.
@Moe Dantes: The Western Animation forums have seriously calmed down. When I first joined in 2009, it seemed like they were full of Nostalgia Filter stuff. Anything made after 1999 was pure crap, except A:TLA and maybe Phineas and Ferb.
I only frequent the video game subforum's Touhou threads (and the general one I only thread hop now and then) and the Spanish Spanish Speakers who Speak Spanish Thread. As of recently I only use the wut thread to post something wut-worthy I found to it (which I don't think will happen often), I also refresh Yack Fest often even though I rarely even click on threads, and less often do the same on OTC. I no longer visit IJAM.
If you ever consider coming back, Trope Repair Shop could definitely use some more people there to help out (at least with stuff like crowners). I understand if that is not your cup of tea though.
I tend to agree with Noimporta about some of the stuff being described not being so bad. Still, I cannot say I like IJBM being deleted either. That being said, I try to stay out of "discussion" threads these days which might give me a rather warped perspective on what the forum is like.
After IJBM was deleted, I felt most of the forum ended up becoming a place where nothing happened, and thus I eventually found the place not to my taste. Also, I wanted to scrub away the "young nerd" label.
Though I wanted to end on a good note, since too often people either vanish into thin air or go out on a sour note, whether it's an angry "I'M LEAVING FOREVER!" rant or a series of inappropriate posts leading to a ban.
Seriously? I thought that was strictly my thing.
The experience I've had is people acting like there were no good cartoons before 1993 and that we've been in a neverending golden age ever since, with every new cartoon that comes out being "OMG mature and innovative" for doing things that have been done a million times before.
If you wonder why that's face-palming, then do yourself a favor and re-watch the original Thundercats
It was pretty awesome by 80s cartoon standards, but we're so far beyond that these days that there's little comparison to be made.
What gets me about statements like that is that if there was an alternate universe where Thundercats was made today, but it was the exact same show that you and me got in 1985, then it would be considered pretty revolutionary.
The point I was making was that the guy was saying the new show would be better for having actual continuity and anime-style visuals. The problem with that is that the original had both of those things in droves. You might as well say Dean Koontz Frankenstein is better than Mary Shelley's because its actually a book.
As for the idea that eighties had low standards (which you seem to be implying), this is the decade that brought us the Secret of Nimh and the Land Before Time, heroes who had personalities outside of being generic goody-goods and villains who actually had real histories and backstories and would actually behave like human beings at times. This was when dubbed anime would actually leave in mentions of death (and Robotech actually got away with a few "Damns" and some sorta-nudity in one episode) and even cartoons that were written and produced entirely by Americans would try to deal with that and other touchy subjects--granted, often hamfistedly (its still American after all) but sometimes surprisingly well-done as well.
Yet most animation fans for some reason see the 1990s as when animation started to rise. You know, the decade which was characterized by entirely ignoring the direction the 80s was going and deciding that the theatrical shorts of old were somehow animation's zenith, which got us tons of painfully unfunny shows that fell back on pop-culture references, slapstick and gross-out. What says it all about the 1990s is that people have somehow convinced themselves that Animaniacs was sophisticated and had adult humor (you know, the show where whole segments were dedicated to Wakko burping) and still get impressed with Gargoyles and Batman, even though neither did anything you hadn't seen before in Ralph Bakshi or Don Bluth movies or, indeed, in Jonny Quest, which was from 1969.
But at least the 1990s was fun, I'll give 'em that (though I honestly can't see how either Animaniacs or Gargoyles have fans)
What says it all about today's animation is that people are still impressed with the same god-damn stuff that they were 20 years ago. A cartoon has realistic firearms or any semblance of continuity, even if its badly done or used in a premise that is more hindered than helped by it? Instant adulation from the fanbase, even though these were the exact same things we praised in Batman and Gargoyles decades earlier. It's like animation fans live in their own version of Neverland, constantly forgetting what things have been done. This is even before you bring up that western animation has been running in its own special olympics for years, and no matter what achievements it makes its all probably been done and done better by some anime from the 1970s that you never heard of because America likes to pretend its the only culture that exists.
... Hey, think we should spin this off into its own thread?
Which says it all, really.
Don't get me wrong, the 80s produced some marvelous animated films. The Flight of Dragons is one of my favourite movies to this day. But the cartoons were all pretty much merchandise-driven and lacked consistency and much of an overarching plot. I remember a time when it was considered particularly awesome for a cartoon to have any plot references to previous episodes.
I remember a time when I thought having a plot was wow-worthy. But after awhile you've seen it so many times, and realize that a lot of things that lack overarching plots are still good. The Sherlock Holmes stories, the Cthulhu mythos, Ranma 1/2, and so on and so forth. Not everything needs a plot. In fact, just like anything else, trying to shoehorn a plot where it doesn't belong can hurt the work rather than make it better.
Honestly, I'm glad a lot of eighties cartoons are continuity-free. It means I'm not committed, and I'm not in danger of being confused by an episode just because I didn't see or don't remember something that happened in another episode. The continuity callbacks, when they exist, become just a fun thing to notice instead of something you need to know. Not to mention, most of the time when western animation has a "plot" at all, it's a pretentious attempt to appeal to the anime crowd, and they cock it up beyond salvation.
It says it all that the best cartoon in recent years--a certain show about technicolor diminutive horses--actually intentionally ignores continuity when it gets in the way of a story.
By the way, I may have only name-dropped some films, but some actual television shows did some impressive things too. And did it within a 30-minute time limit. You'd be surprised how much story can be told in a short time in the hands of someone who knows what he (or she) is doing.
In a story meant to be taken more seriously, though, I can't see how plot could harm it. I mean, the plot is the thing. It's like saying that characterisation can hurt a show or film. Yes, bad characterisation and bad plot can hurt a thing, but if we're using that subtext, so can a lack of good plot and good characterisation. If we pick and choose, this discussion will get way too confusing.
Two shows which play with different levels of plot I like are Samurai Jack and Samurai Champloo. The first has a consistent goal which drives each individual plot, but those individual plots are mostly disconnected. It works because there's an active goal -- get back to the past to defeat the bad guy and prevent the future from happening. The second has an overarching plot punctuated by a lot of characterisation episodes and nonsense, which works on the basis of either audience interest or humour. There's perhaps seven or eight plot episodes in a series of 26, but there's enough to keep us going since we're driving towards a goal and getting that goal "fed" every once in a while. They're effective shows for different reasons, but the common factor between them is a known origin point and a hypothetical, rational conclusion.
But you can see how plot provides a conflict that creates audience interest. To contrast, this is the failing of K-On! Without a central plot or central conflict, it essentially becomes a show about four attractive teenage girls being cute. There's no draw unless you're part of a
paedoniche audience. Stories of all kinds tend to work best with a clear, central conflict.I feel you're being a little cheeky with the Cthulhu and Sherlock comment, though. They don't have huge continuity, but they do relate to the other stories in the series at times and at least tend to be consistent. Each individual story also presents a clear conflict. The length of each story also goes beyond what could be contained in a 30-minute feature, too. Except, given ad breaks, most cartoons as 20-25 minutes long. So we're not really talking something comparable here.
When I go into a work, I'm looking for something to emotionally invest in and I can claim to be part of a majority when it comes to this. A general audience needs a strong plot to give them a compass for where the characters are and where they might end up. Without a plot acting as a limiting factor, characters can do anything and you lose a whole lot of tension.
Though, keep in mind that K-On, Lucky Star et al do have fans, who do in fact take the characters and their worlds quite seriously. You do wrong to suggest that just because they don't seek emotional investment in the same things you do, that they're not seeking it (or don't obtain it) at all.
I'm not really sure why the 30 minute time limit would even be an issue. I've seen more than enough episodes of Ranma and Detective Conan to know that compelling stories can be told in that timeframe. Its all in knowing how to use it. Actually, I once proved a related point by comparing the 1983 He-Man episode "Disappearing Act" to the 2003 episode "The Courage of Adam." Both episodes have pretty much the exact same plot (in summary: a Bruce Wayne Held Hostage situation which Man-at-Arms partially resolves by building a He-Man robot. The difference is that the 1983 version has a number of subplots that help flesh the story out, while the 2003 version sticks to just the bare bones). Both episodes are probably online somewhere, if you want to compare them for yourself.
The 30 minute time limit is okay, but it relies on characters and the setting having been set up previously. Telling a complete, self-contained story with new characters and concepts in 30 minutes really isn't optimal.
One issue I have with the setup of many of those 80s cartoons (including the ones you mentioned) is that the protagonists are passive. Their plots generally revolve around waiting for the bad guys to do something and then reacting, ad nauseum. Again and again and again. In most great heroic stories, the antagonist starts by doing something that garners a reaction from the main character, but otherwise the main character continues to define their own actions. Luke Skywalker doesn't wait at the Rebel base for Vader to just do shit, and Frodo doesn't just sit around waiting to be poked by Orcs.
That's a given, isn't it? I don't think anybody is suggesting there should be a cartoon that introduces entirely new characters and settings each episode.
Passive heroes can get annoying, but usually I find there's a good in-universe justification for it. Actually, there were a few (most notably an episode of Dungeons & Dragons) where the heroes would be proactive instead of just waiting. In any case, the "passive hero" problem hasn't really gone away.
That would be Star Wars.
Aren't they all lezbins?
Nope, that's simply Hoe Yay, I believe. Apparently they are all straight.
the target audience.
Especially Yui, who already has Gitah.That's the main reason I like Lucky Star (I tried to watch K-On once, but just couldn't get into it).
*Smiles* Star Wars is pretty good, as long as you leave out prequels, EU and special editions.
That's what I was getting at in the first place--Animation fans (particularly at TV Tropes) act like cartoons are constantly getting better, when the reality is that WA really hasn't changed all that much. Fans just like to pick specific stand-out shows and act like they represent a trend, when really they don't.