With the rise of progressive animated shows for children and adults these days such as Gravity Falls and Steven Universe, a lot of praise has been spreading around for how entertaining the shows are for balancing heart, development, and comedy. However, there seems to be a vocal backlash towards shows that doesn't live up to the expectations of the people who enjoy progressive shows. If an animated show is comedic without much depth or drama, it is garned as idiotic and for some reason, deserves to be hated by many even though those shows never really harmed anyone. This article would discuss the progression of animated shows through time and make comparisons between shows that are different in their presentations. And determine if they truly are meant to be hated, or are just getting attention from people who are not their intended target audience.
Do you have any examples regarding purely comedic shows that get a vocal backlash. Because I would argue that there are some specific shows out there right now that are purely comedic, and they don't serve much in terms of either good humor, or good taste. And thus somewhat deserve a certain amount of negative press for not putting enough concerted effort into making at least a generally entertaining show. For instance, "We Bare Bears" is by and large a purely entertaining comedic series. It doesn't aim to be anything more, and it does not try to have more than a basic moral message in each of its episodes, if they have one at all. But a purely comedic show like "Pickle and Peanut," is just pure garbage by comparison, and offers nothing of wit or substance to its potential audience. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Basically what I mean is that "We Bare Bears" is an excellent series that fosters good gags and humor. Whereas "Pickle and Peanut" does not. Now what does this say about comedic and even gross-out cartoons of the past? Well those shows still have their moments and their audience. But it was also a different time, and they were perfectly fine in their own era. Today, though, I don't think you can quite present the same kind of gross-out content without upsetting far more people than back in the 90s. And I personally can't stand most of it because honestly, its really unappealing. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I noticed that the tag for this is Teen Titans Go, and while I can see why some would call is idiotic, there might be more to it than that. The reason I can see for Teen Titans Go getting so much backlash is not because it is being comedic; rather, it is because it had a serious predecessor that ran incomplete. There are many DC fans that feel like Cartoon Network is mistreating their DC shows. Teen Titans, canceled; Young Justice, Canceled; Green Lantern Core, canceled; it might be that Teen Titans has been running so long while these other shows got canceled while they were arguably of a higher quality. People that want to see serious ideas in animation will probably steer clear of We Bare Bears and Uncle Grandpa because those are label as comedies, while Teen Titans Go came from a line of serious animations. – garland419 years ago
Are there any theatrical animation studios who you thought did better work when they transitioned to television in the 1950s and '60s, whether for weekend cartoons or television commercials? If so, which ones and why? For example, how does THE BUGS BUNNY SHOW of 1960 compare to the Warner Brothers theatrical cartoons of 1960? How do Terrytoons' television commercials for Piels Beer in 1957 compare to the studio's theatrical cartoons of 1957? How does the DISNEYLAND tv show compare to Disney's theatrical shorts of the 1950s? How do Paramount's tv cartoons for King Features Syndicate between 1960 and 1961 compare to its theatrical work of the period?
Are you raising this question because you want to know which studio had better animation on television compared to others, or better concepts and stories? Because a misconception to be aware about is that most television animation is outsourced to 3rd party companies who work by contract. And so while I think it has been obvious that back in the 1980s and 1990s, Disney had the strongest and most successful tv presence along-side their theatrical productions, most if not all of their tv work was outsourced to Japan and Taiwan. They contracted a fantastic Japanese studio named Tokyo Movie Shinsha (TMS), to create the first season of "Ducktales," "Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers," and the entire short lived series "The Gummie Bears." They also animated the first season of "Inspector Gadget" for DiC. But after those initial seasons, the animation quality dips off quite a bit, because Wang Film Productions began taking over as the sole studio, until periodically, you'll see much more expressive and skillful work by Disney's Austrailian Branch pop in here and there, especially with the show, "Timone & Pumba." So basically, you need to be more clear about what you're really trying to get at with this question, and what you expect people to be researching and talking about when they write this article. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Thanks. I'm talking about theatrical studios that produced for television while still making theatrical cartoons. For example, how does THE BUGS BUNNY SHOW of 1960 compare to the Warner Brothers theatrical cartoons of 1960? How do Terrytoons' television commercials for Piels Beer in 1957 compare to the studio's theatrical cartoons of 1957? How does the DISNEYLAND tv show compare to Disney's theatrical shorts of the 1950s? How do Paramount's tv cartoons for King Features Syndicate between 1960 and 1961 compare to its theatrical work of the period? – drchrisp9 years ago
Okay, then you MUST state that you are talking about a TV presence from that era. Because when I read this, I thought you were referring to things like Dreamworks making films like "Kung Fu Panda," "How to Train Your Dragon," and "Madagascar," and then creating TV shows based on those properties. Or Disney making "Aladdin," "The Little Mermaid," and "The Lion King," and making TV shows based on those, as well as any other original series that followed along-side. Being that you want to talk far more specifically about a time in early television when these studios were still doing all of their animation "in-house"--which allows for a much more reasonable and accurate comparison--you should make the time period very clear in your topic description. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
With equality and the rise of awareness of the LGBTQIA, is Disney heading in the right direction with their films? Should their next princess be part of that, and how would that affect their supporters? Or maybe it's time for the first Disney Prince movie?
What's an example of a princess who is "getting better" so to speak? Or is your topic just saying that they should get better? – Tatijana9 years ago
Oh, interesting! I think 'Mulan' would be a good starting point here, the tale of a girl disguising self as a man and flourishing in a man's role. – CalvinLaw9 years ago
Your last question is provocative. My first instinct was "No, it's little girls that are the primary audience for Disney films!", but then realized that perhaps that's because there are no Disney Prince films. – Katheryn9 years ago
Analyze why Steven Universe is a popular show among several age groups. Main reasons being it's progressive and tolerant writing with well rounded characters who actually develop as the show progresses. However, the show keeps getting pushed aside for shows like Teen Titans Go, which has little to nothing to offer in terms of tolerance and character development. Research why this is and what it could mean for the future of animation if Steven Universe fails at the hands of the network.
I'm actually currently writing a research paper for a college class related to it, specifically examining what Steven Universe has been able to do that Adventure Time has not, specifically regarding gay relationships (the intended relationship between Marceline and Princess Bubblegum that never came to be). That could be another angle to consider. – JMPetrequin9 years ago
You might look into the difference in marketing opportunities between SU and other CN shows. With Teen Titans Go, specifically, they have name recognition with the earlier Titans series, and with that they have the ability to sell a butt-load of toys and games. Despite being arguably the worst thing I've seen, TTG makes money /because/ of how dumb it is. It's an easy show with no real continuity between episodes, and because of that it can be picked up at any time. With SU, however--while you can watch and enjoy any individual episode--there is an over-aching plot that can be missed by a casual viewer. The show also can't bank on recognition from previous sources because the show is doing a lot of "new" things that I'm sure CN has no clue how to market. As a side-note: if they could figure out a way to make toys of character that could actually fuse (kinda like the megazords of early Power Ranger toys), they would be awesome! – waltermccoy919 years ago
Motion comics or comic books? That is the question. Which one does the audience prefer? As you know, it is almost a new form of animation. The earliest example of it was depicted in 2001. How much has it improved? What has made it to improve and what has not? Could motion comics find its place among 2 dimensions forms of animation?
http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/imr/2011/08/04/outrageous-origins-motion-comic
Here is a source I found that others have delved into. Personally, I'm not big into motion comics, but this seems like a great idea for an article. I think the people who write here could turn it into something really unique and entertaining. I'm a fan of history, so I would mention the history of comics and motion comics. Talk about how motion comics became a thing. Talk about the upsides and down sides of them. What if the voices are terrible? What makes it better than comics? Is this a growing industry?
I believe for this article it would be better to pick a side. Sure you can weigh the pros and cons of both and let the audience decide, however, that's boring. It would be better if you had an opinion on it. That way I could have an opinion on your opinion, and so on. – MRose9 years ago
Explore the animation industry and the struggles women have to face to earn recognition. For example, in the movie, Brave, Brenda Chapman was taken off the project despite Brenda being Pixar's first female director for the film. Is the animation industry slowly becoming more accepting of women taking on lead roles? Or is animation 'just for the boys' because of its technical skill?
animation of women does in fact give men the uplift but is also gives the characters more of an interest think about it if men in animations was to be your dream guy or a animated visual of what you like it would make you more indulged into it and etc. – TheOfficialLudd9 years ago
Women in Animation has always been a popular topic. Well, women in any field is a popular topic, whether it's actual women or fictional characters.
I don't know the answer to these questions, but I would certainly like to! Your inside topics could be: History of Animation, jobs for women in animation, possible concerns, why women shouldn't work in animation, why they should, a real life example (like Brenda Chapman), plus some more real life examples. All with your opinion. If you are going to have an opinion that women should be allowed or/and are accepted in the animation industry, then do it throughout your paper. However, if you are giving us history and something to think about, sticking to the facts would be interesting. Of course, whether you clearly state that this is an opinion piece or not, there is always a way for your opinions to slip through. – MRose9 years ago
During the creating of "The Fox and the Hound" Don Bluth and several animators left Disney, disheartened with the direction things were going. In the years to come they would produce several critically-acclaimed children's animated films (to call them cartoons seems rather derogatory in the face of such praise) which not only presented kids with a vastly different group of films to watch, but ones that contained elements different than the Disney pictures of the same time frame. With graphic death, scary scenes and dark lessons, Bluth (often quoted as saying "Kids can accept anything as long as there is a happy ending") has been criticized for going against the grain of what children's films should contain. Examining this unusual event in film history, as well as other "children's films" that have been controversial (including Disney's own "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves"), discern what merits both sides of children's filmmaking have (traditional and new age) and whether it is more beneficial to take a darker path or only allow happy endings and bright stories to fill the screens of young impressionable human beings.
Shaun the Sheep Movie, based on the show of the same name which was a spin-off from Aardman's classic Wallace and Gromit series of short films, was disappointing in the box office despite being a great family movie. Many kids in the US remember growing up with Wallace and Gromit shorts – A Grand Day Out, A Close Shave, The Wrong Trousers – and I expected some of that nostalgia to affect Shaun the Sheep Movie's run domestically. Does Wallace and Gromit still hold a nostalgic factor for Aardman Animations? Or was the box office disappointment reflecting something else – a contrary humor, a dislike for silent films, low popularity of stop-motion? Aardman's last film, Pirates! Band of Misfits, was also low in the box office. What does this mean for Aardman's upcoming film, Early Man (2018) and the proposed Shaun the Sheep Movie sequel?
I think part of the reason for the box office trouble is that there seems to be little production from the flagship of Wallace & Gromit. Shaun the Sheep is only vaguely connected, and all the others have no connexion to the flagship. – JDJankowski9 years ago
