[All pictures copyright somebody]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Her Whole Darkness In Motion
Venom of Asps
Fortnight in the Philippines
IDF Operations after Typhoon Haiyan
Letters To Friends
You know you want to buy a few copies
About Mia
Other Blogs
-
My 6th Year with Hopper11 months ago
-
7 comments:
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/munster/article_ccbb5490-9013-59b4-8ba9-594b01741d29.html?mode=image&photo=1
anonymous = fab4fan
Happy Hanukkah
Happy Christmas. In a few weeks.
Although the method of animation is completely different, I think Pixar often gets the mix right in terms of working on many levels. It's genuine family entertainment in a market where that's often been a euphemism for "kids' stuff."
I gather there were some more 'adult' editions of Looney Tunes in the 40s that never got repeated.
With the Simpsons, I think it's more a case of efficiency. It's basically a sit-com, but if it were a live action sit-com, Maggie would be taller than Marge's hair and we would have found out she can't act, Lisa would have left after the 5th season to be replaced by a succession of house guests, Ned would have to be quietly written out after getting caught with a hooker, Homer would have had real life heart surgery which would have been used in the show and won 100 Emmys, Barney would have his own spin-off, Marge would do a season on Broadway during which her character would be "abroad" in the show, and Bart would have it written into his contract that he gets to write and direct 6 episodes per season including a film noir episode that no-one understands and wins 200 Emmys.
I think all the Looney Tunes were made for adults. But children can still watch them. The only thing they did that they never meant families to watch that I know of is Private Snafu. Those are far more adult.
I'm not so sure about Maggie. You never know with babies. Look at those Olsens.
I find your concessions to older cartoons and harshness to new ones unfair.
While I might have been able to get my parents to watch an episode of the original Tom & Jerry with me, they could never have stomached 5 minutes of Looney Toons or Mickey Mouse. Even by the 5 year-old standards of my generation, Hanna Babera plots, jokes, characters and drawings were simply abominable. They managed to make it look cheap even before the days of computer animation by repeating backgrounds and animating the bare minimum in each frame.
I see what you mean about similarities in the casts of Asian cartoons. But you could also argue that Woody Woodpecker, Bugs and Mickey are all bipedal animal charicatures with large feet, short legs, gloves and big smiles. Even worse, their personalities tend to be shallow, they don't evolve, and their stories are cyclical.
In contrast, a lot of the hand drawn Japanese cartoons that appeared in the 90s presented kids with fresh, immersive and rather exciting environments. Characters were more complex. You could identify with them. The plots were often creative and (while remaining no grittier than Grimm's fairy tales) they were less squeamish about sexuality and death. I recommend you give Planet, Fullmetal Alchemist, Ulysses 31, Saint Seiya or Ranma 1/2 a try - you might not feel so robbed if you are convinced of what they have to offer. They are actually good. It comes to me as no surprise that artists like Miyazaki and Tanaka are still going strong with hand drawn animated movies in Japan.
I think with Pixar, Bill really put his finger on a good example of new style meeting classic standards. CG may have seemed a little off putting at first, but like the mangas of 20 years ago, or the Southparks, Pokemons, and Happy Lamb and Grey Wolf of today, once you give it a go, some of it is really not so bad... Which is what I guess my parents must have thought about Tom & Jerry.
When I lived in China I never saw a single Chinese or Japanese cartoon that had any more depth than a beer advert. Or more to the point, a toy advert.
Bugs Bunny has to be the most developed cartoon character ever, big feet or not.
Hello. And Bye.
Post a Comment