A theory on the current Animation Ghetto.

[subtlefuge]

Maybe Western animation isn't as respected as anime is in Japan, but I think we're close. I definitely wouldn't use the term ghetto, even as a hyperbole.

"Animation Age Ghetto" is pretty much just how TvTropes categorizes the mindset. I've seen it used widely enough in animation forums to guess that enough people know what it means.

Yeah, its from TvTropes, but they tend to give acceptable names to a lot of different ideas and things that are sometimes hard to think of a decent word or term for. IMO.

No wonder I've never seen that page on TVTropes before. It's a scatter-shot half-explanation that makes a concession in the introduction section that the trope is largely in decline.

These days, the Ghetto appears to have lost some strength - at least on television, anyway. Any cartoon not on a broadcast network (read: most cartoons made today) can defy the Ghetto as much as their mission statements allow. The concept of the Parental Bonus also made a comeback; after enough PSAs on parents needing to know what their kids are watching, the networks finally figured out parents can be a demographic. The successes of shows such as South Park and The Simpsons proved animated shows for adults can be profitable -to the point where such shows exist within their own genre, fill entire viewing blocs (such as Cartoon Network's late-night [adult swim] and FOX's prime-time Animation Domination Sunday), and build entire careers. These shows' tendencies to take Refuge in Audacity, however, can make people think animation remains "immature" - even if it's not for kids - which doesn't help matters when it comes to breaking animation out of the Age Ghetto.

 

[ShogunGino]

snip

Yes, I will admit the opinion of animation now is preferable to how it was a few years ago, but its still miles away from where other animation fans and students such as myself would like it to be.

Such "adult" shows like Archer, Drawn Together, Robot Chicken and South Park are what I would honestly consider to be more marketed towards a late-teenage demographic, despite what their classification might say. True, full fledged adults can and already do enjoy these shows, but, like what is mentioned on that TvTropes page, the humor of these shows can be considered sophomoric a lot of the time. Its one thing to be known for targeting children, its another thing to be known for targeting people who don't grow up.

Again, I was trying to point out something that led to the "ghetto" in the first place, one that has little to no consideration by animation historians whereas I believe it has quite a bit to do with it.

 

[sextus the crazy]

I think one of the big problems with Western animation is the fact that It's largely made up of episodic comedies. There is a lack of shows with dramatic over-arching plots (which is semi understandable due to the fact that more episodic shows are easier to enjoy without watching the previous episodes.)

 

[El Dwarfio]

I am confused, sir. Can you help me elaborate how does the ghetto correlate with the idea that Western animations are for kids? I understand the gist of the article, but I don't see the connection with the ghetto.

He's just another brony trying to shove his fandom down people's throats and then will no doubt wonder why people get pissed off with it.

OT: Do you know why its only for children? Because apparently Children can go more than 2 threads without feeling the need to whine about something they like and try and shoot down people who dare have a different opinion to them.

THE IRONY. It is palpable.

You're schooled in the field of literature I see kudos on the correct use of the word irony.

 

[ShogunGino]

I am confused, sir. Can you help me elaborate how does the ghetto correlate with the idea that Western animations are for kids? I understand the gist of the article, but I don't see the connection with the ghetto.

He's just another brony trying to shove his fandom down people's throats and then will no doubt wonder why people get pissed off with it.

OT: Do you know why its only for children? Because apparently Children can go more than 2 threads without feeling the need to whine about something they like and try and shoot down people who dare have a different opinion to them.

I never once brought up MLP:FiM, so I don't know what brought you to that hypothesis. My history with that show consists of losing interest after watching the first three episodes. I wouldn't call it bad, but not terribly good. For a cartoon aimed at a younger female audience, I'd say it seems quite competent, but I don't see the appeal that many other peers have for it.

I'll thank you not to assume so brashly.

 

[2733]

I think one of the issues we have to face is that there simply is no audience for mature, narrative driven western animation. Anyone who is after that simply watches anime. And as long as it remains much cheaper to re-dub anime we simply don't need it. Even if it was wanted, western studios simply don't have the massive resource that is manga. although a western animation following the story of a seinen manga might work...

 

[Casual Shinji]

I recently bought Akira on blu-ray and it is stagering how drop dead gorgeous it is. It was always terrifically animated, but with everything cleaned up and sharpened to HD perfection you really get to see just how much man hour went into making this movie, and why to this day it is still the most technically superior anime film.

And the sad thing is we'll never get to see anything resembling that quality in animation ever again.

The problem I have with CGI films, even Pixar, is that you'll always see the artist's hand filtered through a computer. Traditional animation feels more direct and "warm". Plus, computer animation ages like fucking crazy. You take a look at Disney's Pinocchio and it easy stands the test of time, but then you see Toy Story now and it looks absolutely terrible.
I don't hate CGI cartoons, one of my favourite movies ever is The Incredibles, but the whole notion that digimation is somehow superior to animation is heartbreaking. There's a wit and warmth to traditional animation that computer animation will never reach, but for some reason there can be only one.

I agree with your approval of Akira, its one of my favorite movies. However, when you say we'll never see anything resembling that quality in animation again, do you mean any form of animation or just in 2D? Because I honestly think a great amount of quality went into several animated movies, 2D and otherwise after Akira.

Also, I have disagree with you saying the first Toy Story looks terrible today. Yes, its definitely the oldest looking(go figure), but I think the only real dated elements are the humans and Scud the dog. The environment design and most of the toys hold up pretty well to me. Trust me, I've seen some real badly designed CG that'll make you take back that statement.

While opinions differ, of course, I'm actually getting a little weary of hearing people say that 2D is "warmer" and the like. I think Wall-E is one of the warmest movies I've ever seen, and its CG. Perhaps there is an inherent uncanny valley quality in CG because when one thinks of CG, they think of computers, machinery, something not real. When one thinks of 2D, one may think of someone sitting down and drawing, something alive and human. I never felt that way, but I guess it could happen.

There have been amazing 2D animated movies after Akira, but the last 10 years have been pretty dry apart from Ghibli. Akira was also, to my knowledge, the only anime feature that used lip synching and it made the characters explode into live unlike any other anime I've ever seen. Yet anime studios still refused to work this way after witnessing the results.

In terms of traditional animation we're never going to see a movie of this technical expertise ever again. 2D animation is simply too scarce from that now. Times might change, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I won't lie that I prefer 2D over 3D animation, but both have their own strengths and weaknesses. There's a charm to handpainted cells and backgrounds that computers can't emulate. I know traditional cartoons haven't been done on cells for a long time now, which I also find sad because there's a great texture to it.
The reason I like The Incredibles so much is because I feel it is one of the few CGI cartoons that takes great advantage of the medium. It literally could not have been made any other way but with computers.

Both can bring something unique to the table and it just saddens me that CGI seems to have overtaken 2D. The best I can do now is hope for another movie by Sylvain Chomet.

 

[Dryk]

And why does western animation NEED equivalents of Cowboy Bebop and Ghost in the Shell exactly? Can't it be its own thing? Where's the anime equivalent of Adventure Time?

Wouldn't an anime equivalent of Adventure Time just be any of those made-up general wacky anime that you stick into your TV show to make money?

 

[ShogunGino]

Akira was also, to my knowledge, the only anime feature that used lip synching and it made the characters explode into live unlike any other anime I've ever seen. Yet anime studios still refused to work this way after witnessing the results.

In terms of traditional animation we're never going to see a movie of this technical expertise ever again.

The only other times I know of pre-recorded dialog used in 2D Japanese animation are: Grave of Fireflies, Setsuka, the young sister, was voiced by an actual child who didn't have the same ability to dub like professional actors. The other is in Only Yesterday (Omohide Poro Poro in Japan). That movie cuts back and forth between the protagonist's childhood and adulthood. Most of character's in the adulthood sections are pre-recorded. I'm not even sure if Otomo's other major work, Steamboy, had pre-recorded dialog. It's been a while since I've seen that one, I'm not too fond of it.

For other examples of pre-recorded Japanese dialog animation, you'd have to look to their CG offerings, be it video games or their very few CG films. FF 7: Advent Children comes to mind.

You seem like someone who would enjoy The Thief and the Cobbler. I would call it the technically best 2D animated film I've seen. It has a long, tragic history behind it. It's not even finished, but a fan constructed a version called The Recobbled Cut using completed animation and existing uncolored animation, animatics, and storyboards, and put it on Youtube along with the other two "completed" butchered version with excess ADR and cheaply added in Disney-esque songs.

 

[The_Waspman]

The problem I have with CGI films, even Pixar, is that you'll always see the artist's hand filtered through a computer. Traditional animation feels more direct and "warm". Plus, computer animation ages like fucking crazy. You take a look at Disney's Pinocchio and it easy stands the test of time, but then you see Toy Story now and it looks absolutely terrible.
I don't hate CGI cartoons, one of my favourite movies ever is The Incredibles, but the whole notion that digimation is somehow superior to animation is heartbreaking. There's a wit and warmth to traditional animation that computer animation will never reach, but for some reason there can be only one.

Thats the thing, and its not just in animation, but in all film in general. Again, I'm not going to discredit the many artists who work in digital animation, but it has become so relied upon. It reminds me of that quote from Jurassic Park, which I shall slightly paraphrase: We're so focussed on whether we could use it, no-one ever stopped to think if we should.

Again, I'm not saying that we should stop using cgi (in mainstream movies as well as animation) because in fact it would be impossible to go back to a time when we didn't have it, but when cgi is used in place of practical effects, something is lost. I know I'm going slightly off topic here, but bear with me, if you take into consideration the Thing, you look at the '82 version which is all done with practical effects, it feels more real, and more tactile, you can tell its there. Using cgi on the other hand (as in the remake) then it loses that sense of reality.

Tying this back into animation... I fell it is the same with animation. Yes, what is achievable in digital animation these days is very impressive. If you look at what Pixar has achieved in terms of, for example, fur (Monsters Inc.) then yes, a lot of progress has been made, but there is still that sense of... unreality to it. While 2D animation can be more... inconsistent... it can feel more... I dont know, I'm not going to say 'warm', but... maybe we just aren't as used to cgi yet.

I don't speak for everyone, but I most certainly would love to see a serious western animated drama. Mostly because I think now is pretty close to the right time to do something like that. It would take a bit getting used to, stylistically, because no one would really expect it. It took me a little getting used to Rango, because they decided to go for more un-cute designs that I wasn't used to in American CG, but I got over it really quickly when I saw how fun the movie was(IMO). But yeah, I think we really need to have a serious animated show or movie. The only one who seemed to be on that track was Ralph Bakshi, but due to several circumstances, he's all but dead to the industry.

I entirely agree. I would love to see a western animated drama, the problem is that as you originally mentioned, there is still a big stigma in the west that cartoons are for kids. Or are to be taken less seriosuly than live action. When we have shows like Spongebob or (not wanting to start any flamewars here, I'm so reluctant to mention it) MLP, for (generalising) the kids, are the more 'adult' fare like the Simpsons or Family guy (which is still horrifically immature) then a serious, mature animated show aimed squarely at adults is a very very tough sell.

What can be done though? Entertainment media, and how we as a culture (again, slightly generalising here) consume that media is changing. Has changed. And the changes are irrevocable. Now that I think about it, wouldn't this new culture be an ideal opportunity for a new animated western drama?

I mean, Broken Saints kinda did it, right..?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Akira was also, to my knowledge, the only anime feature that used lip synching and it made the characters explode into live unlike any other anime I've ever seen. Yet anime studios still refused to work this way after witnessing the results.

In terms of traditional animation we're never going to see a movie of this technical expertise ever again.

The only other times I know of pre-recorded dialog used in 2D Japanese animation are: Grave of Fireflies, Setsuka, the young sister, was voiced by an actual child who didn't have the same ability to dub like professional actors. The other is in Only Yesterday (Omohide Poro Poro in Japan). That movie cuts back and forth between the protagonist's childhood and adulthood. Most of character's in the adulthood sections are pre-recorded. I'm not even sure if Otomo's other major work, Steamboy, had pre-recorded dialog. It's been a while since I've seen that one, I'm not too fond of it.

I knew about Grave of the Fireflies, it was on the DVD extras. But then I only watched that movie once and then never again.

You didn't like Steamboy much either, huh? Otomo's always had a great passion for the next advancement in animation, but with Steamboy he went a bit overboard with all the CGI implementation. Plus, the story didn't hold much water either.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Disney animated films in the 80s didn't do very well because of The Black Cauldron, which was about the worst animated film they ever made, including all the racist ones. The Fox and the Hound was praised at the time for being an intelligent and adult story about prejudice, and aside from a predictable plot rose above with its characters and themes. The The Black Cauldron failed so badly that Disney came close to closing their animated film section down. It did so badly that Disney didn't assign so much money to its next film, The Great Mouse Detective, because they were worried it too would fail. Nowadays GMD is considered one of the best underrated Disney movies of all time, and it earned back nearly three times its budget at the box office, restoring faith in Disney Animated Films. After that, although Oliver and Company is generally considered a lesser entryk, it was still considered award worthy at the time. And then of course the Little Mermaid, which kicked off the Disney Rennaisance. Disney in the 80s was trying some of its most adult fare to date, which is probably the reason it didn't do well.

Adult animation in the 80s already didn't work because the 70s had already finished the work of the 50s and 60s. If you want to point the finger, The Flintstones would be a good plcae to start. The aggressive family-friendly push at Disney which they didn't grow out of until the late 70s. The majority of children's programming in the 50s and 60s was cartoons, and the majority of cartoons were children's programming, because producers realised they could knock out a half hour show for kids and not have to worry about cost. Four actors, some reused drawings from old episodes, and one or two writers could get you almost three seasons back in the 50s and 60s. The 70s and 80s were just carrying on the tradition.

And Basil the Great Mouse Detective was awesome, no one shall ever say anything against him or that movie.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The problem I have with CGI films, even Pixar, is that you'll always see the artist's hand filtered through a computer. Traditional animation feels more direct and "warm". Plus, computer animation ages like fucking crazy. You take a look at Disney's Pinocchio and it easy stands the test of time, but then you see Toy Story now and it looks absolutely terrible.
I don't hate CGI cartoons, one of my favourite movies ever is The Incredibles, but the whole notion that digimation is somehow superior to animation is heartbreaking. There's a wit and warmth to traditional animation that computer animation will never reach, but for some reason there can be only one.

Thats the thing, and its not just in animation, but in all film in general. Again, I'm not going to discredit the many artists who work in digital animation, but it has become so relied upon. It reminds me of that quote from Jurassic Park, which I shall slightly paraphrase: We're so focussed on whether we could use it, no-one ever stopped to think if we should.

Again, I'm not saying that we should stop using cgi (in mainstream movies as well as animation) because in fact it would be impossible to go back to a time when we didn't have it, but when cgi is used in place of practical effects, something is lost. I know I'm going slightly off topic here, but bear with me, if you take into consideration the Thing, you look at the '82 version which is all done with practical effects, it feels more real, and more tactile, you can tell its there. Using cgi on the other hand (as in the remake) then it loses that sense of reality.

Tying this back into animation... I fell it is the same with animation. Yes, what is achievable in digital animation these days is very impressive. If you look at what Pixar has achieved in terms of, for example, fur (Monsters Inc.) then yes, a lot of progress has been made, but there is still that sense of... unreality to it. While 2D animation can be more... inconsistent... it can feel more... I dont know, I'm not going to say 'warm', but... maybe we just aren't as used to cgi yet.

It depends really; Not all CGI is created equal.

The secret to good CGI is a good animation director and/or visual effects designer. People like Randy Cook (Lord of the Rings) and John Dykstra (Spider-Man 2).

I never bothered watching The Thing prequel, but if you've seen Slither you'll see it's possible to make a grisly, gorey creature film using CGI. You just need to know when to use it and when not. A lot of CGI in movies today feels stagnant and lacks a... "smell", if you know what I mean.

The other thing about CGI is that we as an audience have grown completely accustomed to it now. It doesn't dazzle us anymore like it used to in the days of Jurassic Park. And for me, an effective special effect is one that keeps me guessing "How did they do that?"

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Personally, I feel the sooner we loose the notion that "Cartoons are for kids" the better. But the same time, "Mature" cartoons do not equal sex/violence/crudity. There has to be a middle ground somewhere...

 

[Fappy]

I think we're gradually growing out of this stigma. Almost everyone I know in their early 20's watches cartoons to some degree.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I think it's just the fact that since the dawn of time "Childish" has been seen as "Inferior". Whereas, if you don't do anything/watch/play anything that is probably meant for children you are missing out on a lot of stuff. But I think we're actually kind of starting to grow out of that stigma since the type of people who grew up with the 80's cartoons have now grown up and they all have nostalgia for those cartoons. Whereas people who grew up earlier and that didn't really have many popular saturday morning cartoons to watch. It's also showing in the whole "Brony" phenomenon, since people are realizing that if a show is good then it doesn't matter who it's made for as long as it's entertaining.

inb4 some hypocrite says that I'm trying to shove being a brony down people's throats. Seriously, that guy on the first page should just grow up, he's being the childish one here.

 

[Ivi942]

Would you consider Panty and Stocking to be the anime version of the simpsons, family guy, etc.? It has the crude humor and lots of sex jokes, but it also has amazing animation and a style reminiscent of american cartoons.

 

[xaszatm]

I would argue that western animation can have and have done mature storylines, even if it is directed towards children. Re-watch some of the more famous western animation shows. Shows like all of the DC Animated Universe, Avatar: the Last Airbender, and others have shown, in my opinion, a mature storytelling without being entirely for kids.

However, as for an adult-related mature show, I don't think that any exist as a series. However, as noted by previous posters, there are plenty of adult-related (I hate that term by the way, it sounds like I'm talking about porn for some reason) movies out there. You just have to look for them.

Also: for those who are saying that now days anime is mostly stupid pandering to the base, anime (and most other mediums for that matter) always pander to the base. Have you seen a lot of the shows that were released in that time period, not all were that good. Heck, many weren't. We just remember the gems that existed. I would argue that even now, there are plenty of good anime for a mature audience that exist (Stuff like Ergo Proxy, Magica, etc). Of course, this is just my opinion so I could be wrong.

 

[ShogunGino]

Again, I'm not saying that we should stop using cgi (in mainstream movies as well as animation) because in fact it would be impossible to go back to a time when we didn't have it, but when cgi is used in place of practical effects, something is lost. I know I'm going slightly off topic here, but bear with me, if you take into consideration the Thing, you look at the '82 version which is all done with practical effects, it feels more real, and more tactile, you can tell its there. Using cgi on the other hand (as in the remake) then it loses that sense of reality.

Tying this back into animation... I fell it is the same with animation. Yes, what is achievable in digital animation these days is very impressive. If you look at what Pixar has achieved in terms of, for example, fur (Monsters Inc.) then yes, a lot of progress has been made, but there is still that sense of... unreality to it. While 2D animation can be more... inconsistent... it can feel more... I dont know, I'm not going to say 'warm', but... maybe we just aren't as used to cgi yet.

The thing with...well, The Thing, is that the best of the best worked on that movie. Even then, the effects had to be handled with enough care so that they didn't become static and hokey. There are two scenes in particular when I think the lost that: a crane shot of the Thing-dog fully bloated in which near the end of the shot, it stopped really moving well, and in an instant, it looked more to me like it had cheap animatronics in it. The other is when the one guy in the chair goes Thing because his blood is burned and he gobbles down another guy. The flopping dummy they used for the guy being eating completely destroyed that scene, for me.

I grew up in the 90's and was exposed to 2D, stop-motion, practical effects, and the advent of widespread CGI, so I guess I became sorta desensitized to the idea of effects. Absolutely no effects are what I would consider "convincing". I always know its an effect, but I never let it get in the way of enjoying the movie unless I find the effects to be poorly executed.

For me, its all about how the effects interact with the actors and environments. If the world I'm watching isn't convinced that the effects are there, then neither am I. Interaction is what I think is the key. Ex: The fight between Sinbad and the Harryhausen skeleton in the first Sinbad movie(I believe) is so well rehearsed that the actor knew how to fight an invisible opponent. With the stop-motion added later, I think the fight is wonderful(though I thought the music sucked). Then we get to Jason and the Argonauts and its celebrated multi-skeleton fight...I honestly think half the live actors really phoned it in. Half of them lack the intensity and focus when it comes to sword fighting and the animation far upstages them. I was not convinced that several of those people were fighting reanimated skeletons.

I guess all I'm saying is that any effects have be just as well crafted as the other. CG or not. I, for one, am used to CG. But clearly, others aren't.

 

[ShogunGino]

Adult animation in the 80s already didn't work because the 70s had already finished the work of the 50s and 60s. If you want to point the finger, The Flintstones would be a good plcae to start. The aggressive family-friendly push at Disney which they didn't grow out of until the late 70s. The majority of children's programming in the 50s and 60s was cartoons, and the majority of cartoons were children's programming, because producers realised they could knock out a half hour show for kids and not have to worry about cost. Four actors, some reused drawings from old episodes, and one or two writers could get you almost three seasons back in the 50s and 60s. The 70s and 80s were just carrying on the tradition.

I wasn't mainly talking about adult 80's animation, I was more focused on the content aimed towards children. The 80's theatrical scene was rather sparse, I'd say, but I think 80's TV animation played the far bigger role in subsequent mindset about animation. Yes, I admitted, it got its start in the 70's, but the 80's gave a whole new way to dismiss animation. That is the point of my theory.

And Basil the Great Mouse Detective was awesome, no one shall ever say anything against him or that movie.

Eh. Just an okay movie to me. Didn't find much memorable about it. Couldn't stand the villain. I like Vincent Price, but I think Ratigan had too lame a plan, and was overall not as smart and devious as I thought he should have been. I personally thought he was utilized better in The Thief and the Cobbler.