PDA

View Full Version : New NYTimes Magazine AS article


Spastic Minnow
01-19-2004, 08:53 PM
I was just sent this article by a friend that knows of my love of Adult Swim. It's not a completely mean article but it is rather dismissive of Adult Swim. I guess it's some guy trying to be Andy Rooney or just a reporter forced to write an an article he didn't want to do. I just know if I turned in that lead paragraph to my Journalism professor he would have failed my ass for being so openly biased, among other reasons.

Consumed: Adult Swim (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/magazine/18CONSUMED.html?ex=1075460754&ei=1&en=7deabacba0d8c96a)

January 18, 2004

By ROB WALKER

Television used to be a uniter, not a divider -- a kind of nationwide campfire that regularly gathered tens of millions of Americans to watch, say, Johnny Carson. But that's over. Now we're a nation of tribes or, perhaps more important, a nation of carefully targeted demographic marketing segments. For proof, consider the following strange assortment of TV cartoons: Japanese anime; shows that were canceled by networks; a cheap original or two; and second-rate Hanna-Barbera action series that have been cut up and repurposed.

These are the building blocks of a set of programs running from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. Sunday through Thursday nights on cable TV's Cartoon Network. The ''Adult Swim'' cartoons, as they are collectively called, are apparently more relevant than Johnny's late-night heirs, at least to one demographic. In recent months, males ages 18 to 34 have watched the ''Adult Swim'' cartoons in numbers that consistently beat David Letterman and that either beat or tie Jay Leno.

So what is it they are turning away from Letterman to watch? The most popular ''Adult Swim'' show might be ''Aqua Teen Hunger Force,'' in which a talking, human-size trio of milkshake, fries and hamburger meat have adventures. Actually, they fail to have adventures, and mostly hang around their rundown Jersey tract home and bicker instead. If there's something drug-induced about this scenario (what if these fries could talk?), the ''narratives'' have a jagged quality that practically begs for Ritalin. Its audience seems to find this addictive: a recent DVD compilation of ''Aqua Teen Hunger Force'' has already sold more than 100,000 copies.

The popularity of ''Adult Swim'' has won it sponsors that include video games, youth-oriented films and, alarmingly, the United States Army. Clearly ''Adult Swim'' has a lot of college-age fans, and if any of them have to write a termpaper about, say, ''Aqua Teen'' for Postmodernism 101, they could deconstruct it as a celebration of commercial detritus. This is also a reasonable explanation for most everything in the ''Adult Swim'' canon. ''Cowboy Bebop'' (about bounty hunters in space) and InuYasha (about a schoolgirl transported into the feudal past) are recycled anime hits from Japan. ''Family Guy,'' ''Futurama'' and ''Home Movies'' were all canceled by other, bigger networks. (''Family Guy'' has been such a hit for ''Adult Swim'' and through its own DVD releases that it may get a new life back on its original home, Fox.) The surreal chat show ''Space Ghost Coast to Coast'' takes clips of the 1960's superhero and splices them for maximum humorous effect with interviews of guests -- by Space Ghost himself. An even more obscure figure from Hanna-Barbera's cartoon-action library, Birdman, has been remixed as a lawyer named Harvey Birdman. And Cartoon Network repeats all this stuff relentlessly.

As Mike Lazzo, a Cartoon Network senior vice president, explains, this approach came about largely because of lack of funds. The network originally consisted mostly of reruns from the Hanna-Barbera library (which Cartoon Network's founder, Ted Turner, had acquired) and had no budget for original programming; that's where the ''Space Ghost'' paste-together came from. ''We didn't want to see an actual talk show,'' Lazzo recalls. ''So what would be crazier than splicing this bombastic superhero with these B-grade celebrities?'' Even ''Aqua Teen Hunger Force'' -- a rare original series inspired, Lazzo says, by fast-food promotional giveaway junk -- is done for about $60,000 an episode, maybe a tenth of what ''The Simpsons'' costs.

Asked what it is in the shows that seems to touch a chord with its audience, Lazzo says breezily: ''Oh, America. It's all about America.'' Looking for something more specific, I quizzed Sam Murr, a 22-year-old University of Florida criminology major, who is such a fan that he signed on to be part of Cartoon Network's team of reps who promote the shows through college-town parties. ''It's so different from anything else you'll find on TV,'' he says. For instance, ''There's an episode of Harvey Birdman where Shaggy and Scooby get busted for smoking weed in the Mystery Van. Which everyone sort of suspected, but no one would ever really go there. That's the kind of thing they're willing to do.'' Of course they are, so long as Sam and enough of his friends are interested.

The Landstander
01-19-2004, 08:59 PM
The guy sounds like a prick. =(

I also hate when journalists refer to HM, FG and Futurama as "network rejects" and nothing more.

Oh well. Publicity is publicity.

Anime Guy
01-19-2004, 09:00 PM
Has this guy ever even watched Adult Swim?

Animation Otaku
01-19-2004, 09:02 PM
Plus points for acknowledging that Inuyasha and Cowboy Bebop exist.


Minus points for everyting else.

God, I wonder if this guy actually even watched these shows.

The Drizzle
01-19-2004, 09:04 PM
That's retarded.





And queer.

IWDP Lim
01-19-2004, 09:07 PM
You just KNOW he included Sam Murr's comment because he mentioned Shaggy Busted. And of course HE just HAD to mention THAT epsiode :rolleyes:

Scythemantis
01-19-2004, 09:17 PM
What am I missing here? I see absolutely no indication of him seriously putting them down. There's nothing but praise under that cynical persona.

Tienshin
01-19-2004, 09:24 PM
He is probably upset at the lack of reality shows on Adult Swim.

Honestly though, I don't get the disdain that seems apparent throughout the article. Is this guy longing the days of yesteryear, when families gathered around the old box and watched Ed Sullivan yap away and saying things like "aw geez" got your mouth washed out with soap?

Is originality bad? Is airing quality shows from across the Pacific that would never see the light of day in a mainstream medium bad? Is this just propaganda on behalf of CBS and NBC to make people watch Letterman and Leno?

Seriously, in a free market the consumer decides what sinks or what swims. (so to speak) And the fact that the author has no real substantive objection or critique to adult swim is proof enough that he has no clue what he is talking about. Overall, this is a terrible article rife with a condensending tone that smacks of a pompus writer who put the article together without even watching the block. A high school teacher would fail this write up if it were an assigned review. I dont understand the point of this write up...it just seems like one big backhanded compliment.

But you know considering the current reputation of the NYT at this point, this type of garbage doesn't surprise me.

Caffeine King
01-19-2004, 09:25 PM
were all canceled by other, bigger networks.
So he sees Adult Swim as nothing more than a dump place? :rolleyes:

What an a******! :shrug:

Teek
01-19-2004, 09:27 PM
I didn't see much wrong about that article either, it wasn't very fleshed out, but hardly negative.

Animaniac
01-19-2004, 10:02 PM
I'm pretty sure Rupert Murdoch has WAY more money than Ted Turner, so calling FOX a big network would be quite accurate. Cartoon Network is a small network, very small. I havent seen anything to show that CN has had premiere shows with over 1 million viewers, and adult swim in general averages 600,000-800,000 views a night. Compare that to FOX and it's 15 million viewer audiance. Get it?

Arxane
01-19-2004, 10:19 PM
This article didn't appear overtly negative to me. It seems written by someone who likes some if not most aspects of the block but isn't willing to admit it so he hides it under a blanket of cynicism.

I mean, he can't seem to find anything really negative about the anime shows, so he calls them "recycled". He calls the originals "cheap", which is true in that they cost relatively little but its usage in the article doesn't sound flattering.

They should've allowed this article to be written by someone with a little more enthusiasm for the block...or at least won't send mixed signals like this guy.

RogueMartian
01-19-2004, 10:28 PM
I'm probably the only print journalism major in the world that has absolutely no desire to work for the NY times. That was the most snobby article on adult swim i've ever read.

I hate to say it, but Adult Swim's popularity rests on the fact that it is GOOD. I don't know why people won't say that. Take the one quote about scooby and shaggy smoking pot, but out of context. That episode was funny because it shows ANALYSIS. How many of us have sat around with our friends and pondered the deeper meanings or social subtexts of scooby doo or pokemon? That doesn't make us idiots. But that guy seems to really frown on it. I hate snobs.

Wounded_Dragon
01-20-2004, 02:02 AM
What this reads as:

Some snobby reporter who doesn't know a thing about Adult Swim and thus had to crib his article. Notice the meandering and 'famous' quoting. He doesn't have a clue what he really wants to say beyond "I really don't want to be writing about this." He relates AS to Johnny Carson. Well, why not relate it to competition that he mentions in passing. Perhaps he knows even less about those shows. Or perhaps he likes randomly insulting various segments of the population, like those on medication.

Artimus Gigan
01-20-2004, 03:09 AM
Ya know people the NY Times has lost credibility ever since that jason guy fabricated stories


I'm guessing this guy wants to be a media whore too...

livingfruitvirus
01-20-2004, 03:24 AM
New York Times?
NEW YORK TIIIIIIMES?!

Rikou
01-20-2004, 03:41 AM
And he didn't even bother to mention the cards. Hmph.

Artimus Gigan
01-20-2004, 04:18 AM
New York Times?
NEW YORK TIIIIIIMES?!and that means?!
Did I make a boo boo?

ToliverChap
01-20-2004, 04:21 AM
This was not written by someone interested in doing a critique of the material. It reads like a thinly veiled editorial piece on the collapse of the American male. What the author does not realize is that smart viewers are there because it works. It appeals to said demographic and it does not try to lie about it; there is no duped public we all get it. He throws in post-modernism and deconstructed "aren't these just buzz words that stupid people use to sound smart?" but they don't add credence to his argument since stuff like Bebop and even Aqua Teen can legitimately be examined (in an academic sort of way take it or leave it). The stuff is stupid but it's also smart and funny and cool and hell that's what TV is no reason to take is seriously at all. Still our generation will inevitably destroy the world with our lack of family values, pathological cynicism, self-defeating defensive sarcasm, fart.

Artimus Gigan
01-20-2004, 04:25 AM
This was not written by someone interested in doing a critique of the material. It reads like a thinly veiled editorial piece on the collapse of the American male. What the author does not realize is that smart viewers are there because it works. It appeals to said demographic and it does not try to lie about it; there is no duped public we all get it. He throws in post-modernism and deconstructed "aren't these just buzz words that stupid people use to sound smart?" but they don't add credence to his argument since stuff like Bebop and even Aqua Teen can legitimately be examined (in an academic sort of way take it or leave it). The stuff is stupid but it's also smart and funny and cool and hell that's what TV is no reason to take is seriously at all. Still our generation will inevitably destroy the world with our lack of family values, pathological cynicism, self-defeating defensive sarcasm, fart.And that means?
I'm not reading all of that, someone summerise what he just said, in a fun/entertaining easy to read format.

that's a joke with ironic sarcasm BTW or somthing
--------------------------------------------------------------

Anyways I tink the guy should have atleast watched a wekk or a month's worth of AS before writing the dman thing

lostrune
01-20-2004, 04:40 AM
I was just sent this article by a friend that knows of my love of Adult Swim. It's not a completely mean article but it is rather dismissive of Adult Swim. I guess it's some guy trying to be Andy Rooney or just a reporter forced to write an an article he didn't want to do. I just know if I turned in that lead paragraph to my Journalism professor he would have failed my ass for being so openly biased, among other reasons.

Some points:

1. This isn't even the NYT newspaper; it's the NYT Magazine. And like in other mags (Rolling Stones, Spin, etc), this article is less about news and more like an editorial. So openly biased is no problem.

2. He has a right to his opinions and to turn his article to whatever slant he wants. Anybody would do the same; everybody has his/her own slant. But that's not the point of this because....

3. Still, it read like a poorly written article. There seems to be a disconnect to what he opened up with in the first paragraph and the rest of the article.

He opened with a premise that TV used to be a uniter but now it's a divider - OK fine. Then he cites Adult Swim as an example - OK. But then, he critiques the shows in AS without really going back and explaining why it's a divider (although it's a bit obvious - target college demographic) but more importantly, so what if it's a divider?

Thus, he forgot all about his opening statement. Yet I think that doesn't really matter. I think the whole business of his article is merely to critique Adult Swim and its shows, as the simple title of his article suggests. There's no other point to add. And he could do that, since it's his article.

4. It's still a poorly written critique article though, IMHO.
I don't really care much if it's a pro or con critique article. I just prefer it well-written. Heck, I'm kinda lost whether it's even a pro or a con critique. What's his overall point? What is he trying to "prove" or illustrate? What is the purpose of writing the article, other than a stream of consciousness thoughts? :D

ToliverChap
01-20-2004, 07:08 AM
That guy who wrote that article used to be with it . . . now what is it is scary to him . . . it'll happen to you too.

The Landstander
01-20-2004, 07:13 AM
and that means?!
Did I make a boo boo?That means you lose 5 points for missing the reference. :mad:

sl4
01-20-2004, 09:57 AM
New York Times?
NEW YORK TIIIIIIMES?!
...YOU THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN US?!
US?!
U.S?!
U.S.A!!
NO WAY!!
Thank you.

I'm late, the joke is over already. :(

Sisto Kid
01-20-2004, 12:37 PM
This article doesn't really bother me any. History is littered with the blatherings of journalists writing a bunch of sour-grapes crap putting down what they don't understand.

:shrug:

Artimus Gigan
01-20-2004, 02:11 PM
That means you lose 5 points for missing the reference. :mad:Wait I get it now...wait no i don't


what reference is it?

Anime Guy
01-20-2004, 03:01 PM
Wait I get it now...wait no i don't


what reference is it?A reference to when Coach McGuirk is on stage dissing Lynch in "Bad Influences."

PaQ
01-20-2004, 03:07 PM
Heh. Really sounds like this guy doesn't watch Adult swim at all. There's a lot of assuming that just because other networks couldn't make shows work, just because AS shows cost less to produce that some how that means they're crap shows. Which is way wrong.

Grenzer
01-20-2004, 03:36 PM
This article, while not overtly anti-AS seems to me to be a negative critique of both the shows on the block and the people who watch them. The prevailing smug tone of the journalist's words thoughout the piece definately rubbed me the wrong way. I don't expect everybody to understand the appeal of anime or ATHF or even Family Guy, but the joker who wrote this article seems to think that AS viewers are tasteless morons who watch these shows because there everything that old time favorites from yesteryear like Johnny Carson were not and therefore "kewl". But let's be honest here, AS is something that is on the fringes of the entertainment world and I don't expect most critics to understand or appreciate it even if it drew in 50 million viewers.

Artimus Gigan
01-20-2004, 03:39 PM
This article, while not overtly anti-AS seems to me to be a negative critique of both the shows on the block and the people who watch them. The prevailing smug tone of the journalist's words thoughout the piece definately rubbed me the wrong way. I don't expect everybody to understand the appeal of anime or ATHF or even Family Guy, but the joker who wrote this article seems to think that AS viewers are tasteless morons who watch these shows because there everything that old time favorites from yesteryear like Johnny Carson were not and therefore "kewl". But let's be honest here, AS is something that is on the fringes of the entertainment world and I don't expect most critics to understand or appreciate it even if it drew in 50 million viewers.They would if they just added the word Gay infront of Adultswim

then they would critique on it's boldness and originality...