cartoon network:childs network?---cartoons for children?

[joker]

i think not. but a lot of people seem to think it is. most people think cartoons are aimed only at children, and people give me odd looks when i tell them that, i a 15 year old does watch cartoons. but lets just look at the cartoons for cn for a moment. most of the cartoon cartoons dont seem like childrens cartoons at all, with the exception of power puff girls. there are so many jokes on thsese shows that a child wouldnt get, espacially from dexter, they have all sorts of scenes in the show making fun of stuff from the 80's that most children wouldnt get. im glad i know a lot about the 80s/seen most of the crappy sci-fi horror movies from the 80s or i wouldnt get a lot of the jokes either. and johny bravo, ive noticed a lot of sexual jokes, although small, still they are there and a child wouldnt get those either. and not just the shows on cn but others also. some of the older shows on kids wb(not the garbage they show today) like freakizoid and animainiacs. are filled with jokes aimed at older tv watchers. a good example. in one freakiziod episode freakizoid says "this house is clean" mocking the little old lady from polterguist. most children wouldnt find this funny, i thought it was hysterical. and even nick had some cartoons of its own that were not for children. actually just one, and you know what which one im talking about, ren and stempy. i loved this show, but now it is unwatchable, since its been butchered. aside from all this ranting, do you think there are more cartoons for older viewing audiences than thought to be by the general public? i know i do.

and another question:why do most people think that cartoons are just for children? originaly, loony toons featuring bugs and company, was for adults.

[I.R Joey]

preaching to the converted dude, but you're right. I think we're in for a change though when this generation of kids grows up.

[joker]

sorry, amist all my rambling, my main question was, why do adults/who ever think that cartoons are only for children

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Adults probably think Cartoons are for kids because of the cruddy 70s-80s cartoons. In the 70s, we had stuff like SchoolHouse Rock, and the 80s were full of virtual 'cartoon'mercials, where most series were basically half-hour programs advertising a toy (a good example o' today is Max Steel).
The 90s saw a cartoon revival, and in some way the audience IS growing up a bit-simply look at Toon Zone's members itself as an example; most of us are at least driving age. And yes, the 90s went from commercial shows to more original, more adultish fare-see Animaniacs as an example.
Problem is, today's adults are still remembering the 70s-80s as the cartoon example....

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

A lot of things hold animation back. Truly "adult" programs require a high degree of subtlety, something even veteran animators have told me is difficult to do in animation. Animation is about "exaggeration," or so they say. I agree to an extent, but I think there is a line between over-exaggeration and exaggeration.

I think animation is still trying to find the best way to be subtle without over-exaggerating. The Simpsons is good at times, but it seems animation excels at parodies rather than drama.

Which brings me to what people look for in cartoons. Traditionally, people watch cartoons "for a good laugh." The Simpsons has done nothing to break this stereotype, as good as it was. Occasionally The Simpsons finds emotion in its episodes (though it's been backpedalling as of late) but truly poignant stuff you can take seriously is few and far between.

On the other hand, when you try to tackle something in animation more realistically, people brush it off and say, "Why do this in animation when you can do it live-action?"

So you see, you're d*mned if you do it, and you're d*mned if you don't.

Thoughts? Additions?

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Well said, Jojo. About the only good shot animation has with adults right now is with the Simpsons, and yet they aren't taking chances anymore...seems all the emotion is gone (though I remain confident that we'll starting to get a BIT of an upswing lately). Most other prime-time toons are like Family Guy and Futurama, certainly good for laughing, but for advancing respect of animation for drama or emotion-no...so prime time is surprisingly not a good outlet to enhance non-comedy animated stuff...

....as for switching to live action, well, if they could do that project in animation, I say KEEP it animated. That'll be one of the few ways we can get respect for animation...

[Singin' Stray Cat]

Originally posted by BourgeoisBuffoon
Adults probably think Cartoons are for kids because of the cruddy 70s-80s cartoons. In the 70s, we had stuff like SchoolHouse Rock, and the 80s were full of virtual 'cartoon'mercials, where most series were basically half-hour programs advertising a toy (a good example o' today is Max Steel).
The 90s saw a cartoon revival, and in some way the audience IS growing up a bit-simply look at Toon Zone's members itself as an example; most of us are at least driving age. And yes, the 90s went from commercial shows to more original, more adultish fare-see Animaniacs as an example.
Problem is, today's adults are still remembering the 70s-80s as the cartoon example....

True that. Plus today there's also a handful of rather tame cartoons that are specifically made for very young kids (I'm thinking of shows like "Dragon Tales," "Arthur," and anything on Nick Jr. as I type this). This practice is fine and good, and personally I have no problem with it, but these cartoons do help reinforce the notion that "cartoons" (or any animated programs for that matter) are only for kids, despite lots of examples of the contrary.

However, I think that the idea of cartoons being only for kids is slowly eroding away. For example, when the entertainment writer in the local newspaper here goes over the TV program highlights each evening, he frequently includes episodes of Powerpuff Girls and Cartoon Network premieres (such as Samurai Jack) in the listings. Many times they even make it to the headlines, beating out sitcoms (bleah) and other live-action shows. Other occasional articles in this same newspaper discuss cartoons. I clipped one by a female author who talked about guys' attitudes toward female cartoon characters (such as Jessica Rabbit and even Ms. Pac-Man!) Another one I wish I still had compared the movies Shrek and Tomb Raider, saying basically that in several aspects, Shrek was the superior film.

What I'm saying is, there are a growing number of people that are willing to talk intelligently about cartoons - just like we are here - and not just dismiss them as "mindless kidvid," as one author called it. Let's hope this new attitude toward animation is the one that eventually wins out over time, instead of the pessimistic one that came about because of the cartoon/ad blitz of the '70's and '80's.

[Calhoun07]

Originally posted by joker
sorry, amist all my rambling, my main question was, why do adults/who ever think that cartoons are only for children

The parents who I've seen think this never sit down and watch the cartoons with their children, so I think it's just a lack of understanding or whatever about the medium that keeps them locked in that mind set. But it's interesting to see that these parents who don't watch todays cartoons with their kids will get all nostolgic for cartoons from their child hood. I really don't have an answer of how to get these parents watching todays cartoons to see that there is more than just kid stuff going on in them. But hopefully their kids will grow up with a love for the form and eventually turn them around.

[bushnader666]

Cartoons are supposes to be FUNNY. Not dramatic, not educational, not informative, not sci-fi action, but FUNNY. The greatest cartoons were very funny, in gags, dialogue, drawings, music, etc.

The VERY DECLINE of animated cartoons in the US started in the mid 1950's when studio execs were convinced that cartoons were not really supposed to be funny, that they were just fillers. Budgets plunged. In the 60's, animaton enjoyed a brief renaissance because they needed to be funny once more, but budgets declined and cartoons turned into advertisements. By the 70's, morons decided that cartoons needed to be educational. Quality went down the DRAIN. US aniamation basically died. Nowadays, they outsource the actual aniamtions overseas. As previously mentioned, 80's toons were mostly ads, with some other non-funny cornball fluff. Cartoons were supposed to be safe, soft, cornball, PC, multi-ethnic fests designed to be as PC as possible to attract ad $$$ while avoiding the PC cops.

Ah. The 1990's. A mixed bag. But thanks to the insistance that animation do more than be FUNNY, the magic of the "Golden Age" will NEVER be realized.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Cartoons and animation can be a form of communication that can tell us something that can be more than just a laugh. As long as people do not screw up, we can have animation give drama and emotion as well as comedy. Yes, toons can be funny, but they can also be so much more!

[I.R Joey]

Animation is a means of artistic expression not an entertainment tool for kids.

[Mr. Obsession]

Originally posted by bushnader666
Cartoons are supposes to be FUNNY. Not dramatic, not educational, not informative, not sci-fi action, but FUNNY. The greatest cartoons were very funny, in gags, dialogue, drawings, music, etc.

While I partially agree with your reasons for the decline of animation in the country during the 60's & 70's. I disagree that animation is only supposes to be funny. Yes comedy is where animation began, however comedy is only one genre. Would you restrict all of television to sitcoms, because that's where television started?

[Calhoun07]

I also agree that cartoons can be more than just funny, slapstick comedies, or what have you. Why pigeonhole an entire spectrum of artistic expression into one genre? Maybe the instances where cartoons became less than innovative are valid, but there are also just as many, if not more, examples of cartoons being used as serious expression. Action and adventure, science fiction and fantasy, drama and suspense, these are genres that have outstanding examples in animation of how animated programs and movies outside of comedy can work.

Another thing, and I may be mistaken, but I believe it is primarily an American view that cartoons should be made just for kids, where as in Japan and in the European countries and elsewhere in the world, animation is on par with the serious live action movies that are released side by side with animated features. Likewise with animaton on TV.

[Nightflower]

The pasture on the other side is always greener, eh?

Well, while I agree that the potential of animation is really not being explored, I think sometimes you have to think realistic. Saying that the "tame" cartoons for little kids is not helping the "cause" and reinforcing the mindset that cartoons is for children is a little ridiculous. First of all, the "cause" is practically still on the ground, non-existent. Secondly, even if cartoons are awesome for the general audience ALSO, they're GREAT for kids *especially*. Why mess with a good thing?

I'm not against the idea, in fact I agree with you all. I love animation, and I hope to work in the field (Sheridan college..*crosses fingers*) I think it's an awesome field for superheroes, high fantasy, sci-fi, etc. Its exaggerations and little limits (The only limit is the animators' imagination) is great for comedy. But when it comes to drama... I think drama and more serious issues should be involved within another genre, but not made the key focus. Otherwise, you can do what Jojo said and make it live-action. There are several subtleties that are difficult to replicate in animation, like sexual tension (Well, I guess we'll never know because sex is kept quite closed-lid for children, but there's always Catwoman and Batman).

[bushnader666]

Perhaps I wan't clear on animation vs. cartoons.

I meant that cartoons were supposed to be funny. Animated theatrical cartoons from WB and MGM are the cream of the crop in that category. As for animation, it's a very broad term. But in my opinion, cartoons are the best forms of animation.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Oh....okay! I know what bushnader's talking about. If so, yes, carttons, are still gonna primarily be funny. But they do not just have to be for kids, look at The Critic, Futurama, or The Simpsons. These are more suited for adult tastes...

Hm....well, as for the people in Nightflower's camp, I'm sure animation can still do subtle things, but we need to make it so that animation can prove it is mature enough to handle emotion and the like. It has never gotten the chance to show itself to do drama like that, that's all.

....And I probably flubbed up my argument in paragraph two...

[Tim Drake]

American animation tends to focus on funny and kid friendly because that's where the companies often make their money. The stigma that cartoons are for kids while it is breaking down is still very strong. You really can't blame the companies for caving in. Look at Titan AE. Its a decent animated action film. Its still not very intense and still caters to kids somewhat. I think Fox was hesitant to stray too far from mainstream concepts of animation. It didn't have five musical numbers so it did poorly. Even Disney wasn't able to break the stereotype. The budget for Atlantis their animated action movie was huge but it didn't bring in the same amount of money that Disney is used to.

Ok make a long story short. The stigma of animation in America holds the companies down. I pray for the day when animation gets the respect it deserves like in Japan.

[Jack]

Even though funny cartoons were the norm durring the goilden age of theatrical cartoons, there were still many serious and educational cartoons made. Your tastes may be different, but I think "Peace On Earth" is an excellent cartoon that is quite serious, despite the cute talking animals. It certainly couldn't be made today. Then you have "Fantasia," a fantastic artsy cartoon when you look at every segment individually. There's also "Old Glory," "Hell Bent For Election," "Superman," and the many educational films released by 20th Century Fox (I think that's the company, but I don't recall) that were either funny and education or serious.


Jack:D

[bushnader666]

And don't forget about WWII-era cartoons like the Snafu ones that had a serious message AND were funny. Cartoons like "Red Hot Riding Hood," "Russian Rhapsody" and "Book Revue" are not kiddy oriented at all. The humor is edgier, the gags sharper, the timing is extremly sharp and the animation is top notch. These are the cream of the crop, in terms of cartoons.

Then there are the cartoons that try to be funny, but absolutely FAIL. (ex. scooby doo ed edd eddy capt planet chuck jones tom and jerrys johnny bravo kids next door daffy speedy 1964+ road runner.............). These are cartoons that stink. Period. Music is canned muzak (or 70-90's pseudo pop), animation is flat and boring, timing is way off, and the gags redefine corniness. Everything is done by committee. Gone are people like Bob Clampett, Tex Avery, Friz Freleng, Carl Stalling, Rod Scribner, Bon McKimson, Mel Blanc......Almost no one wants to be funny. (exceptions: Animaniacs [soon to be mauled by orange Nick blobs], PPG, Dexter's Lab [although overly rerun]) In nearly all animated features, funny or not, big name celebrities MUST provide voices, no matter how little vocal talent (or overall talent) they have.

Now with scooby doo, ed edd eddy and PC censor cops mauling anything they can find, the future of "cartoons" looks grim indeed. Sure, there will be exceptions, but most cartoons today range from mediocre to pure garbage.

[The Mad Hatter]

I can understand what Nightflower is saying. Worldwide, animation's largest fan base is children, and children shouldn't be ignored. Just because animation is made with children in mind doesn't mean that it lower's people's perceptions of the medium.

HOWEVER, I think that the main thing that has dragged animation down for Americans is the difference between something that's truly kid-friendly and a studio exec's perception of kid-friendly.

Example number one: any given Looney Tune. Sure, they're easy to follow and have lots of broad humor that kids eat up with a spoon. But they often contain very witty lines and cultural references that adults can enjoy too. This cartoon is completely kid-friendly, but adults aren't left out either.

Example number two: Zeta. Studio execs really have low expecations for what kids can comprehend, so there aren't any huge plot twists. Character development is nill. Fight scenes are watered down. Is this cartoon kid-friendly? Yes, but adults will find absolutely nothing here that'll keep them interested.

So I think the problem here isn't cartoons that kids can watch. The problem is the all-consuming mandate to make everything so "kid-friendly" that the cartoon becomes condescending and unwatchable to anyone over the age of 12. Come to think of it, this trend may be why Americans buy into the stereotype that cartoons are just for kids, because that's the only people they catered to.

[joker]

Originally posted by bushnader666

Now with scooby doo, ed edd eddy and PC censor cops mauling anything they can find, the future of "cartoons" looks grim indeed. Sure, there will be exceptions, but most cartoons today range from mediocre to pure garbage.

i hate to watch old cartoons on nick beacuase of the heavy editing, ill be watcing one of my favorite episodes of something waiting for my favorite seen to come up and it never does. thats qutie annoying

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Nightflower
But when it comes to drama... I think drama and more serious issues should be involved within another genre, but not made the key focus. Otherwise, you can do what Jojo said and make it live-action. There are several subtleties that are difficult to replicate in animation, like sexual tension (Well, I guess we'll never know because sex is kept quite closed-lid for children, but there's always Catwoman and Batman).

I'm not against the idea of doing drama in animation, though. I think animation is by itself, surreal. Whether you do a "realistic" story or a non-SFX story, the film will end up being surreal because animation is just that.

However, I believe that some dramas can benefit from the "surreal" nature animation offers. Alfred Hitchock's "Vertigo" could have been quite effective in animation, and even Roman Polanski's "Repulsion" could be effective with the surreal settings animation automatically offers (Though the recent "Perfect Blue" is already quite similar to "Repulsion.")

Grave of the Fireflies, an anime and film classic, (Ebert put it in his "Top 100 Greatest Movies of all Time" list) is a story about a boy and his sister in a WWII setting. It could have been shot in live-action, right? Ah, but would it have been as effective? In Grave of the Fireflies, there are many scenes of great artistic imagery, like the mesmerizing movement of fireflies, the soft blowing of leaves, and the rippling of water that would look corny or ineffective in live-action, but is totally acceptable in animation because it IS animation. We accept these defiances of reality even though this is by and large a "realistic" film.

So my point is that animation CAN do realistic stories in its own unique ways. But it is very difficult to show off its advantages in realistic settings, though not impossible.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Come to think of it, this trend may be why Americans buy into the stereotype that cartoons are just for kids, because that's the only people they catered to.


THIS could be the answer to our problem! Kids are the biggest part of the 'toon audience, but other people like adults can be big factors in a show's audience too. The problem is to get a TV exec to realize that....

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by joker
most of the cartoon cartoons dont seem like childrens cartoons at all, with the exception of power puff girls.

PPG seems like a purely children's cartoon? Have you looked closely at "Mommy Fearest"?

[Maxie Zeus]

I'm astonished that, on a thread where people are wondering whether animation can do drama, BTAS hasn't come up. Because one of the chief glories of the Fox years were those gangster stories that were drama- rather than action-driven: "It's Never Too Late," "I Am the Night," "Second Chance," "Two Face I & II", etc.

It's certainly true that animated dramas tend to be very stylized: Characters tend to be archetypes; conflicts are ritualized; the plots tend to be coldly melodramatic. But very much the same kind of thing can be said about Hollywood's golden age movies. There's not a lot separating "It's Never Too Late" from "Manhattan Melodrama" or "Public Enemy."

I think that's one reason I really like BTAS. It would be impossible to make a genuine "Cagney" nowadays because the post-60s style of "naturalistic" filmmaking has ruined our appreciation for such stylized creations. But in animation it is still possible to get by on wit and indirection, as BTAS demonstrates with great flair.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Funny you mentioned that, as I just saw Cagney's "Angels with Dirty Faces" for the first time last night...

And I really liked it!

[Nightflower]

Let me try and rephrase myself. I think by saying "Arthur" and "Dragon Tales" reinforce the notion that cartoons are for kids is like saying Sesame Street makes people think that dramas like Buffy need to tone down their violence. *doesn't know if she made sense* Those kind of cartoons will be there, no matter what you say, and I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. That isn't the problem. Those shows are AIMED at a very young audience, while shows like Zeta are aimed at older audiences but underestimate its audience's tolerance (of violence, plotlines, etc). The problem with Zeta is that it COULD have good material, but executives underestimate what kids could comprehend and what's too much action for them. Arthur is not "watered down" by the executives because its source is already quite gentle. The last time I read an Arthur book to little boys, it did not have any wonderfully tormented villains bent on destroying the world that Arthur needed to fight via his martial-arts-wielding robot mech.

Anyway, what was my point again? Oh yeah. I don't think cartoons for little kiddies will hurt the chances that animation becomes catered to general audiences. Some people are dumb, but not that dumb- cartoons like that are in a different genre than "action" cartoons like X-men or Batman.

I think the problem is brain-dead executives who forget how perceptive children can be. I know four-year-olds who followed Babylon 5 with no problems and
who can cite all the subplots of Days of Our Lives better than me.

Unfortunately, me being a pessimist, I think that the time for people to wake up and realize that animation can be for all ages has passed, and now we're on the downhill. (Or maybe that's just the nostalgia of old shows talking)

[joker]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


PPG seems like a purely children's cartoon? Have you looked closely at "Mommy Fearest"?

i agree that power puff girls does have a good number of grown up jokes, it just seems out of all the cartoon cartoons, it is marketed more as a childs cartoon.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by joker


i agree that power puff girls does have a good number of grown up jokes, it just seems out of all the cartoon cartoons, it is marketed more as a childs cartoon.

That's because a lot of kids watch it, and therefore provide the source of PPG's overall TV and sales funds.

To me, PPG is like "The Tick." It's a superhero show that parodies superheroes and other pop culture stuff while still appealing to kids at the same time. I wouldn't so much call PPG "adult" as I would "clever." It's a very good and clever show, but to me, putting a lot of baby boomer jokes or references to politics does not necessarily make it "adult."

[Mr. Obsession]

Originally posted by Nightflower
The last time I read an Arthur book to little boys, it did not have any wonderfully tormented villains bent on destroying the world that Arthur needed to fight via his martial-arts-wielding robot mech.

Yes and if the Arthur cartoon had an episode like that I would be forced to watch it. :D


I think the problem is brain-dead executives who forget how perceptive children can be. I know four-year-olds who followed Babylon 5 with no problems and who can cite all the subplots of Days of Our Lives better than me.

I'd say the biggest problem is the brain-dead execs, the potential for mature animation is great and can be very profitable but it's also risky because the history animation has in the country -- they don't think anyone will watch it.

And B5 was nothing short of brilliant. Though why the parents of the 4-yr-olds are letting them watch Days of Our Lives is beyond me.

Unfortunately, me being a pessimist, I think that the time for people to wake up and realize that animation can be for all ages has passed, and now we're on the downhill. (Or maybe that's just the nostalgia of old shows talking)

I'd say it's a cross between nostalgia and pessimism. Doesn't each generation believe that the shows they grew-up on are better than the current generation's?

[Singin' Stray Cat]

All right, all right. My reply to this topic was terrible and I admit it. Thanks for catching me on it, Nightflower. My response wasn't really thought out well - and what's really gonna be ironic is that I've even caught myself watching Blue's Clues every once in a while over the summer.

But really, I'm sorry if it sounded like I said cartoon shows aimed at younger children were bad - that wasn't my point at all. Worse still, my post was misdirected - what most people can't stand, and rightfully so, are the cartoons of the '70's and '80's that were primarily (if not only) interested in the kids' parents' money. The cartoons I had talked about in my previous post were made with different motives (although the characters in them are marketed, hardly any chance of avoiding that altogether) - and I really made a mistake even bringing them into this discussion.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go sit in the corner and figure out how to get my foot out of my mouth. :p

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Hey, we all make mistakes! Don't worry about it.
Those cartoons are aimed for kids and rightly so. It's just dumbing down shows that could/should/would/but most especially WERE intended for an all-ranged audience that gets to everyone. 'Course, that's what everyone was saying...:rolleyes:

....And Blue's Clues, I'll admit, I have watched too. But it's a pity that THAT has gone to the marketing blitz as well. At least it's doing public safety mesages; I've seen a car safety ad in a Reader's Digest.

There's a place for kiddie toons, but the big problem is that all the execs think in this equation:

WORD(cartoon)=CHILD, THUS cartoon(dumb down)
I'm bad at equations...:p

[Calhoun07]

[i]Example number two: Zeta. Studio execs really have low expecations for what kids can comprehend, so there aren't any huge plot twists. Character development is nill. Fight scenes are watered down. Is this cartoon kid-friendly? Yes, but adults will find absolutely nothing here that'll keep them interested.

So I think the problem here isn't cartoons that kids can watch. The problem is the all-consuming mandate to make everything so "kid-friendly" that the cartoon becomes condescending and unwatchable to anyone over the age of 12. Come to think of it, this trend may be why Americans buy into the stereotype that cartoons are just for kids, because that's the only people they catered to. [/B]

I think that "kid friendly" is a gross misnomer in this instance. To me, dumbing down any kind of a show for a target audience isn't being friendly towards that audience, but insulting. The best cartoons I liked growing up were the ones I felt did not talk down to me.

And I wanted to comment on PPG....I don't see it as a kids cartoon either. I loved this cartoon before it was a Cartoon Cartoon, and before it was being marketed at all. When I first saw it, it struck me as a great alternative cartoon that was witty, clever, and somewhat subversive. And I think some of the best cartoons today started out like that. Rugrats, for example, stuck me in that way when it first came out. I just hope PPG doesn't degrade to become "kid friendly" entertainment in the future. I think Rugrats has lost its touch over the years.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Agreed, Calhoun. I saw an eppy of PPG before it got popular in the way it is today, and it was hilarious.
Rugrats....sigh. They pretty much, I think, lost the point of the show over the years. I say it started to fall when the first movie premiered. Dill's just a prop since he can't talk...

...these shows were popular because they took thier audience...seriously. Really. They didn't try to go on cheap plots or one-liners, but went for good plots and dialouge. All the best shows do that.

[cube]

i have no idea why most people think cartoons is just for kids,im only 12 and i know what they mean when they say that stuff but most littler kids i know dont even watch CN they think its boring but most of the stuff on its kewl my dad watches cartoons more then me so its obviously not something that only kids like

[Vin]

What's up with reviving old threads?

[ccffan01]

Cartoons are for anyone who enjoys them.

[Calhoun07]

Originally posted by Vincent Benenati
What's up with reviving old threads?

Don't even get me started on this topic again.... :mad: