I’m talking about the art style. Obviously, there’s a lot of good stuff: Archer is the finest example, of course. I’m not a watcher, but MLP: FiM definitely looks good.
But then we’ve got shit like Adventure Time and now this thing that’s showing on IFC, Out There. They look bizarro, to put it kindly. To put it how I actually feel, they look like ass. There’s no way I’d watch either of these 'toons, simply because I would want to claw my eyes out the entire time. De gustibus, I guess, but I truly wish the world had more Archer time and less Adventure Time.
I’ve never seen Out There but the animation style of Adventure Time seems to me to fit its conceptual style and attitude. I also don’t quite understand what you mean when you say it looks like ass.
It’s the Japanese influence; anime has gone from a weird-looking cult art to mass popularity. Artists like to use it because it looks different from typical Disney/American animation.
I haven’t seen Out There, but I’m a big Adventure Time fan. Adventure Time’s style is simple and cute, but it belies the dark twistedness and tragedy of the show’s setting and characters. The contradiction messes with your head, in good ways. Sorry it doesn’t agree with you, but it really does add to the enjoyment of the show.
I don’t know – a little personality goes a long way in animation. I much prefer the idiosyncratic style of Adventure Time and Out There to the cookie-cutter Saturday Morning animation I grew up with (e.g., Super Friends, Masters of the Universe, etc.)
Oh, don’t get me wrong: Masters of the Universe was truly astonishingly bad, but in its own special way. My ex was into it in a “so bad it’s good” way, and I watched an episode with her. I was frankly embarassed that I loved it as a kid, and wanted to call my dad to apologize to him for making him watch it with me.
I don’t see Japanese influence in either of the 'toons I mentioned. You do get it in MLP and various other cartoons, like Powerpuff Girls and the original animated Clone Wars (mini?)series.
Anyway, I know this is just my own taste. I guess I just like cartoons to be… visually appealing? I can’t really say “realistic,” because whatever Bugs Bunny is, realistic ain’t it. Adventure Time looks like it was done by a third-grader to me. That can be charming, as in Allie Brosh’s blog, but I don’t get that from AT. Out There prominently features (it seems) people with mops instead of heads. (Or pom poms, or… something.) Which, I guess… um… whatever.
I suppose it’s an old man sort of rant that I had to get out of my system. Perhaps I need a lawn.
Adventure Time FEELS like a kid’s fantasy, but it’s the most visually inventive cartoon since Chuck Jones stopped drawing the Road Runner. Penn Ward (the show’s creator) is a visual genius. To do so much with so little … amazing! A few lines, a few dots, and he achieves depths of emotion that are missing from most feature films.
It’s too bad you don’t like the look, because Adventure Time is going to cast a VERY long shadow. You’re going to be seeing stuff inspired by it for the rest of your life … .
I must be an old fogey too, because I share LawMonkey’s opinion. I won’t say that I’ll never like a cartoon with “bad” animation, but it’s a lot harder sell for me. I remember back in the '90s Dr. Katz was popular, but I found it unwatchable no matter how good the plots were, because watching all those wiggly lines gave me a headache. I think the art in Adventure Time is ugly (Out There too based on the pic upthread, but I’d never even heard of that prior to this thread). I stopped watching Ren and Stimpy when the art got even uglier than it was at the beginning (admittedly the plots and “humor” devolved massively too).
Then again, I thought the art in Hey Arnold! was ugly too, but I happened to catch a couple of episodes and ended up loving it. So I guess I can get past unattractive art if I like the writing enough.
So I’m guessing, the oldsters in this thread would also hate graphical style of The Simpsons – yellow skin, Bart has no hair line, etc. I know my parents didn’t like them – they were too ugly. But, for me, the stylized, simplistic animation kinda pulls me in. Somehow, the shortcuts they’ve taken just add to the irreverence. I haven’t caught Archer very much … the the stark realism is also stylized, it seems to be, at times, a framed closeup of something by pop-artist Lichtenstein.
I probably qualify as one of the “oldsters”. But I don’t hate the style of the Simpsons. But one thing I think we oldsters miss is a sense of craft–and not just in cartoons. I once heard a graphic artist lament that students in art school today are not required to learn how to draw!!! I found this astonishing, but I think it reflects what some people find lacking in some modern forms of artistic expression. This could really be an entire discussion in itself, but I’ll stop here.
Oh shit – I may have to turn in my “Old Fart” card, because I absolutely LOVE Adventure Time. Again, I wandered in while my daughter was watching an episode, and afterI asked did the Lich actually kill Billy and use his skin as a disguise I was hooked.
Rocky and Bullwinkle was masterfully animated with an almost-CGI realism, but I liked it. My daughters like Adventure Time and The Regular Show, but there’s too much yelling, especially when I’m trying to sleep.
Twenty plus years ago I saw an interview with Chuck Jones on the old Later with Bob Costas show (must have been circa '89 or '90) and he eventually asked him about the recent mega-success of The Simpsons. Although you could tell that he did have reservations about the drawing style, he simply called it “limited animation”, he clearly understood that that was the point. He compared it to the old Rocky & Bullwinkle Show, in that it was never meant to be a fully animated cartoon but rather a smartly written radio play with some adequate visuals accompanying it. And he still fully credited it with getting interest in prime time animation going again.
I was wondering if there was a thread about IFC’s* Out There*. I was disappointed with the first two episodes. Not terrible, just not much of anything. It lacked any heart or soul or creativity. And I don’t quite get why the main family looks that way. All the characters are drawn as caricatures, but why is the family, ah, wolf-man people or something?!
