Your Thoughts on Animation.

[KingdomKey23]

Hey, I think I remember that Arthur episode. Wasn't it the one where DW's bird died? That was a good one.

Yeah, I think that was the one. Good memory.

Oh yeah. One thing people have to realize is that kids aren't as fragile as they think. Yes, I agree that a level of restraint should be implemented when making something for kids, but don't cut everything dark and scary out of it! It helps toughen kids up for later things in life.

Agree with you there, WR. The person who made that One Piece site said that 4kids thinks kids are stupid. Well, I agree. They think that kids would just be afraid to even think of death, so they make shows like a Candyland where no one dies and everyone is happy. Sometimes it is important to teach children about life. I mean it should be done in a calm and slow way so that children can understand. Learning some of these things maybe scary, but its part of life. I'm not saying all cartoons do that, but some should. Even some cut out religion, like 4kids again, but there are all sorts of religon episodes on children shows that talk about it, especially during the holidays. I agree that maybe some other cartoons should incorperate that a little more, I'm not saying a lot more, but maybe just a little bit more.

[WeirdRaptor]

Well said, KingdomKey. Although I also hope its done tastefully as well. Another problem is that some people thing of animation as a crude art form, which is also untrue.

[KingdomKey23]

Agree with you again, WR. Some movies have displayed beautiful animation. I'm all an aw when I see it. Why can't this person understand that?

[WeirdRaptor]

The person who I quoted? Who's name is Ralph Bakshi, a animation filmmaker, by the way. He's also the man responsible for "Fritz the Cat", a pornographic movie about talking cats and a wild night on the town, as well as that horrid "Lord of the Rings" adaptation I describe in my review. Needless to say, he did drugs in the 60s and 70s, and probably has no taste for the beauty that animation can be.

[Littlefoot1616]

Believe it or not, animation used to be a very controversial medium. Unlike live action, animation was not subjected to the same sorts of censorship because it was deemed as "not real". In light of that fact, people like Ralph Bakshi (as you mentioned WR) who made works like Fritz the Cat could effective get away with creating versions of subversive animation to depict actions of drug use, prostitution and gang violence. It was an untouchable medium at one stage and it's only until fairly recently that censorships have clamped down harder on such depictions even though it is effectively not real (by real I mean the direct application of humans in the film).

But still, a very interesting discussion. There is a lot more to animation than cutesy characters running around skipping, dancing and singing about the nicer things in life. Animation has a lot more power in the fact that it literally defines the saying "the limit is your own imagination". There is only so much that live action films can do before artificial effects (like animation) has to take over. Sadly, animation is deemed as something for kids because most people like to break away from aspects that link them to childhood so they feel they have developed some means of maturity.

Animation is a wondrous art form that has some very strong morals, stories and concepts that, in certain retrospects, were deemed unsuitable for younger audiences. A lot of animations throughout history have had a lot of hidden messages behind the antics that the characters performed on screen. References of sexual nature, historic icons and the like. Even innocent Looney Tune cartoons had some dodgy references interwoven into the anarchy the characters acted out.

Out of the two, animation Vs. live action, I'd much rather prefer to see an animation because there is a certain quality that animation boasts over live action that makes it stand out that bit more. I've seen some really disturbing images with animations but still, I find it intriguing rather than disgusting because of that separation and certain distance from the real world cartoons have.

Then there's the concept of animation STYLES...and that's another kettle of fish that boasts animation's power over live action.

[WeirdRaptor]

I have to say I disagree with you 100% concerning the issue of "animation is better than live-action". I think both have their own strengths and that one is incapable of topping in the other in their own respects. And I love both equally, for different reasons.  

You speak kindly, too kindly of Ralph Bakshi. Yesh, he made animation for older audiences, but he's also part of the problem. He's part of the reason that people think that if animation isn't kid's stuff, then it has to be vulgar. I primarily blame him and "The Simpsons" for the notion.

[Malte279]

A notion which I still don't really agree with if depicted as commonly accepted (looking at the non vulgar examples of "grownup suited animation" which I mentioned earlier). I suppose there may be regional differences in the perception and I will also admit I have limited knowledge of animation and movies in general (rarely watching TV), but I don't expect that, even if there was an undeniable need for vulgarity in animation to make it seen as "proper for grownups", that such a notion could be blamed on a single individual like Ralph Bakshi. Again I know too little about Bakshi to give a really good input, but from the outsider's perspective I have the impression that, while you WR think that others speak too kindly of Bakshi, you may be strongly biassed about him yourself.
As for your refusal of considering animation better than real life action I second what you said about both having their individual strengths. Like you I wouldn't rate one above the other generally while there may be individual features in which one of the two genres may prove superior to the other.

[KingdomKey23]

Yeah, animation and live-action are just different styles. I wouldn't consider one better than the other. Just a lot of people say that animation is just for kids. That is not true.

[WeirdRaptor]

Well, Bakshi was the first person to suggest putting allout vulgarity into his cartoons, without actually making them more mature than kid's animated films, and that gave way to "The Simpsons", "Family Guy", "American Dad", "Shrek", "Shrek 2" (there is no denying that the "Shrek" films are full of vulgarities), "Heavy Metal", "12 Oz. Mouse", "Harvey Birdman", "Stroker and Hoop", "Robot Chicken", ect, all of which push the envolope in the direction of the train of thought that the only alternative to making an animated film for kids is to make it a vulgar comedy only for adults or horny teenagers.  Seriously, I actually do watch a lot of animation, and this is how it is.
For being one of the leading pioneers of leading people of the Western part of the world to think that animation can only be kid's movies or be porn (and for trying to sue Peter Jackson for not giving him some of the proceeds from the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy), I will always, always hate Bakshi and be seriously biased against him.

Those examples you gave might be acceptable to some adults, but they are not tailored at adults. They are made for kids.
These days, there two kinds of animation in the Western World:
Kid's films, some of which can be tolerated and enjoyed by adults (without that being the actual intent).
The other: vulgar comedies.
With the sole exception of some of Don Bluth's films, I have yet to see anything that falls somewhere in-between those two catagories in the vast maturity of animation that's been released in the last quarter century in all of Western civilization.

[Littlefoot1616]

OK...looks like I sparked something off unintentionally there. I personally prefer animation over live action but obviously didnt come across as I had meant to. That statement I made was a personal opinion. That's just me, but I guess I failed to highlight the concept that both mediums have their pros and cons.  Which, evidently they both happen to have.

As for the "Fritz the Cat" Ralph Bakshi thing, Bakshi used animation as a means of showing what the underground scene of 60s/70s America was about. It was not a ploy just to get scenes of sex, drug abuse, violence, racism and prostitution onto the screens controversially, he used animation as a more effective means to get across underlying morals and plots he wanted to portray to an audience to show them what it was truly like.

Funnily enough, I studied concepts and meanings behind "subversive" animation and Fritz the Cat was one of the many pieces I researched. There is a lot of underlying context Bakshi incorportated into Fritz the Cat but most only see the display of sex, drugs, violence etc. because it is the most outstanding feature. This notion comes from a video interview with Bakshi on his reasonings for why he made Fritz the Cat appear the way it did on screen. I won't deny that what Bakshi actually DID depict for viewers to see was vulgar and graphic coz it is! Very much so! But some fail to see the deeper meaning behind what can be seen and Bakshi said that he could have only gotten away with such displays through the medium of animation.

That is my point of saying how powerful animation can be. I was highlighting the potential it can have despite it behind stereotyped as a medium suited for children even though we all blatently know that this is not the case. Shows such as Family Guy, The Simpsons, South Park, violent Anime/Mangas etc are undeniable proof that animation is not something strictly for kids.

[WeirdRaptor]

I don't agree with you on Bakshi at all. I think he's just making excuses, because I've seen live-action movies cover the same subject and do a much better job of it.  
You miss my point when you use Bakshi and those shows I mentioned to highlight that animation can be very powerful. Yes, they are animations that you would only show to other adults, but they are not actually mature animation. They're just crude abominations.  

What a lot of people seem to be missing here is that my point isn't that people think animation is only for children alone. My peeve is that people think animation is either kid's stuff or parody snuff flicks only. That's how Western Animation has progressed, partially thanks to Bakshi, himself. If an animated feature isn't cute and cuddly, then its rated R for graphic language, and extreme sex and violence. My point: every animated feature concept that bothers to be in the middle somewhere is blatantly ignored by the public or its just not made, period.

I would love to see a elegantly made animated PG-13 film that has excellent character development, that touches on mature issues and such without being vulgar and made by a Western animation company. If I want an animated feature that has any sort of real character and philosophical depth, I usually have to look overseas.

I came across as very angry and forceful here. Sorry about that, but I don't know how else to put it.

[Petrie.]

For once a discussion that hasn't erupted in flames.  

I'm no fence sitter, but I think both LF1616 and WR could be right about this guy.  I've never watched his stuff, but I certainly have heard of him.  Could he have helped make the Simpsons into what is now a household name with vulgarity and innuendo and whatever else they create?  Its possible.  Could he also have been trying to show us another side of live represented by what appears to be slum life (guessing here--never watched Fritz)?  That too is possible.  

Who's really to say what inspired what?  Heck, I go to Disney boards and people on both sides say it's either Roger Rabbit or Ariel that brought around another gold era of Disney animation in the 1990s.  What does that show?  Sometimes you just don't know, and you will never know admist all the speculation.  You can say it happened, and its in the past and perhaps that's the best way to comment on it.

Now, I also think WR is correct about the "I need to go overseas to find what I like".  If you live in the US, you do not see an animated film with what he's looking for--plot, serious issues, PG-13, etc.  Go around the world and its not too hard to find.  That's a society thing over here and because most see animation as stuff for kids, anything that is created for an audience besides kids is edited or not created.  I already gave him a perfect example, The Plague Dogs, and how it was edited for US audiences.  :  British film on animal testing, yet it fits what he's looking for.  There are films out there...you just cannot stay in the US and expect them to come to you.

[WeirdRaptor]

Well, I need to look overseas if I want to see that kind of animation. I do like Western-style animation. I watched and loved WAY too many of them as a kid not to. Plus, I post regularly on an interent forum about one with talking baby dinosaurs.    But yeah, I need to look overseas if I want to see another kind of animation that's somewhere between "The Land Before Time" and "The Simpsons", in most cases. There are a few exceptions to that rule in Western animation ("Titan A.E.", "Watership Down", "The Plague Dogs", and "The Black Cauldron"). The PG-13 thing was just a general thing. "Titan A.E." was only PG and its one of my all time favorites.

[Littlefoot1616]

Fair play to ya WR I can understand your points on the difficulty of finding, as you put it, PG-13 animations without looking abroad. That I'll agree with. I wasn't in the States for a massive amount of time but I did notice a lack of animations that cover that particular spec you highlighted. Maybe because film makers don't seem to think that people in that sort of target age range would be interested in something animated with strengths in plot, character development etc. Can't say for sure. I know there are a few Manga style movies that hit our 12-15 age range over here but in all fairness, that's about as far as our range goes. Again, this only strengthens your stated concept that Western Animation only seems to cater for the two extremes. It's Manga which is Japanese! Eastern animation companies shipping out to the target audience in question. Guess animation companies on our end don't feel something like that would be a profitable investment. Even though the Easterners still continue to do it.

I came across as very angry and forceful here. Sorry about that, but I don't know how else to put it.

About that...no worries mate! No offence taken :^.^: It's all good healthy discussion!

[WeirdRaptor]

Good, I was afraid that I was overstepping my bounds, but I couldn't think of any other way to say what I meant.  B)

In all honesty, I don't mind looking across borders for a kind of animation I'm also interested in, though. I'm cool with anime being the healthy middle line between the kiddie flicks and the mature homour flicks. I just wish the studios on our end would be more open, because, I, frankly, perfer our animation styles to anything manga or anime.

Malte does present a good point on that some of the kid's animated films are suited for adults to watch and enjoy. Excellent point, that. It does stand as a good defense for Western animation and it does show that there is some middle line, but it doesn't change the fact that they're still films intended for films. It just means they were well-done films for kids.

One thing I do mind is continually finding out about aspiring animation filmmakers with ambitious ideas for the kinds of animated features we would all love to see, but then getting screwed over by the companies because they lack the resources and power to get their visions made because of the stereotypes that have been cemented in less than thirty years.  

Prior to the 70s, 80s, 90s, and now, the 2000s, animation had the same freedom as live-action. The problem is that it just wasn't ulitized enough and things just kind of fell into place into being how they are now without much resistance. Don Bluth spent a lot of his career fighting that stereotype before he was inevitably forced to give in for a few movies in order to make inn's meat. I blame Michael Eisner for the kiddie stereotype part.

Now, I have a confession to make. The real reason I brought this discussion up and why I'm actually very intense in this discussion: friends of mine and myself are currently attending film school so we can get into the business together (animated films, specifically). Our ideas, though...let's just say that you would never take a kid younger than 13 to any of them, and this being the Western part of the world...I'm afraid we're heading for lifelong careers of leftdowns and eventual pigeon-holing....just like poor Don Bluth.  
I probably ought to have brought this out in the first place.

[pokeplayer984]

There are quite a number of people I have come across that are kinda tired of vulgar comedy animations.  They want something on their level, that isn't intended for comedy.

You know one other thing 4Kids tends to cut out?  Here's the basic thing:

They allow hints to come forth, (blushing, embarrassing situations, etc.) but when the long awaited confession comes, do you know what they do?  They destroy it completely.

I have seen them do this multiple times:

Instead of "I love you."

They have it as "I really like you." <_<

That just doesn't work for me.  What?  Do they think it's wrong for kids to learn about love or something? :angry:

[KingdomKey23]

Seriously?    I don't watch 4kids shows that much, but they never mentioned that in that comparing website. Love is the most important thing of all. I mean even little kids as old as six could have crushes, though it is normally to older people. That brings back to my point saying that 4kids really treats kids like they don't know anything. They should consider getting a completely different dubbing company to do these shows, and I believe that 4kids should listen more to the viewers about what they have to say. Even some parents may agree that this teaches kids nothing, am I right? How many times did I hear "I love you" in Barney when I was a kid? XD Why do 4kids take out things that are naturally part of life?

[Petrie.]

4Kids has a really bad rep for really messing with the dubbing on foreign films.  Must be run by the ultra conservatives or something.  

[WeirdRaptor]

Hey, hey, I happen to be consevative, just not ultra, though.  -_-

"I love you" is a beautiful statemnt, that when with real conviction behind it, wuld move people of all ages in a well-done scene. Scenes that actually used to be seen in animated stuff. Yeah, 4Kids seems to think that things like love and other profound topics are not for kiddies. Oddly enough, if kids aren't taught about those things in one way or another while still young, how can it ever be something they'll ever learn to willingly express with anyone? Cutting out any and all emotional stuff is just stupid.

[pokeplayer984]

You know, I will also express that 4Kids has banned certian eps of my favorite Anime, Pokemon, from being dubbed for STUPID reasons.

One ep they banned had them talking about guns.

In fact, in other Anime shows I've known them to take out real guns that charcters would have and replace them with (get ready for this) water squirters.

That's REALLY STUPID if you ask me!

I've known a show for kid's here in the USA called Static Shock to have an ep that actually talked about guns.  It was the usual kid gets picked on too much at school and decides to use a gun to solve the problem.  The hero's best friend actually got hurt. (Resulting injury was a broken leg.  He was lucky, you know.) In fact, they even revealed that he would've died if the bullet was just a little higher or lower.  At the end of the ep the hero actually talks about the real danger guns can be straight to the viewing auidence.  Giving them tips of what kids should do if they find one and all that stuff.

You know, I bet if enough people got together and formed quite the angry mob, 4Kids would be run out of business in no time. :mad