Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 1:59 pm
-
Maybe he doesn't respect those particular shows?Dr Frankenollie wrote:You mean like how he respects all the The Simpsons and South Park episodes he ripped off?
Whether he spoofs or rips-off certain ideas is debatable, but he has to at least have decent knowledge of them in order to take those jabs. And I was actually speaking more of old-school animation . . . you know, like The Flintstones.There were a different set of expectations. Once again, we're talking about completely different eras where not only animation and television were different, but all entertainment in general. The Flintstones did something with animation that had never been done before, mainly focusing on ordinary family issues (despite the novel setting); something people excitedly experienced all over again when the Simpsons was new (as bland as the early seasons were).Dr Frankenollie wrote:The Simpsons was more groundbreaking for being the first good prime-time animated sitcom; just because it was groundbreaking doesn't mean that it's good. The 3-D B-movies of the 1950's were groundbreaking but weren't really any good (besides Dial M For Murder, but that wasn't the first 3-D movie).
I have. Again, a matter of opinion. And I'm not sure how you can compare budget stop-motion shorts from the 70's and 80's with budget hand-drawn animation for an ongoing series from the 60's, they're not the same thing. The examples you bring up don't have the same broad universal appeal required to be a network moneymaker either; I doubt they'd have survived prime time in the US back in the 60's.Dr Frankenollie wrote:Watch Dimensions in Dialogue. Watch the early Aardman animations. Just because the budget wasn't great doesn't mean that they could have done something inventive and pleasing to the eye with it.
And many modern professional animators would probably have a field day arguing with you over the quality of the artwork of artists like Ed Benedict. The stylized UPA-influenced limited animation had its own type of charm before they were forced to do more of an assembly-line process full of inexperienced artists in the following years; the quality got more and more bland as time went on due to the types of restrictions they faced. These designs are deceptively simple, in that if you don't have a sense of design and know how to handle them, they look like lifeless crap. I suppose one could argue that they'd always looked like lifeless crap, but once again, it's a matter of opinion. The art from the original Flintstones has a lot more appeal, variety, and organic feeling than the sterile, overly-tight look of most modern television animation.
Well, I suppose you could argue that all television animation from the 50's on through the 90's sucked, but there were indeed a few gems here and there.Dr Frankenollie wrote:Yeah-audiences had nothing better to watch.enigmawing wrote:Even if you don't like these characters, there's a reason they've lasted for decades.
And how many animated television characters have survived since the 60's like they have . . . maybe the Jetsons? Scooby Doo? Both of which were programs churned out by the same studio.And technically speaking, one could make the same argument for animation from much older generations like Otto Messmer's Felix the Cat. Well yeah, they only liked the B&W silent character because they had nothing better to watch!
Just because modern audiences may have a harder time appreciating older and sometimes dated material for what it is, that doesn't make it any less ground-breaking or less appreciated within its own time.
We can just agree to disagree, right? Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding why you're complaining about the reboot of a franchise you've already clearly disliked in the first place.