In this blog post I will be discussing some theories I have about why the cartoons on the three major networks (Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney) have been seen to have a steady decline in quality during the past decade.
1. Hey you kids, get off my lawn!
This is probably my weakest argument, but one that I have heard in defending modern cartoons. Cartoons are made for kids, and when I was a kid I liked them and now I don't so it must be my fault for getting old. Gosh how dare I? But there is an important part to this. Fans got old. New cartoonists wanted to make things they found funny and so they made adult cartoons. Family Guy, Robot Chicken, Boondocks, shows that are all better than what I have seen on Nickelodeon lately.
I still argue the point that it's not because I'm old. Phineas and Ferb on Disney, Chowder and Adventure time on Cartoon Network. These shows are great examples of where cartooning has to go to be funny and yet thoughtful. Standing up next to greats like Samurai Jack and Hey Arnold they stand as tall in depth and in surface interest.
2. Money where your art is.
So why have cartoons declined? Why do I not get the same amount of joy out of Flapjack, Magical World of Gumball, Ben 10, the new spongebobs, mighty B, and whatever is a cartoon on Disney now? One answer I propose is that it is movies. Animated movies are where the money is, it is where the millions are. Why would a talented cartoonist or cartoon writer do a cartoon when an animated movie can support them much better? Genndy Tartokovsky is a great example, who stopped doing Samurai Jack so that he may work with Star Wars, which has lead him to even bigger and better things since then, but never back to the small screen.
3. Live Action? Little Satisfaction.
I'm looking at you Disney and Nickelodeon. You have spurned your cartoons in order to make way for "live action shows". Maybe kids like these? I don't know. In my opinion they lack the level of depth that Craig McCracken's cartoons do, like the Beatles themed episode of the Powerpuff girls which works on the level of satire, a story in itself and on parody.
4. Cartoon Cartoons v Nicktoons
Competition makes a good market. During the 90's Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon started to make their own universes where all of their characters interacted and got together. Children had arguments over which network had better Universes. Nickelodeon gave up on that for live action, and the lack of competition has shown.
5. Credits
Well that's it. You read it all. Good job.
I agree with some of your first point, but along with no longer being in the targeted age group for cartoons, there is also something of a generation gap to consider. Cartoons need to change to please the young of today in the same way it needed to change from the early silent and black and white cartoons to what we had grown up with. Children of today are more accustomed to instant gratification and so have developed extremely short attention spans. Somehow in order to adapt so cartoons would still have an audience, they had to evolve (or devolve) into what can be seen today.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I want to disagree with your second point. While it is true a movie can bring in more money than a show, a job with a movie is not a long term position. Once the movie is over and released to DVD the artists responsible have to find other jobs, and because of the high competition, it may be a while before they're behind another movie. Some will do some acting (or voice acting) like Bob Peterson, one of the credited writers for Up, who also did the voices of Dug and Alpha, along with several voices in other movies. Also, with your example about Genndy Tartokovsky, he does still do animated TV shows (the most recent being a Cartoon Network show called Sym-Bionic Titan 2010-2011), and his work with Star Wars wasn't exactly a big screen deal. He was responsible for Star Wars: The Clone Wars 2003-2005, which was a show that aired on Cartoon Network.