Here's the first Bugs Bunny cartoon - made by "Bugs" Hardaway and Cal Dalton in 1938.
Here he is in a typical calm Bugs Bunny pose.
Here he is laughing the Woody Woodpecker laugh 2 years before Woody was created.
..still doing magic.This cartoon is basically a remake of Porky's Duck Hunt with some proto Bugs traits just starting to emerge. He's kinda like Daffy Duck-really wacky but with some underplayed scenes that predict Bugs' future.
Here's Chuck Jones using the early proto Bugs in a cartoon from 1938 Presto Changeo
He's not the star of the cartoon and is basically a magician's rabbit.
Here's another Hardaway and Dalton Bugs Bunny cartoon: Hare-um Scare-um - 1939.
His design is starting to look like the Bugs we all know. His voice is sort of like the retarded early Barney Rubble.
A typical Bugs Bunny routine.
Here he is invoking mock sympathy - making fun of pathos. A very Warner Bros. type of irreverence-very anti-Disney.To remind you of an important point I made last post: In the old days, artists evolved their ideas constantly. The character designs would change from cartoon to cartoon, director to director and in some cartoons, from scene to scene!
These 3 cartoons here represent 18 minutes of Bugs Bunny's development-that's less than a half hour cartoon. Today's cartoons are frozen in time. They barely change at all over 100s of half hours. The world is opposed to creativity today.
70 years ago, creativity and rapid progress were just taken for granted.
You have to be raised in an uncreative environment in order to blindly accept how bland and crappy everything is today.
The difference between a generation that grew up in the 1930s and a generation that has grown up in the 70s or later is stark.
When my parents first saw The Simpsons and South Park and other primitive stuff, they said instantly: "This is crap. I can draw better than that." That should be the obvious conclusion.
No one should accept professional work that looks like they could do it themselves.
Unfortunately, that obvious type of conclusion is beyond the comprehension of most people who were raised in poo.
In a common sense era, you could never convince anyone through logic that they should wear pants that fall off while the police are chasing you, unless those are the only kind of pants you've ever seen your friends wear.
BTW, some folks have argued that The Simpsons and South Park evolved too. Please post some examples and the dates so we can compare the rate of evolution and see how far they have come and how long it took.
Here, Evan has provided proof that modern cartoons evolve:
Year 1
10 years later.
That's over 200 half hours of hundreds of quality animators and designers experimenting madly and taking their imaginations beyond whatever the most accomplished dentists and mailmen could do in an afternoon.
10 years later.
That's over 200 half hours of hundreds of quality animators and designers experimenting madly and taking their imaginations beyond whatever the most accomplished dentists and mailmen could do in an afternoon.
345 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 345 Newer› Newest»John,
I really enjoy your posts on animation history. Very enlightening and a great way to present a sort of filter for examining the kinds of attitudes that plague the world of entertainment today.
By the way, I was wondering what your feelings are on The Ripping Friends, now that some time has passed since the show ended. I recently got ahold of the DVD and the episodes keep getting better every time I watch them. Really good stuff!
What a depressing but spot on description of the state of cartoons today. Now that I think about it, the only recent cartoon that comes to mind that evolved at all was "Ren and Stimpy", and because of the success of that show we have a ton of cartoons trying to do what you did but not learning a damn thing from your brilliant creation. Oh well, whatever keeps the suits rich.
I'd say the Simpsons have devolved; at least back when Groening was involved they used creative camera angles, perspective, and actually animated some action. The drawings have become more 'refined' but that just means they're in a formulaic rut.
>>Oh well, whatever keeps the suits rich.<<
They would get richer if they let nature take its course.
Well shit, cartoons sucks today...but I think the bigger point John is trying to make is that this is in all walks of life today. In our shitty music, out movies, our sitcoms, and everything relatively art related. Not to say that there isn't good art today, but corporations are letting people who aren't achieved artists make the calls on what is and isn't marketable. How gay is that?
Not only that but lets get a Vehicle that run on something else besides Fossil Fuel god damn it! Were living in the stone ages! But anyhow, lets get back to cartoons...:p
"I'd say the Simpsons have devolved; at least back when Groening was involved they used creative camera angles, perspective, and actually animated some action. The drawings have become more 'refined' but that just means they're in a formulaic rut."
My thoughts exactly. The Simpsons used to be more cartoony and alive,now they have become stiff.
You got sidetracked, John. You started talking about the early stages of the Daffy Rabbit that would become Bugs Bunny and then you went off on a tangeant on how things suck today. I was hoping you'd carry on into talking about Elmer's Candid Camera, A Wild Hare (the first tru Bugs Bunny cartoon), and The Heckling Hare. I guess that'll happen either next post or in a post in the near future.
I wouldn't say the Simpsons evolved so much but rather it took them a few seasons to settle into a good groove which then slid into a rut which they are currently in (but even still, a "rut" episode of the Simpsons is still better than a lot of the crap made today (except for Ren & Stimpy of course)).
Actually, The Simpsons has caused somewhat of an external rut as well (through no fault of their own). Besides the main family, there are many other colourful characters that people enjoy seeing on the show (Mr. Burns, Ned Flanders, Ralph Wiggums, Groundskeeper Willie, Apu, etc.). With all these popular characters to draw from, it's no wonder they can come up with more than 300 episodes (they may be approaching 400 now). However, the show didn't start off with this huge ensemble cast. It took many seasons of experimentation to achieve this motley crew. Unfortunately, any other animated sitcom made afterwards has had to create a cast inwhich every character is hilarious and therefore popular. Pretty much everyone knows that such a thing is damn near impossible (except for clueless executives). Therefore, each of these shows has maybe two or three characters that catch on in some way surrounded by a bunch of other bland characters trying way too hard to be funny and/or likeable. That's the part that really annoys me about many things made today.
Hmmmmmmmm........ maybe I should have typed all this on Eddie's animation theory blog. (8O
I rented The Golden Collection of Looney Tunes with Kitty Kornered and the Duck Twacy episode you did commentary for- amazing still frames just like you said! I paused every other frame to try to copy the expression- it was loads of fun!
I also watched a dvd of banned classic cartoons-I've got to say cartoon women nowadays are so bland compared to the girls they chugged out back then (and the ones you do now)- I guess cartoons today are a reflection of the people making them- boring and bland!
"The Simpsons" was in its prime from seasons 3-5, and then became garbage, obsessed with celebrities guest starring for voices and the use of bland pop culture references.
Ehi John,
you can use my pictures of the Clampett's proto-Bugs when you want.
the Simpsons is still better than a lot of the crap made today
I bed to differ, South Park is in it's 9th season and has held up far better then The Simpsons.
"the Simpsons is still better than a lot of the crap made today"
I beg to differ, South Park is in it's 9th season and has held up far better then The Simpsons.
It might be a case of semantics, but the Simpsons have gone through quite a few "changes" over the years.
Off the top of my head...
They started as short bumpers on the Tracy Ullman show. Then they became a Series (I'm not sure if that "Santa's Little Helper" episode counts as a pilot, a Christmas Special or just the first mid-season episode.)
They switched production houses from Klasky-Czupo (sp?) to Film Roman, so there was a stylistic change of sorts there.
Scads and scads of incidental characters have come (and gone) over the years.
Well, you get the idea. Many changes have occurred. Does this sort of stuff count as "evolution" or just a series bumbling along as the personnel changes?
My Blair Blog
An example of a cartoon evolving. Most folks here probably saw this as it was in a Cartoon Brew post, but it's still a nice read.
Of course, one exception proves nothing, specially when it's a relatively unknown example, and it's not american (I assume John's theory are mostly about american cartoons).
>>These 3 cartoons here represent 18 minutes of Bugs Bunny's development-that's less than a half hour cartoon. Today's cartoons are frozen in time. They barely change at all over 100s of half hours. The world is opposed to creativity today.
John you DO realize that these three cartoons were created over a two-year period? That's plenty of time to figure out a character.
But, I do see your point. Cartoons today (i.e. 2001-onward) don't "evolve" and stay the same.
i think south park is the exception for trying to improve the artistic qualities of the show... when it was super crappy, you knew they wanted it to look that way and they were maybe even making fun of crappy animation...
however when a bunch of people who are not that artistically gifted try to improve the looks of the show... well the fact that you know they are now trying to make it look cooler, finally gives you the right to start criticizing the artwork, and i think they'd have been better off just using the defense of, "it's supposed to look crappy" and it would have been easier for them too.
in otherwords, "do not try, DO... but if you can't DO, then DONT TRY"
Hey. No, there wasn't much worth watching; I grew up in the 70's there wasn't much in the way of variety. but every morning before I was off to school they would play the old popeye, felix the cat and looney tunes episodes (mixed in w/speed racer).
BTW, EVERYONE SHOULD BUY A SKETCH FROM JOHN. I GOT MINE IN THE MAIL YESTERDAY. I LOVE IT & NO ONE CAN BELIEVE THAT HE ACTUALLY DID IT FOR ME. THEM THARS BRAGGIN RIGHTS!!
DO IT NOW!!
I read somewhere the other day that the main problem with art today (but this could apply to what you were saying regarding cartoons) is that craftsmanship has taken a backseat to content.
People want to be entertained IMMEDIATELY, they want to know what all the characters are like IMMEDIATELY and it doesn't matter what sort of stylistic package it comes in, as long as it entertains them. What else could explain why people are obsessed with shitty, shitty Hollywood Michael Bay-type movies, movies that they can know and predict every plot twist and are told explicitly how they are supposed to feel about the characters and the story? Nowadays people are just used to being spoonfed content and don't care if they are being fed regurgitated crap.
I also think its a temporary thing, and that the generation that grows up under South Park, the Simpsons and the like, will suddenly discover cartoons and realize how awesome they are. Studio execs will pick up on the increase and demand and cartoons will make a comeback.
Too true. Animation today has only gotten worse. The thing I like about Ren & Stimpy is the free-flowing creative way the characters moved and acted. You can see the artists were creative people. The old classic cartoon styles emerged: round eyes, bulging faces, erratic motions all reminded me of Looney Tunes.
As a kid during the 1970s, Saturday morning cartoons were basically pablum. When I saw old Bugs Bunny and Popeye cartoons, I liked them better than anything Hanna Barbera had done in the 1970s.
One of the things I like about South Park and Family Guy is not the animation, but the writing. It's a more raw, adult-themed style than The Simpsons.
- Eric A.
Wanna see more frame grabs?
PORKY'S HARE HUNT (April 30th, 1938)
PREST-O CHANGE-O (March 25th, 1939)
HARE-UM SCARE-UM (August 12th, 1939)
I have started this thread http://www.felizonia.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1148577129;start=0#0
in a spanish Simpsons community and different people are trying to show the changes in the Simpsons. Not the best examples right now, I would post again if we eventually do the best choices. I think they are better choices myself, but I'm too lazy to search on my own.
Also, I give you classic animation looks miles better than the Simpsons, but you should consider that, aesthetically (spelling?), Simpsons look far better than South Park. I mean, they may not evolve too much, but they have volume, they had some variety of expression (at least more than SP), there are interesting angles in some of the shots, that sometimes could be a little hard to draw, the backgrounds look a lot better... I mean, I understand what you are saying but I don't think the general kid could draw a good Simpson or someone who doesn¡t know anything about drawings.
I don't even dislike the look of SP either and I LOVE classic cartoons and yours, but anyway. For some reason Family Guy or Dreamworks 3d movies like shrek look more boring for me than Simpsons or SP. And I'll give Shrek and Family Guy have at least somewhat better graphics than SP (especially shrek movies) but I find it funnier to watch, it has more colours and it doesn't look so homogeneous, Family Guy looks too bland and Shrek movies looks too much like a real action movie or a weird mixture between a cartoon and a real movie (Pixar has far better designs, I think The Incredibles is the best looking 3D movie yet, even if the story is not my fave, it was quite well done but I'm just not too much of a superheroe fan).
David G,
You're missing the point of this series of articles. It isn't the history of Bugs Bunny per se, it's how great characters like Bugs Bunny get created. There is a good reason why we don't have many characters with the depth and personality of Bugs Bunny being created today. That's the whole point of these "Evolution of Bugs" posts.
The Simpsons hasn't changed much at all since it went to the half hour format. Bugs Bunny changed more in the first three or four seven minute cartoons than the Simpsons have in a gazillion hours of programs. In order for something to get better, the creators have to be free to experiment and try new things. That's what makes a character real flesh and blood, and not just a predictable, hackneyed concept.
The past can't be changed, but we can learn from it and change the future. John isn't just ragging on modern animation. He's pointing out how we can make it better. That makes him a lot more forward thinking and hopeful than most people in the business today.
See ya
Steve
Wow! The pictures make a strong argument! It breaks my heart to think how animation, which always strains at the leash to exaggerate, has been tied up and boxed in the way it has.
-Eddie
Saying that the Simpsons looks better than South Park is like saying dining on the excrement of gazelles is better than dining on the excrement of dogs.
See ya
Steve
And to add one more analogy...
A cartoon with lousy animation is like a beautifully wrapped birthday present with nothing inside.
See ya
Steve
re: evolution of characters --
didn't even the warner bros. characters stop evolving once they'd reached a kind of stylistic endpoint?
just from a viewer's perspective, but once bugs bunny started looking like the modern-day toy/icon version of bugs bunny, I didn't notice much of a significant progression from then up-till-and-including [gah!] space jam.
should the fact that the simpsons took a much shorter period and distance to reach the toy/logo version of themselves be held against them?
I liked the John K. yogi and boo-boo redesigns, but I'll bet there were more than a few yogi fans who saw any kind of deviation as blasphemy -- so it's not just boneheaded execs and too-dumb-to-know-better young'ins but conservative nostalgia fans who are as much a force against innovation as anything.
I don't know, dude. I think the appeal of the simpsons and south park is that the average viewer CAN draw them.
And this trend of simple stuff succeeding trememdously started long ago... A little cartoon strip called Peanuts.
Great post John!
should the fact that the simpsons took a much shorter period and distance to reach the toy/logo version of themselves be held against them?
Yes, it should, because that's when things start to suck. Warner Bros did get stale after one point, but they were not at their best in that moment.
The Simpsons is still a great show regardless of the crappy animation.
To Per, I don't watch The Simpsons because I can draw them, I watch it because of it's great characterisations, plots and because its funny (well, the older ones anyway). Most animation these days is mass-marketed for kids and a lot of it really does look like it's been drawn by kids.
One reason why animation is so stale today I think is because as long as the money's still coming in, why change the formula. Animation in the 30's had to change and evolve because otherwise everyone would have become bored shitless of it. That's why the 30's and 40's were such a great time for animation.
I remember those cartoons... haven't seen em in years. Cartoon Network doesn't show real cartoons much anymore. Just a bunch of untalented anime crap.
One reason why animation is so stale today I think is because as long as the money's still coming in, why change the formula
That only makes sense until someone comes in and dares to change it. If that person makes a lot of money everybody will imitate him/her. We've seen it happen countless times, it happened with Ren and Stimpy! The problem is that whoever makes the calls in this business are a bunch of pussies! They are afraid of losing money if they bet on something new, they waiting for someone to take the risk
One reason why animation is so stale today I think is because as long as the money's still coming in, why change the formula
That only makes sense until someone comes in and dares to change it. If that person makes a lot of money everybody will imitate him/her. We've seen it happen countless times, it happened with Ren and Stimpy! The problem is that whoever makes the calls in this business are a bunch of pussies! They are afraid of losing money if they bet on something new, they are waiting for someone to take the risk and if it works they'll just jump in the bandwagon and suck all the milk until the cow dies from dehydration.
didn't Clampett gag most of "porkys hare hunt"?
could someone follow up on John's request in his last paragraph? i'm very interested to see them.
Eventually he managed to evolve into this.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117705/
Thats creativity for you!
http://students.risd.edu/yr2006/espence/seniorthesis.jpg
I think the modern sensibility is that you have to work out the kinks in your characters (or "product"), get them ready for the bright lights, and then exploit them to hell and back like so many JonBenet Ramseys. All the pre 1950s Bugs, Daffys, Porkys, et al, would probably called "pre-visualization" in this context. As far as I'm concerned, cartoon shorts should either be rib-splitting funny and / or wildly surreal, or else make you want to get up and dance. There are few exceptions. Has to be done right. I still admire the work of guys like, let's say, Bruno Bozetto, but the problem with 85% of post golden age short form animation is that it is either heavy-handed, and didactic, or else a philosophical treatise smooshed into 7 mnutes. Look at the cartoons of our time -- so much preachiness and existential angst. Where's the unmitigated joy of the Warners, the Fleischer's Popeye and Betty Boop ---- Spongebob comes close. And actually, that show would be at the top of my list again if they would let the characters evolve and do something out of the routine!
Well, nuff gabbin. I just have one request for all you artist types. Please come over to my blog
http://seed-sower-sowing-seeds.blogspot.com/
and answer the questions I just put up, to help me become good! If you've already been, there's lots more to see than there ever was before and now kids get in free! C'mon!
Hey Junior,
that sounds so goddam right, you could'nt find better words to discribe the situation in which the animation industry is!!
John-
If you mean the character designs only are evolving, South Park hasn't done much of that. But if you mean the over all look and quality of the show, it has improved.
Anyways heres a comparison
season 1 screenshot
season 10 screenshot
Well...Bavck in season 1 of the Simpsons when the animation was done by klasky Csupo or however you spell it the animation was more squishy and expressive. Then the budget went up and they could have more drawings per minute and figured they didn't need to make each induvidual one tell a story anymore.
Theeeeeen it pretty much stayed the same.
But hey, what do I know? I was raised in poo.
Funny, before '39 Bugs didn't wear gloves. Anybody know when and why cartoonists started drawing gloves on their characters? How come no shoes or pants?
I totally agree with everything the "usuario anónimo" said. The one who posted about LT stopped evolving at some pòint. Yeah, Chuck Jones would add some details here and there but the models were quite similar. Yeah, each director used different types of facial expressions, but they look quite close to each other and McKimson's Bugs was always McKimson's Bugs. I don't even see such a big evolution even in Ren and Stimpy, apart from the very first ones. I see there are different styles used, sometimes within the same episode but I don't see an evolution such as that one in Bugs, the characters look quite similar today and they would change for specific expressions in every episode. I'm not saying they are not cool, great or creative, I am a big Spumco fan, I'm just saying I don't think they have changed SO much.
I agree with John K. that these should be the way to create a character. However I am not sure if you should change your style if you already like it and it works. I enjoy Dexter's Laboratory designs , for example, and I don't care if they don't change so much during the series or within the same episode.
Just out of curiosity I would really like to see that Simpsons experiment by John K. Would you do it like the Yogi Bear ones, changing the expressions within the same episode (I mean, like when Ranger Smith is walking and he is showed in such different styles). No offense, I loved those cartoons, but I think it would be probably boring too if all cartoons looked like that, if all kept changing during the same episode. I don't see such a big problem in staying on model, or more or less on model, if the expressions are well drawn (most of the Disney stuff), I agree that cartoons like The Simpsons and SP have very little range of expression and that could be fixed somehow, though.
Please, don't get mad or anything, this is just my opinion and I'm not saying that John K. is wrong, I would just like him to explain his arguments a little more, cause it seems to me that he always uses similar points.
I would say that The Simpsons and South Park are more like sitcoms than cartoons. They certainly have more in common with sitcoms than most any cartoons.
Why do so many successful cartoon characters accumulate neotenous attributes as time progresses? The classic examples include Mickey Mouse, Porky Pig, Tweety Bird and Woody Woodpecker.
In the natural world, we often see the adults of successful species retaining neotenous characters for a very long time. For example, adult humans have little body hair, relatively large brain capacity, the ability to drink milk and a longer time until maturation.
Once again, Spumco breaks the formula. George Liquor is the first successful cartoon character without youthful attributes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Simpsons_on_Tracey_Ullman.png
1987 on the Tracey Ullman show
That's the original Simpsons. The characters actually look sorta funny there.
So Simpsons changed like, once or twice maybe in the last . . .19 years or so.
Why do formulaic and bland looking cartoons like Family Guy and South Park Last so many years when wonderfully creative cartoons like Ren & Stimpy leave the airwaves well under their prime????
AM I MISSING SOMETHING??????????????
Look! Even South Park had to start somewhere, check out this pilot episode.
The Spirit of Christmas
While I agree that the Simpsons and South Park are not really the best designed shows, I don't think they should be. These shows are less about the visuals and more about the writing. The fact that the characters are so simple makes them easier for people to identify with.
Given that these shows are more writer-centric, with the dialogue being the thing that drives the story, I watch them with a totally different part of my brain. I love classic Warner Bros., Disney, Ren and Stimpy, etc., but I watch those pieces for the visual feast, not for the biting social satire which South Park delivers in spades(and the Simpsons used to deliver!)
The time and money needed to let cartoons "evolve" just isn't there anymore. We live in a different time.( Notice I say different, not Better!) It's getting easier and easier for people to produce quality work on home computers, and I think this is the direction most entertainment is headed. Lower budgets with less need for "blockbusters" just to break even on a producer's investment is what will save the entertainment industry.One look around the internet should prove to anyone that viable stuff is being created on minimal money.You just gotta filter out all the crap!
Anyways,I just wanna thank you, John, for all the time and energy you spend on this blog. I' m an animation student in Vancouver, and I visit it every day. It's great to read your insights and opinions. Thanks again!
Response to John K's quote
>>BTW, some folks have argued that The Simpsons and South Park evolved too. Please post some examples and the dates so we can compare the rate of evolution and see how far they have come and how long it took.
Well John, have you ever seen Matt's original Simpsons drawings. They're pretty funny looking. I do find myself frustrated once in a while that they don't exaggerate the top lip more. I LOVE CARTOON LIPS! http://www.bookcaseangel.com/publishing/images/humor/simpsons.jpg
John, I don't know if you notice this or not but I noticed that Matt didn't really do much with his shows The Simpsons and Futurama but create them. But that's mostly it, other people take over. You know Matt right John, tell us what you think ?
Please respond,
Thank you.
_Eric
(John K. admirer/historian)
Hey John, it is pathetic I totally agree...I really don't care for South Park, never have...but other than not watching these horrible shows, supporting cartoonists we admire like your self, and trying our best to harness our own craft and skills, what more can we really do?
I guess a shit load of cartoon history, and classic cartoon exposure can never hurt either! ;)
-Bob
For the most part, cartoons now-a-days aren't visually appealing. A commonly used excuse is "Well, this cartoon isn’t meant for kids, so we don’t need to put much effort in making it colorful and cartoony in order to hold their attention”…A cartoon should look good just for the sake of looking good, not because kids have low attention spans! And even with that excuse, many modern kid’s cartoons are even WORSE than the ones for adults. Too many cartoons look the same too. Too many either try to be anime-esque, or else they’re just way too stiff and simplified- as if they were made up of auto shapes on MSPaint and rigid outlines.
I like Family Guy and South Park for what they are; funny. They’re good examples of comedy and satire, but horrible examples of cartoons. I would never consider either one to be a good cartoon. They may have evolved by their own standards, but not by the high standards of how a good cartoon is supposed to look. Family Guy and South Park may make you laugh from what they say or what they do, but a good cartoon like Ren and Stimpy is able to make you laugh by HOW they say something or HOW they do something, and are exciting to look at.
In South Park's defense, the extremely crappy animation has always been their style and they've admitted, in show, it several times. These are the same guys who made a big stupid Michael Bay action movie with puppets. The problem is now EVERY new show on TV has deliberately crappy animation. 12 oz Mouse and Perfect Hair wouldn't even make it on NewGrounds
I love the old bugs...
Lego Sex
John thanks for the cool pictures!!!
i have a few things to say about your evolution comment on simpsons and south park-
1.I actually am not a huge fan of early looney tunes.I think it took a while for the drawings to actually look really good.
2.I think that even though south park didnt evolve much,it didnt need to.Just because it was easy to come up with doesnt mean its bad.I love south parks animation,its very cartoony.
3.the makers of south park know that the art isnt as good as looney tunes and i think you should stop comparing them.
4.even if you dont like the look of south park, its very funny and humor is the glue of a cartoon.
5.that said, when i make a cartoon it will rule, because i will make it funny and cool looking.
BAM!!!!!!
Here is my Simpson evolution theory:
http://www.felizonia.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1148577129;start=0#8
See one of my last posts, the one with the two big pictures and a lot of small ones.
Season 1: Off model, squishy characters
Season 2: A lot more on model, very rounded and nice looking
Season 5-6 (pictures 3 and 4): A little rushed, again more off model and expressive, but not squishy
Seasons 7 and 8 (picture 5): again very on model, "perfect" in therms of volume, shadowing, etc.
Seasons 9-13(picture 6): de-volution. Everything looks more flat, colouring is toned down, line is unsecure.
Season 14-15 (picture 7): the new E.P. Al Jean introduces better animation, they hire people like Lauren Mc Mullan as animation director, and they start using digital colouring, with more shadowing effects and such
Season 17 (last picture): Lauren Mc Mullan leaves, they try to do it again a little simpler, and more expressive, a little like seasons 5 and 6 but normally on model
And the interesting part is people say those shows are not about the animation, it's about the writing. The writing is pretty lame too. The simpsons were actually good once, but that time is gone. If it's about the writing, why don't those people write books? They would still suck, of course, except we would compare them to Samuel Beckett instead of Bugs Bunny.
to me it's hilarious to watch an episode of Ren and Stimpy produced by Games Animation. it's amusing to watch how they tried to emulate Spumco's style, and make Ren and Stimpy the way Spumco made him but they just couldn't get it right.
there's always something lacking; or something just a little off in every scene, especialy when they would add additional characters like children. Thats when it's really obvious you're watching a Games episode. basically they're all really boring and Ren and Stimpy lost all their awesome traits
While I agree that the Simpsons and South Park are not really the best designed shows, I don't think they should be.
When did less of a good thing become a positive attribute? That's like saying that Mohammed Ali would have been great if he had gone through his whole career with both hands tied behind his back.
Face it. The producers of poorly animated shows are cheating you. They're giving you a half a show and figuring you won't notice if they substitute pink circles and yellow triangles for real characters. They may just be right.
The Simpsons and South Park wouldn't be the same shows if they were expressively animated... but they sure as heck would be a a lot better if there was something to look at that didn't make your eyes bleed.
See ya
Steve
One more thing...
Expressiveness costs no more. The budget for a half hour of Ren & Stimpy is a tiny fraction of the budget for a half hour of the Simpsons.
What you see in cartoons today is baldfaced laziness. They are playing "quality limbo" with you... "How low can it go before the audience tunes out."
Get smart. Demand quality. Don't make excuses for shows that cheat... ESPECIALLY if you're an animation student yourself. You owe it to the medium to push it forward, not drag it down into the mud. To be able to make money drawing cartoons is a gift. Respect your medium. If your instructors in animation school aren't teaching you this, punch them in the nose and get the hell out of there.
See ya
Steve
Incidentally, why isn't there any problem with Beavis and Butthead? They pretty much stay on model and it's arguable that their animation is worse than the one in the Simpsons...
And I like Beavis and Butthead too. I actually love Beavis and Butthead Do America, I get a lot of laughs every time I rewatch it.
Sorry if I'm over-posting, John k., but I expect answers to every one of my questions.
I just wanna understand his full reasoning behind the theme of this topic, cause I agree with the premise of it, but not so much with some of the subsequent points. I think this is a very interesting discussion. Do you know what I think? I think it's easier with comic books, cause there is only one guy who draws them, so he naturally changes the characters, without even knowing. He can go as far as he wants with the changes or try to kept them more on model, but he'd probably become a better artist if he continues with his work. However , in animated series and movies there are lots of people who are forced to keep the characters on model and here I agree with John K. that they should try to eventually be more creative. However, I think those changes can be subtle, like the ones I have posted about The Simpsons or the ones I see in a show like The Powerpuff Girls. I don't see why they should change too much if they already like the designs.
In South Park's defense, the extremely crappy animation has always been their style and they've admitted, in show, it several times.
Ugliness isn't a style. This is an excuse for cheating you out of the entertainment you deserve. Wise up.
See ya
Steve
Roberto, I don't see any evolution in those frame grabs you posted. All I can say is that one of those Homers has shadows. Take a look at the Bugs Bunny frame grabs again.
See ya
Steve
Supposedly, there's a rule on the Simpsons against doing overtly cartoony gags--the sort of stuff that happens on the Itchy and Scratchy "show within the show." Yet, the times I remember actually laughing out loud at a gag on the Simpsons have been times when they have broken that rule--like the time Bart has been beaten up by some bullies, and afterwards coughs up his hat and puts it on. I think Bender is considered one of the funniest things on Futurama because, since he's not a living thing, cartoony gags can happen with him that would be too "unrealistic" for other characters on the show--like in the pilot when he's crowing about bending the jail cell bars, shaking his fists in the air, and his arms fall off.
Steve, I can see Bugs' model changes A LOT more. But at least you should see there are clear differences between the first Homer and the subsequent ones (or between the two Homers the guy whose nickname is "Popy Fresco" has posted before me in the same thread, and they are both from the series, not Tracey Ullman shorts).
Ok,they are little tiny differences, I'll give that to you, and they become more clear when you actually see the episodes animated and in movement.Most of the other changes are about the shadowing, colouring and animation, so it's difficult to explain with framegrabs.
I'd also say that I don't consider every one of those an evolution, I actually liked more the visuals during season 1 to 8 than recent ones, but I prefer recent ones to seasons 9 to 12. Could The Simpsons have a more creative animation? Probably, I am not saying I would not demand it if I actually have the chance to see it and I like it better than the one they have been used. Do I think the Simpsons look crappy and stale? I'm sorry but not, perhaps a little during the very last seasons, but I think they were actually pretty funny to watch (not only hear) during the first eight seasons or so (see Homer's hearth attack in Homer's Triple Bypass for instance, if you don't think that's visually funnier than most of what you see in some anime shows, South Park, Beavis and Butthead, Family Guy, Drawn Togeteher, etc., I rest my case).
Who really cares what South Park is doing? it's not like they're trying to dominate animation as a culture, they're just doing what they know best. I know I can draw and animate better than Trey Parker, but I don't hate him for being popular. He did something that people thought was funny, and it worked. But people will always respect good animation, it just needs to be done and put out there.
^ Sounds very reasonable to me.
Ok, now that we got that all squared away...Can SOMEBODY get on that Fossil Fuel independent Vehicle please? LOL just kidding....
...but seriously.
Excellent post. As a kid, I used to be bothered when I saw earlier episodes of shows. Nothing looked 'right'. Now I love to look back and see how it all came to be.
I'm working at a studio now where we're making a flash cartoon for tv. Just as we were finishing up the first episode, the models changed! We had to go back to all of our scenes, and change the models! They said that the show had to be consistent. But I don't understand! The whole magic part of every first episode to every cartoon is that it's nothing like the rest of the whole series!
I do defend South Park a little, because I think the creators are actually really funny, is it their fault they couldn't draw?
Which is part of my larger point that most of the time the jokes in these type of shows like Simpsons, Fam Guy, South Park and the ones like Aqua Teen & etc on Adult Swim are only funny in their dialogue, rarely their visuals. And to me, when this is the case you almost have to wonder, why even bother being a cartoon? Fam Guy and Simpsons especially to me seem like they could have worked almost exactly the same being live action.
I know I can draw and animate better than Trey Parker, but I don't hate him for being popular.
Me neither, I hate him because he invented a cartoon that sucks and is constantly being rubbed against my face despite my efforts to ignore it.
I do defend South Park a little, because I think the creators are actually really funny, is it their fault they couldn't draw?
I'd find someone who could draw it to me. Or better yet, do a puppet show, it would fit their scripts better. I'm not trying to be a wiseass, South Park might be a cool puppet show! As a cartoon i find it not much watchable. I kinda like the writing, but I can't just ignore the visuals, I can't stop caring about that part.
John- I know you don't answer me much (or ever really), please do this time, I'd really appreciate it.
I'd like to add that I try really hard to understand your views on cartoons being good or bad. Some aspects of your opinions I think I can really understand, some I can't.
I still don't quite see how Simpsons and Flintstones are all that different, they both stick to pretty much their same models and have sitcom-like stories. Do you just think Simpsons drawings are ugly and Flintstones weren't? If the Simpsons were all drawn from model sheets created by Ed Benedict, would you like it then?
Evan,
I can watch the first season of the Flintstones, and see more variations of style, expressions, design, and animation than in 10 years of the Simpsons. Just buy the first season of the Flintstones on DVD and see for yourself.
Is that John's opinion as well?
Hi John K.
It's Jesse. My favorite Bugs Bunny is the one on the cartoons "Elmers Pet Rabbit", "Tortise Beats Hare", "Heckling Hare" and "All This And Rabbit Stew". I also love the drawings of Bugs in Clampett's classics "Tortise Whens By A Hare" and "Falling Hare". If you did a Bugs Bunny cartoon for WB what would it be about? I would love to see your version of Bugs Bunny. WB should have released the cartoon "Hare Ribbin" on one of the Looney Tune DVD sets.
your pal,
Jesse Oliver
"A cartoon with lousy animation is like a beautifully wrapped birthday present with nothing inside."
I would argue the opposite. The most beautifully drawn cartoon in the world is worthless if it doesn't have some meat behind it. Bugs didn't succeed on animation, he succeeded because of his character. Naturally, if his animation were completely godawful, no one would watch it, though. There's a balance between putting your effort into art and putting it into character/plot. South Park succeeds because its simple animation is overwhelmed by its sharp satire.
If anything deserves to be peed on in the name of art, its that crap Adult Swim is pushing now like 12 oz. Mouse.
Hi, I've been working on a cartoon show since the late '90's, and have been adding, eliminating, changing the names of and modifying the look and personality of my characters since I started (ALL BY MYSELF), advancing them to my liking (as well as working on the name for the show, as well as my pen name). Yet, I've never really animated them "literally" (although I've worked on flipbooks for them; I've been doing flipbooks since I was a kid). Is this "evolution", even though I'M the only audience for it? I'd like to know what someone has to say about this.
South Park operates under an entirely different paradigm than traditional animation.
It's a politically oriented show that is produced in a different manner and by people who have entirely different priorities than those of traditional cartoonists.
If you don't like it then don't fucking watch it.
For people being so small minded as to dismiss the entire concept and for someone to claim the audience is somehow being cheated by watching a show with bad animation is ridiculous.
The people who have been watching South Park for the past decade aren't watching it for the animation and if that was the only valid measure to judge a show by, it wouldn't of lasted beyond episode one.
The extremely large and loyal fanbase proves that the creators of South Park are doing something right and justify the existance of the show beyond anything you can possibly do to belittle it.
P.S.- I CREATED it, not someone else.
comparing bugs bunny to simpsons seems a bit awkward for everyone -- how about comparing
the old max fleisher superman cartoons with the more recent superman animations? I think there you can see where one unequivocably trumps the other.
can someone post a sketch of an improved simpsons? it's difficult to imagine what that would look like as opposed to the superman example.
and if anyone is brave enough, please also post a sketch of an improved bugs bunny!
Did anyone notice my post(s)?
Most of this thread smacks of "small world" elitism. Once you leave this little enclave you'll find that far more people enjoy the shows that you're so bitterly obsessed with slagging.
Nobody liked the Ripping Friends and the proof is in the cancellation on fox and its extremely brief stay on Adult Swim.
Being completely off the wall and bizzare doesn't automatically equate to being funny and that is probably the best criticism of that creative misadventure.
The only thing that the first few episodes of Adult Part Cartoon managed to do was alienate the vast majority of the original R&S fanbase that decided to tune in.
Promising somet