>Crossexamining The Rebuttal

Jorge continues talking about animation in the 80s:

Ask ANY cartoonist to compare the 80s to the way it was in the 90s and you'll see that they weren't given freedom in the 80s. Hence, many cartoonists hated their jobs.

Yes, the 90s had more freedoms than in the 80s. But the 80s had more freedoms than the 70s. Ask ANY cartoonist to compare the 70s to the way it was in the 80s, and you'll see that freedom wasn't a commodity in the 70s. Hence, many cartoonists hated their jobs. Animators always hate their jobs when they feel those above them are incompetents. Look at the atmosphere at Cartoon Network today. Then again, some folks, like John Kricfalusi, weren't happy anywhere they were because they wanted to break free from following somebody else's rules, and the 90s gave these artists greater opportunities than the 80s offered.

Filmation is regarded in animation history books as one of the worse studios ever, but the studio did provide a positive, family community. Did everybody like working there? No, John K. hated everywhere he worked at, as he always mention in just about every interview he makes. But those that did enjoy it reflected that they were fun times as if they were all a family.

Tell me you've never seen an 80s cartoon where the character was saying something and his face contradicted the way the line was read.

I have. But, again, look at any other cartoon from any other era. Particularly every other cartoon from the 60s, cartoon from the 70s and every third cartoon from the 90s and 2000s. Look at a lot of vector-based (Flash) cartoons seen online, on Adult Swim (although in Sealab 2021's case, they're parodying the static look of Sealab 2020), and on South Park. With the exception of angry eyebrow slants, characters tend to lack animation in their faces when they emote.

You might say animation was crappy because they had less money. How can I compare a low budget 80s TV cartoon with a high-budget 40s theatrical cartoon? Lack of money is no excuse. John K created amazing animation on Ren & Stimpy with a regular cartoon budget. So did Mighty Mouse, so did Huckleberry Hound.

I love Huckleberry Hound. If anybody ever asked me what are my favorite cartoon characters of all time, Huck would be up there in the top five. His misadventures had great stories and vocal talents and good character and background designs, but the animation wasn't so amazing. The reason Huck and the other Hanna-Barbera shows and shorts worked wasn't so much for the animation, but rather the character and background design, the vocal talents of Butler, Messick, Frees, Blanc, Waldo, and Foray (among others), and good stories. John K. was of the school of Hanna-Barbera, and it shows. The misadventures of Ren and Stimpy had great stories and vocal talent as well as good character and background designs, but, like Hanna-Barbera, the animation was lacking.

Ren and Stimpy may be lauded as one of the best cartoons ever made, but if they actually look at the animation, it's lacking in a lot of areas. There's a lot of repetitive animation scenes, a lot of recycling, and a lot of "manatee scenes." Manatee scenes, as one of the few recent episodes of South Park that I could watch without being reminded of Trey and Matt's smug arrogance explained, are those throwaway segments that add nothing to the story. In Ren and Stimpy's case, the "manatee scenes" are those endless, pointless, close-up, gross-out still frames that really add nothing but shock value to a show.

Speaking of value, you can do a lot with a little and a little with a lot. You could throw millions of dollars into a project and end up will a piece of scat that costed millions of dollars. If you had limited funds, you could either show your cost as animation houses in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and today tend to do, or you could work wonders with what you've got. Again, look at Japanese animation. They recycle animation frames as well as rely on close-up dialogue scenes. In some instances, they skip on animation altogether just showing a well-drawn, non-animated scene. The practice is still in use to this day, and yet, people rarely complain. Otakus don't seem to mind either since, well, they're otakus. But as someone with a critical eye who see things without nostalgic blinders, I know that anime isn't all that great. For every Miyazaki, there are eight guys making garbage.

Now, here's what Jorge said about the writing:

It sucked. The same 10 stories again and again. The Evil Twin Story. The one where one of the main characters lets a little power go to his head. The one where one characters becomes another's slave after saving his life. The one where one character is sick of not getting attention/respect (wears glasses or is fat) and makes a change (becomes a bully or grows muscles or something) but reverts back after realizing he only has to be himself.

The one where a character changes into a shoe or a box or a toad or something and gets changed back.

Yes, the 80s were the first decade to see stories about evil twins (or its counterpart, the evil twin cousin or clone), temporary power-mad characters, indentured servitude after saving a life, temporary change in personality, and of course, the change of appearance. C'mon, that's a weak argument, and you know it.

Those stories have been around since before the first stories were ever written down. Look at Aesop's fables, mythologies, plays, radio shows, movies, and television shows. All Elizabeth Montgomery had to do was wear a black wig and tight-fitting clothes to become Samatha's evil twin on Bewitched. All Leonard Nimoy had to do was wear a beard to be Mr. Spock's evil, alternate dimensional counterpart. The reason shows from the 80s had those types of stories is because every show from earlier eras did them as well. And you know what? They still do them today. Hell, nearly every episode of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends has Bloo letting a little power to his head and they tackled those other archetypes at least once or twice. There hasn't been an original story in over 40 years. Just different variants of the same stories.

All the characterizations were flat. Villains were straight bad. Stupid characters were only stupid. They all had one trait, one quirk or one personality that was replayed over and over. There was no subtext, no subtlety, and no originality.

Yeah. Characters usually had one archetype because that's what they were created for. It's the Rand/World War/Cold War mentality. There's only good and evil, no inbetween. That's just the nature of the industry that didn't change until at least the mid-90s in animation and entertainment in general after the Soviet Union fell. But it still exists. Look at Ed, Edd, and Eddy. Ed is still only a stupid character, Double D is still a neurotic, panicky neat freak, and Eddy is still a greedy bast. You rarely see Eddy being a voice of reason, Ed being the brains, or Double D scheming to get rich.

And the “jokes” weren't funny. Until future Simpsons writers who were influenced by Rocky & Bullwinkle started on Mighty Mouse.

When The Simpsons began (production began in the 80s, mind you), most of the writers were on The Tracey Ullman Show, and a lot of them were still in school or working on magazines like National Lampoon or MAD. I don't recall many writers on The Simpsons being a part of Mighty Mouse. Then again, I don't recall Mighty Mouse being fall-on the floor funny either. Maybe you're looking at the show with nostalgic eyes or with John K. fanboy blinders.

Yeah, the jokes in animation weren't laugh out loud funny in the 80s. Nor the 70s. Nor the late 60s or much of the early 90s. Heck, animation really didn't get truly funny again until the tandem of Rugrats, The Simpsons, Beavis and Butthead, and Duckman emerged. Ren and Stimpy was silly and a little funny.

Continue the cross examination here