Dantheman
Gee, I never thought about that...
Okay, but still, someone had to convince Charles Schultz that Snoopy as Jennifer Beals was comedy gold worth mining.
That and Man of Action haven't done a great non-Ben 10 cartoon since Generator Rex.I’m open to a solid western Sonic cartoon but I’m not so confident on Netflix’s Sonic Prime because it’ll be CGI and made by the same team as Mega Man: Fully Charged which was mediocre at best.
I personally don't complain about evil villains. Like everything, it can be done well or not.When people complain about evil villains in animation, they conflate villains who say they are evil, but are all bustler and villains who are actually evil. That is the difference between 1987 Shredder and 2003 Shredder. One is actually evil, the other is a pretender.
I've been reading the book a lot.
I don't like Michael Barrier's insanely over-critical, harsh and humorless tone of his book. Amazing research, we are indebted to him, but there is so much of his comments that I really don't like. Both in the book and in the blog.Have you read Of Mice and Magic by Leonard Maltin? If not I think you'd really enjoy it. Hollywood Cartoons by Michael Barrier and That's All Folks! by Steve Schneider are also really good.
I did; in fact I made a thread here concerning an issue he brought up in the book:Have you read Of Mice and Magic by Leonard Maltin? If not I think you'd really enjoy it. Hollywood Cartoons by Michael Barrier and That's All Folks! by Steve Schneider are also really good.
Sure, his research is impressive. We wouldn't have even half of our knowledge on classic animation if Barrier hadn't done such a fantastic and through research of everyone he could interview and everything he could find.I don't like Barrier as much as Maltin for sure, but it would have been wrong of me not to say it's a significant book.
There was even the episode where Uhura gains command of the Enterprise. Nicelle Nichols probably was surprised when she got the script for that episode.A lot of people rag on Flimation because their cheap art style, small voice casts, and overt censorship, like what you see with He-Man, but I think they underrated sometimes. The production values are low due to wanting to animate their shows in the US, rather than outsourcing to another country.
Also some of their shows are decent, like their 1970s show and movie about Flash Gordon, with the Ming the Merciless being far more menacing than Skeletor and has less censorship than He-Man. It even has an ongoing story, which was rare for the times.
I will even go to bat for the Flimation Star Trek series, which had a lot of duds and was plagued by low production values, but did maintain some of the spirit of the original series and had some great episodes like Yesteryear that developed Spock's character.
I'll be reiterating my previous posts. The writing pales in comparison to what directly came before.I personally agree. Warner Bros. should stick with the direction of the Looney Tunes Cartoons, and allow the creators time to fully sharpen their skills and find their identity. The cartoons' heart is in the right place.
Also, for how anarchic and violent classic Looney Tunes is, they are also masterful examples of immaculate timing and rhythm. It's hard to "objectively" explain, but so many of the gags wouldn't be half as funny if it wasn't for the razor-sharp timing (and the fluid expressive animation). A delay of a few frames, or just a few frames earlier, can change so much how funny a gag is, make it feel really off. But it took years before the original creators' skills grew until they were able to sharpen the timing and pacing so well. To the point that making a great Looney Tunes cartoon in the 40s was like a science.
A lot of people rag on Flimation because their cheap art style, small voice casts, and overt censorship, like what you see with He-Man, but I think they underrated sometimes. The production values are low due to wanting to animate their shows in the US, rather than outsourcing to another country.
I personally agree. Warner Bros. should stick with the direction of the Looney Tunes Cartoons, and allow the creators time to fully sharpen their skills and find their identity. The cartoons' heart is in the right place.
Also, for how anarchic and violent classic Looney Tunes is, they are also masterful examples of immaculate timing and rhythm. It's hard to "objectively" explain, but so many of the gags wouldn't be half as funny if it wasn't for the razor-sharp timing (and the fluid expressive animation). A delay of a few frames, or just a few frames earlier, can change so much how funny a gag is, make it feel really off. But it took years before the original creators' skills grew until they were able to sharpen the timing and pacing so well. To the point that making a great Looney Tunes cartoon in the 40s was like a science.
The clunkiness in the interactions often comes exactly from the timing problems. Timing in the Looney Tunes cartoons is often what makes the writing of many gags seem good or not.I'll be reiterating my previous posts. The writing pales in comparison to what directly came before.
I care less how well the technical or "iconic" aspects look when the interactions are so clunky to sit through.
UPDATE REFERING TO MY POST ON CHEESE/INVADED:i'm still baffled why Cheese has his own episode on one of CN's event: Invaded (2007) (and that was Chapter ONE of it for christ's sake!)
"GOTTA GO, GOTTA GO, GOTTA GO, GOTTA GO, GOTTA GO, GOTTA GO, GOTTA GO, GOTTA GO, GOTTA GO!!" - Annoying Yellow Bast- i mean, Cheese - 2007
seriously this is not how you started that spooky event.
No, the gags themselves are written as after-thoughts. Timing doesn't fix timid punchlines to poor-good enough set-ups.The clunkiness in the interactions often comes exactly from the timing problems. Timing in the Looney Tunes cartoons is often what makes the writing of many gags seem good or not.
As the writer of the book said, Warner Bros. needs to stick with the current direction. As he wrote "What we can see in the history of Looney Tunes in this century is that there is something worse than a bad series, i.e., an inability to commit to an approach."
He says that the Looney Tunes Show had interesting ideas, but was axed before it could fully bloom. Now, all he hopes it that Warner Bros. sticks with the current direction, and stops flip-flopping what they want to do with the franchise.
There is a lengthy chapter talking all about everything in the Looney Tunes franchise in this century, and it's an insanely detailed and well argued read.
There is a whole chapter about Looney Tunes, and James Weinman tries to be as open-minded as possible when talking about every project, even though he admits his bias as a Looney Tunes purist. He is very nuanced, anything I say here doesn't do justice to that nuance, and it would be unfair to make criticisms just based on such a few things I quoted. I don't agree with all he says, but he is a fairly open-minded Looney Tunes purist who I found myself respecting his analyses a lot more than someone like Michael Barrier.No, the gags themselves are written as after-thoughts. Timing doesn't fix timid punchlines to poor-good enough set-ups.
Already this writer has lost me over his sensationalism for what could possibly be worse than something being bad and I can only imagine the nightmares he must be having over what's forthcoming. I don't have an issue with WB going off the beaten path or sticking to the original formula as long as it's actually good - we had one of each in the 2010s. If he needed The Looney Tunes Show to go on for longer than it did such that it harkens back to an era of this franchise, I don't think this writer wants to consider/appreciate the brevity.