TMNT

[Nacho]

Slightly off topic: Somebody remembers "Serlock Hound"? A manga (but which did not look as the nowadays "only-suitable-for-wankers" manga) starred by animals and inspired in the characters created by Doyle? They were great, if someone could provide a link, I would be very happy.

[esper]

Okay, I took a hike for a little while, because the fight between Progzy and MacPhee was a little intimidating... But I'm back.

DG, listen: your argument seems based entirely around the fact that you LIKE Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Warner Brothers, etc. better than what was around in the 80's. Personally, to quote Hamlet "My gorge rises at (them)." But that's also a matter of opinion. I'll back up my argument, but you'll have to understand that my backup argument is also based entirely off of personal opinion, because you can't base a "which is better" argument about cartoons on fact.

First off, I like South Park. I enjoy how it makes fun of everything (in one episode alone it made fun of Christians AND atheists), and how it makes really good sense about the things it lampoons instead of just mocking them because it feels like it. I like some Family Guy, although for the most part I can't stand Peter or his fat bastard son. I only enjoy episodes starring Stewie and Brian. I enjoy Robot Chicken, Metalocalypse, Harvey Birdman, Tom Goes to the Mayor (even though I used to hate that one), and Aqua Teen Hunger Force is the funniest show I've ever seen in my life. I would murder my children if I caught them watching these shows, but I like them.

However, on the children's cartoons side of things, which is what all this was about (as someone else said, I can't even think about any cartoons for adults in the 80's)... Children's cartoon at the time didn't use only nonstop ridiculous humor that the kids don't even understand (I've seen many a joke on a kids show that my niece and nephew were watching that was totally geared toward the parents watching the show with the kids, but the kids laughed because pants fell down or a strange sound was made or the character suddenly went into an epileptic fit). Shows today pretty much run on the notion that every kid in the world has ADHD and won't be able to enjoy a show for more than eight seconds unless something utterly ridiculous or extremely violent is thrown in. Looney Toons, that classic show from long before either era of which we speak, would get turned down by producers in a heartbeat today because the over-the-top humor is not over-the-top enough, and it doesn't take place on the designated every-eight-second cycle.

Cartoons in the eighties at least tried to give the kids the benefit of the doubt. They contained stories that the kids could watch and enjoy, instead of a series of nonsensical events because that's all they thought they could understand. They contained ongoing stories, which today's children, raised to be morons, wouldn't be able to remember from one Saturday to the next. A lot of them only relied on slight sight gags, like Slimer running into Peter Venkman and sliming him, or verbal gags, like the little end-of-the-show punchline after which all the characters would stand around laughing during a fade to black.

Even the art of the cartoons is different. Back in the day, they spent more time drawing the shows, paid more attention to detail, and made the art more realistic (with the exception of the very older cartoons and the cartoons geared toward the extremely young). Today, every cartoon is a brightly colored blobby. At least Genndy Tartakovsy, who didn't pioneer this art style but brought it to new extremes, had the presence of mind to make Samurai Jack and Clone Wars, the only cartoons I can think of that exist today with actual followable, interesting storylines. (by the way, my opinion is centered solely around American-made cartoons. As ridiculous as the shows may be, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon are deep and multilevel stories. They're nothing more than marketing vehicles, but that's a different argument).

That's my reasoning as to why cartoons of the 80's were better. But of course, that's opinion. I know you're a funny guy, DG, and therefore funny shows appeal to you. The argument you seem to keep using is "find me one show from the 80's funnier than Family Guy." Well, we can't, because the issues that are funny in Family Guy couldn't have been tackled with the same amount of humor back then... more subjects were taboo, and the censors were out in full force. So, in the end, you like today's shows better because you like humor. I like the 80's better because I prefer a well-written story, and because I think todays shows are purposely dumbed-down for a dumbed-down generation. Opinions all. There's no reason to get so up in arms about my opinion on cartoons. If I went up to a Christian and said "You know, your religion is a bunch of nonsense and hoohaa designed by the Roman Empire roughly 300 years after the death of Christ in order to better control people," then yes, I would expect an argument. I've just offended every religious person in a thousand-mile radius with that opinion. But my opinion on cartoons shouldn't make you flip your lid and call Progzy names.

[Steel Drummer]

Slightly off topic: Somebody remembers "Serlock Hound"? A manga (but which did not look as the nowadays "only-suitable-for-wankers" manga) starred by animals and inspired in the characters created by Doyle? They were great, if someone could provide a link, I would be very happy.

Oh man! I used to love that show! My dad bought me a couple episodes of it on video and I loved it as a youngster. Seems like all the anime shows today are just crap remakes of each other, but that show was good. I also remember an anime version of Tom Sawyer that was decent. If you want links, here you go:


Wikipedia Page


Random anime site with info on it


YouTuber who has posted a few episodes of it on the site


Hope you're happy.

[Postmodern_Boy]

It seems strange to compare TMNT with Spongebob because one was made for older children and the other was made for younger children.  Most modern American cartoons seem to focus on a younger age group then the cartoons of the 80s.  There are still some american cartoons that are made for older children, like avatar and invader zim but they became the minority.

It seems like the american animation industry has divided into two catagories, early childhood and adults and that leaves the older children with mostly japanese shows like naruto or dragonballz.  This might be partly because it is easier to decide what content is appropriate when there is only two simple catagories with no gray area inbetween, and also because shows like naruto are more difficult and expensive to make.

Anyways I think it would be more fair to compare TMNT with something like avatar, because spongebob is not even for the same market.

[Steel Drummer]

Anyways I think it would be more fair to compare TMNT with something like avatar, because spongebob is not even for the same market.

Spongebob can actually be viewed in two different ways: 1. The younger children can watch it because it's a cartoon, and because the characters act their age. 2. Older children, adults watch it for the hidden subtleties in the show and the humour. The show is just made that way. It's funny to older people, cool to younger. Younger kids don't even find the show funny most of the time.

[R4L]

I love Spongebob. My little bro doesn't quite get the stuff I laugh at, or maybe I have a twisted sense of humor, but still its a good show. The movie was pretty terrible tho...

[Steel Drummer]

Yes, SpongeBob is pretty good, though after a while it gets tiring.

[Helm]

First off, I like South Park. I enjoy how it makes fun of everything (in one episode alone it made fun of Christians AND atheists)

This is something I've been thinking about a bit. This thread has sunk enough to not be sure if it can have a comeback, but I was thinking about it, so I might as well contribute even if there's not going to be much discussion. So here it goes, but DG if you can't contain the maddoxisms don't bother replying me. I say this because I will be building off partly on your opinion of South Park.

I don't think 80's cartoons were better than 90's stuff, and such generalizations baffle me. I don't think TNMT and pokemon are archetypically dissimilar or that one of the two tackles moral ground the other does not. I found modern viewing of 80's stuff like Transformers and TNMT was a very awful experience and don't hold any nostalgia-based fondness for such stuff anymore. I still love robots and ninjas and shit, but hey, let's not get overboard and strain mentally to defend glorified but thinly veiled marketing campaigns for toys just because they were part of our collective youth.

It is also quite interesting to me that this is by far the most 'lol! internet!' argument I've read on this forum, and it has resulted to such heated retort not based in the end on clashing life philosophy or morality, but in fact on tv entertainment preference. This is a wordy equivallent of 'I prefer TNMT' '-I prefer South Park' '-lol u dumb!'.

It is as esper says, DG: it's a matter of opinion, not fact (and I've seen how fact-happy you've been as of late, links everywhere) on what cartoons a person prefers, and that even extends on opinions on which cartoons are more educational or useful for children. There's not really much in terms of studies you can summon up to change that. The entertainment industry, though governed by ill-defined societal... formulae, is hardly the science you enjoy treating it as.

I also don't see the point to go 'HERE ARE THE FACTS, JACK' and then following that up with 'if you don't agree you don't know anything about anything and you smell'. Your 'The REAL news/Maddox' approach might be something you've invested a lot in, but can't you see how if you first feign rationality and seriousness with your wikipedia links, then when you abruptly switch to yet another 'in-yr-face-lol' internet persona, the switch is jarring, annoying, ineffective and finally rude? You might think it's the best internet invention ever, but it's not for most. The AGS forums are hardly brawlhall. Why did progz deserve to be treated as the butt of *any* of your jokes? Humour is only sacred when two people enter in a discussion with a presupposed and civil agreement that 'everything goes' (like in i-mockery) while the AGS forums are hardly governed in such a way. You seem to operate on that people know and expect 'oh that's just whacky DG, bringing us the TRUTH and also telling us we smell, what a lovable internet-funny-guy!' while I don't think people do.

Just check how many times you've insulted people with your humour (and your 'humour' because there's been cases of fuck yous thrown around, as well as those recent explicitly passive-agressive 'I could call you that but I didn't, did I, progz?' awful bits) in this forum to the point where they leave threads you go all REALnewsMaddox in. You know me and you know I can dish and take it on that level, but NOT in AGS. It's not that I'll 'cry you a river' if you call me smelly here, but it's just that it's not called for. Your mecca-forum where both factual discourse and low-brow shit-flinging can occur in harmony is NOT here.


Anyway, enough about that.


So, you guys say that South Park tackles the issues in an incisive manner. I say it does present a lot of stuff you wouldn't find in a TNMT episode. To that extent you are correct. But South Park fails as social commentary because it makes fun of everything, including itself. I find that it's a very reactionary cartoon that doesn't have pick any discernible side. It will talk about stuff that is controversal, but the discourse will end up on the level of 'lol! people that hate fags! *barf* fags are awful themselves! *crap* kenny dies *pee*. Maybe a single episode will have more of an 'opinion' but in the long run, if one sees a lot of South Park episodes, the net moral and political positioning nears absolute center nothingness, except perhaps a limp libertarianism that actually occurs in the flux of a political belief system (I don't have everything, but I want my freedom!).

South Park is very fast to make fun of modern life idiocy, but - and I think this is a trait of american sociopolitical satire - to cover all bases, it hastens to have no opinion that it doesn't ridicule preemptively itself so as to feel defended. It's almost as if the creators of South Park feel they're doing something naughty, and have guilt over their satire that they are so eager to lampoon themselves as well to save dissenters the effort. And when they're attacked, it becomes a large issue over their RIGHT to satire (which is of course, easy to defend), not the validity of their contra-opinion itself, as they don't really have an contra-opinion besides obvious stuff like 'freedom is good' and 'making fun of stupidity is a holy mission'.

DG you mention ironic points of view as if they're worth ejaculating over or something. In fact, irony and cynicism are in my opinion modern diseases of spirit and politics, and the mark that we've passed very closely to total moral and philosophical bankruptcy. When all we can say when someone attempts to expound on a theory - as faulty as it could be- is 'well, aren't you a smart one'. Totally not conductive, a dead-end farcical solution befitting to a court full of jesters but not a king in sight.

Which isn't to say that south park has no value to watch, it can be funny occasionally and I do think it's quite a bit more enjoyable for adults than TNMT could ever be, I'm just looking at the signs it points to.

[Nacho]

Thanks SteelDrummer! Back to topic.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Excellent points Helm on the south park/etc discussion.  You put far more effort into explaining your reasoning than I wanted to, but my opinion is pretty much the same.  Facts really can't enter into a discussion about 'which cartoon is better' because it's a completely subjective argument.  I know people who absolutely adore Inspector Gadget, and while I watched it as a kid, I thought it was an utter cheesefest.  The only thing I would say that doesn't seem subjective is that there is a dearth of cartoons like the ones in the 80's, with the sort of carefree and non-vulgar (even implied) humor that seems to pervade almost every type of media now.  It's a somewhat puritanical view I know, but I don't watch cartoons for fart jokes and pseudo-relevant commentary, I watch them for fun...or used to, anyway.  And I agree that going back to most of the old cartoons I liked they're rather silly now, but that's because they were clearly targeted for kids and I don't happen to be one anymore.  Why can't we let children be children anymore?  Must cartoons be mass-marketed with racy, adult humor and situations for the adults just to draw in more viewers (and money)?

[Nacho]

I introduced this issue as a question before, but nobody replied, so, I am starting to think that it might be necessary to enfathisice (sp?) this.

Ain' t we comparing pears with apples? There were cartoons for "adults" in the eighties? I can only think in manga (Lupin the 3rd for instance) or some other little examples, like Roger Rabbit, if we consider that cartoon.

Sure there was a lot of comic for teens/adults, but I can' t think in cartoons... Even "adult" nespaper stripes as Garfield or The smurfs turned into something more suitable for kids when they jumped to tv. I am not really sure that, even having some adult jokes, and showing April with tiny clothes is enough to consider it jumped to "preferently to be seen bvy adult audience" if we compared what came after, with Ren and Stimpy and Duckman, etc...

I am just asking the cartoons gurus, because I am not really an expert...

[EagerMind]

Ain' t we comparing pears with apples?

Good point, Nacho. I believe Esper's original comment was comparing children's programming of the 80's with that of today. I don't think it's really fair to match up after-school cartoons like Transformers and TMNT to prime-time ones like Simpsons or South Park. They're aimed at completely different audiences. Heck, I don't even know what they show on TV these days during the after-school time block, so I really have no way of making a comparison.

BTW Nacho, it's 'emphasize'.

The only thing I would say that doesn't seem subjective is that there is a dearth of cartoons like the ones in the 80's, with the sort of carefree and non-vulgar (even implied) humor that seems to pervade almost every type of media now.

That's why I always enjoy catching laughs with some classic Tom & Jerry. Just good, clean fun in my opinion.

Although, if Wikipedia is to be believed (I'll spare you the link), even some of their shorts contain (by today's standards) controversial elements which are edited out when shown on TV today. I find it discouraging that, in today's politically correct environment, a show like Tom & Jerry would never get produced because it obviously promotes animal cruelty and torture. And sure enough, just look at some of the modern incarnations of Tom & Jerry: watered-down, feel-good pap that's just a shadow of it's original self.

Why can't we let children be children anymore?  Must cartoons be mass-marketed with racy, adult humor and situations for the adults just to draw in more viewers (and money)?

One of the things that strikes me about watching old Bugs Bunny cartoons that I used to watch as a kid is how much adult innuendo and humour is actually contained in those. I don't really have a problem with stuff like this because, as a kid, that material was over my head and I simply enjoyed the cartoon at face value. Now as an adult, I'm still able to enjoy it at another level. I think it's really the mark of a sophisticated cartoon that different age groups can watch it and appreciate it for different things.

I wonder if Spongebob (just to pick an example) doesn't fit into this category? I've watched it from time-to-time and for the most part have enjoyed it, but the humour seemed a little edgy to me, although clearly the show is marketed at kids. Having only watched it through the eyes of an adult, it's hard to tell what kids take away from it. Drawing on my own experience as a child, I have to think that they're enjoying it at a different level than I am. I think it's a mistake to view children as "little adults" that are experiencing the world in the same fundamental way as we are.

What's my point here? Going back to my example of Tom & Jerry, I think it's an interesting (and sad) comment on society that cartoons we had no problems showing our kids 40, 50 years ago are now seen as something we need to "protect" them from. By all means, let children be children. But does that mean we have to raise them in some sterile bubble and keep them hidden away from the real world?

[Steel Drummer]

I feel like nowadays, people have really screwy ideas about cartoons. They allow shows like South Park and Family Guy to go uncensored (for the most part), but they condemn most shows that were made in the 40s-60s, like Loony Tunes, Tom and Jerry, etc. for containing violence and animal cruelty. I mean, seriously; they're anthropomorphic animals! I even read an article saying that they were going to censor any Tom and Jerry episodes that contained smoking (and probably numerous other old shows that contained that sort of thing).

[Nacho]

And don' t forget about removing Piglet from Winny the Poh because it's offensive to Muslims! 

[Tuomas]

I don't know, but I don't think teaching our kids about difference in sexualities and racism and all that and then not teaching them smoking and drinking is that bad after all. I mean, Tom used to smoke quite a lot. Seriously, in 40's, they wouldn't mention gays on cartoons or tv because they though they were bad, now they won't show cigarettes or booze because they know it's bad. I think in that way they're right.

[Steel Drummer]

So showing people dealing in prostitution, gambling, and using swear words in every sentence in a cartoon is better than showing characters drinking alcohol or smoking? Cartoons still make racist jabs. Cartoons feature more violence than any of those old shows. And even if they're marketed to adults, kids will still watch them because they're cartoons.

[MrColossal]

Children also play video games because they are games. There's no reason to remove things from cartoons because children might see them.

Also, I was always under the impression that Looney Tunes and cartoons like that weren't made for children anyway. Also, holy crap, how many cartoons back then are based off of world war 2 and that was going on at the time, people were exploding, parents were dying in a war, siblings were being shipped off and there's Daffy Duck being shot by Germans.

[Stupot]

I must admit.  I was a bit skeptical when I first heard about this film but it's had some good reviews and the trailer is pretty awesome, I might just have to go and see this one.

[LimpingFish]

The TMNT cartoon from the early nineties was cheaply made, badly written, animated-in-Ireland-by-half-arsed-art-college-failures (trust me on this), mis-directed...cack.

As was most of Murakami-Wolf's output from the period.

The TMNT comic never interested me and, frankly, seemed to have had no more going for it then than the rest of the anthropomorphic claptrap churned out during those dark days.

Yet, to a fan, all of this is moot.

Nostalgia is critic proof, and reminding a grown person of something that made them happy in their youth is the quickest and easiest way to lighten their wallets.

[Steel Drummer]

Okay... so since we're back on topic again, I might as well say that I just got home from seeing the movie with a friend. It was a lot better than any other media production of the Turtles, and definitely one of the best CG movies I've seen. Thumbs up to Imagi Studios (or whatever the name of the animation studio was that made the film). This movie is edgier, grittier, and darker than any TMNT stuff before (not like this is very gritty at all), and the style actually works. The only thing I didn't like about it was that the cartoonish characters set against the backdrop of super-realistic imagery didn't really match up well. If only they'd make TMNT games as good as the NES ones. Ahh.. those were the days...