>Crossexamining The Rebuttal

On the second page, my friend Jorge gave his perspective about some of the core elements of animated programs. Of course, you know I'm going to have to critique what he had to say:

Animation in the 80s sucked out loud. It might have been a little more fluid that the 70s, but that’s not saying much. The character designs were always TERRIBLE and the poses were not strong. Working with realistically designed characters in a production system that hampered creativity and solid draftsmanship and SKILL, the characters on GI Joe, Transformers, and Centurions were often painfully off-model, and not in an intentionally creative way, either.

Repetitive backgrounds. Head only dialogue shots. Limited animation. Terrible character designs. Yeah, they were prominent in the 80s. They were also prominent in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Heck, those things could even be seen in the 90s and today, so don't act all surprised and be so self-righteous. Hanna-Barbera was a great studio and all, but the animation wasn't always the best in the world. The chase scenes with the long repetitive hallways with that same painting on the same mantle. When I was a kid, I wondered why they always bought multiple copies of one painting in every mansion on Scooby-Doo.

Every era has bad shows, and to say that all of the shows that came out of 80s had those elements is aggregious and inaccurate. Look at Galaxy High. Great designs (some of which were made by John Kricfalusi, which I know you're gonna love), fluid animation, decent characters and interesting stories built on a great show premise. Look at the Disney cartoons you somewhat had a problem with. Sure, they were kiddified, but they were made for a younger audience, and for a studio just getting started working on television (but built by the strong legacy of its theatrical division), they made some of the best animated shows on the planet. They don't get much respect, which is a shame.

Serious cartoons ruled the 80s but they all had shoddy execution. Boys loved to play with tanks, guns, and robots, and the 80s had tons of that. Why? Reagan was president, and action pictures ruled the airwaves. People stopped caring about violence on TV and entertainment became more liberated, while our nations' fiscal policies ironically became more conservative. One good thing about the 80s was things became a little more un-PC and a little more violent, and things kind of teetered back and forth for a few years until we reached the era we're in today, (brought on by Batman:TAS) Realistically drawn characters are HARD to animate and few have ever animated them well. Why did Batman work? Stylization. But you need to have a system that encourages creativity to have that.

I'm glad you see that the modern era of animation began with Batman, and I will admit that Bruce Timm's Fleischer-inspired fluidity had a lot to do with it. However, people didn't stop caring about violence on television. Remember, the 80s was the era that the politically-correct Action for Children's Television was reaching its zenith and the puritanically-correct American Family Association, Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition were just getting started. ACT focused on Saturday morning programming on the networks which is why they were defanged. AFA focused on all entertainment and had more political muscle on its side, namely the White House. Remember, by the end of the decade, violent programming was all but gone in prime-time. No longer would The A-Team use semi-automatic weapons without harming anyone.

Animation in "Comedy" was worse. The characters designs were always bland corporate approved cuteness. The characters barely moved. Snorks, Smurfs, and their ilk did nothing that could be called creative or good animation.

I agree. They were all made to be cute and sell useless pieces of plastic.

Compare any animation from an average 40s Tom & Jerry and compare ANY cartoon from the 80s and you'll see that the animation in the 80s SUCKED. Now, you might be saying, "Well, why should everything be that good? " Well let me ask you this, why SHOULDN'T it be that good? Animation in Tom & Jerry isn't as good as animation in a Bob Clampett cartoon or a Tex Avery cartoon, it's simply average (And it IS still BRILLIANT, but in the 40s everything was either as good or better than Tom & Jerry).

I like this game. You could easily modify that statement with any era in animation. And it'd still be true. Let's try the 50s. Compare any animation from an average 40s Tom and Jerry to any cartoon from the 50s, and you'll see that the animation in the 50s SUCKED. Now the 60s. Compare any animation from an average 40s Tom and Jerry to any cartoon from the 60s, and you'll see that the animation in the 60s SUCKED. Now the 70s. Compare any animation from an average 40s Tom and Jerry to any cartoon from the 70s, and you'll see that the animation in the 70s SUCKED.

Should I dare try the 90s? Okay. Compare any animation from an average 40s Tom and Jerry to any cartoon from the 90s, and you'll see that the animation in the 90s SUCKED. How about today's shows? Well, it's too early to talk about this decade, especially since we have about three more years. Compare any animation from an average 40s Tom and Jerry to any cartoon from the 2000s, and you'll see that the animation in the 2000s SUCKED. Alright, should I try the 30s? Compare any animation from an average 40s Tom and Jerry to any cartoon from the 30s, and you'll see that the animation in the 30s SUCKED.

Why is the average for the 40s so much better than the average of the 80s? Why is progress being stopped? How come animation in the 80s isn't BETTER? I mean, isn't it insanely BACKWARDS to say it OK that things got WORSE? How many technical achievements could have been achieved in 40 years if cartoonists could have gotten the chance? Why did animation peak in the 40s? CORPORATE. INTERFERENCE. Cartoonists couldn't do what they wished, starting in 60s.

So, why pick on the 80s? Why is it that whenever the history of animation is written, the 80s either are a footnote or not even mentioned? You said it. Animation peaked in the 40s. It just became commercialized and corporate run over the next four decades. In the 90s, did the corporate and commercialization of animation suddenly disappear? Hell no. Corporations let the creators work a little loosely (probably because many of the people in power were actual fans of animation rather than people who would rather be programming primetime on network television), but in the end, they were still controlled by corporations and still commercialized. If money is to be made, it will be made, or else. In the 2000s, the corporations began to tighten their grips with a few exceptions. And yet, the 80s are still evil and completely backwards.

Plus the art direction in general sucked. The 80s cartoons were the kings of garish neon colours: purple, pink, lime green, neon yellow, bright red, bright blue. UGGGHHHH!!! No subtlety, no care. Sensory overload by people who weren't thinking or weren't allowed to think.

Yeah, because the styles and trends of the day were never reflected in any other era of animation. Animation from the 40s and 50s were devoid of jingoistic themes, never wore the red, white, and blue on its sleeves, and never inserted pop culture references in them. The idealistic era of the early 60s and the troubled era of the late 60s, not to mention the culture and counterculture of the times, weren't reflected at all in the animation. Hippies and influences from the mod era were totally absent from animation. Disco, which popularized neon colors, never popped into animation in the late 70s. The 80s did nothing different than the other eras did.

Nothing was specific. Characters moved but for no reason. They inbetweened everything to make it seem smooth but for no reason. For example, the character's head would bob whilst speaking, but think about it, does your head bob while you're speaking? No, it's stupid and unnecessary.

Yes, my head sometimes move when I talk. I'm not an automoton. I'm an animated individual. If you see somebody talk without moving their head, then you're not seeing a human being.

Continue the cross examination here