>Other Views Rebutted

The cartoons of the 1980s are just as good and just as bad as anything that came before and after them.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The best 80s cartoons, nay, the best 60s, 70s, 80s, 90 and 2000s cartoons cannot compare to cartoons from the Golden Age of Theatrical animation. NONE. And the WORST of the golden age cartoons are as good or slightly better than the BEST cartoons from the 70s and the pre-Renaissance 80s.

There’s a few cartoons that were made past 1960 that are better than the worst 40s cartoons. Flintstones, Jetsons, Ren & Stimpy, Spongebob, a few others, these are all enjoyable but the STANDARDS of “bad-average-good” decreased dramatically.

Still, they're seen as being responsible for everything bad that has ever happened to the animation industry to this day, which is not only an atrocious charge, but also an incorrect one.

Nope, actually the 60s and 70s are blamed for that. Nobody has ever accused the 80s of being a root cause of the decrease in quality of animation. Compare the creativity and writing and animation skill of a TV cartoon from 1960 and 1970 and you'll see a huge drop in quality. People enjoy cartoons from the 60s but that was the decade when things started going downhill. Cartoonists lost the most creative control over cartoon in the 60s than any other decade. They went really bad really fast. (Scooby Doo should be proof of that.) Then in the 70s things remained really bad. Every cartoon had bad animation, cheesy voice acting, and was a rip-off of either Scooby Doo or Superfriends.

The 80s are seen as CONTINUATION of the badness by most, not the root cause of it. The only thing is, the 80s also introduced toy marketing and garish colours. In the 80s cartoons DID improve. Almost like a polar opposite of the 60s, by 1990, cartoons had become more creative, more animated, more cartoony, and better-written. The thing is, this Renaissance happened INCREDIBILY quickly, in the LATE 80s. Jerry Beck summed it up best:

"Other than inspiring SPACE JAM and COOL WORLD, I don't think that film turned things in animation (the way TOY STORY would a few years later). I would agree that the combination of MIGHTY MOUSE: THE NEW ADVENTURES (1987), THE LITTLE MERMAID (1987) WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT (1988) and THE SIMPSONS (1989) really set the stage for the animation boom of the 1990s.

"ROGER RABBIT was pivotal to the revival of interest in cartoons (classic or otherwise) to the mainstream public. But it was preceded by the hugely popular LITTLE MERMAID (which was a success because it appealed to teen & adult women), and the Bakshi MIGHTY MOUSE (popular on college campuses).

"John K. was already influencing animation through Bakshi's MIGHTY MOUSE, a year before Roger came out. Cartoon Network and WB TV Animation came out of the general "Toon Boom" feeling of the era, a renaissance which came about (as I said in a earlier) by the combined commercial/artistic success of MIGHTY MOUSE, THE LITTLE MERMAID, ROGER RABBIT and THE SIMPSONS."

See, nothing before 1987. LATE 80s. I would also include DUCK TALES in that list. After the success of The Little Mermaid, Disney decided to put a lot of effort into making high-quality animation for TV. The Disney afternoon was born.

Ducktales led to a rise in interest of "Baby-fied" versions of popular series. Most of these were atrocious. Flintstones Kids, Tom & Jerry Kids, Muppet Babies and their ilk, however, were not up to snuff. (And I watched all these shows religiously as a kid, but I'm being objective here) Then along came a man named Tom Ruegger who created A Pup Named Scooby Doo, an attempt to parody the Scooby Doo formula, but with wild animation takes, pop culture hipness, and a Clampett-like veneer. He was heavily influenced by Mighty Mouse, a huge 80s innovation.

A Pup... was a combination of the innovations of Ducktales and Mighty Mouse. After that show became a hit (perhaps due to the great Bill Hanna directing the first episode), Tom was put in charge of Tiny Toons for Warner Animation. While I hold no great love for Tiny Toons, it was innovative and many people do love it. It did spring from 80s innovations. It was a combination of the revived interest of classic cartoons that came from Roger Rabbit, the cartooniness and pop culture hipness of Mighty Mouse and the baby-fication and high quality animation of Ducktales. From this series sprung tons of talent, and several series, Animaniacs, Freakazoid!, Pinky & The Brain, and my childhood favourite: Hysteria!

Meanwhile, writers from Tiny Toons and Mighty mouse went on to create Batman, which was the other side of Warner Animation at the time, and from Batman sprung a new breed of dramatic animation, less cheesy than the 80s stuff. It was cinematic, adult and very dark, unlike the 80s Ruby-Spears version of Superfriends (which was darker than the 70s Superfriends but not as innovative as Batman: The Animated Series.) Mighty Mouse was again the springboard for it, where Bruce Timm got his start. The voice acting for Batman, for instance, was like a movie or a dramatic series, not e cheesy superhero.

So the 80s did improve things dramatically, but the worst cartoons of the 80s, the ones I’m criticizing, are the pre-Rennaissance ones.

Cartoons From The 80s Were Too Commercialized

Ok, I actually slightly agree with you on this one. I agree that 80s cartoons were way too commercialized, but I also agree with your assertion that this was nothing new. The difference, however, was VOLUME and how big a role the toy played in the show. Matty’s Funnies didn’t star a specific toy; it starred a mascot who introduced original or classic segments. A cartoonist created Earthworm Jim.

80s toy cartoons weren’t always based on things that didn’t lend themselves to shows, but they often did. Come on, Pac-Man? What moron decided that could sustain 21 minutes a week? It’s not possible, hence, the stories sucked, hence, the series sucked.

Again, the Centurions was a cool toyetic idea but it suffered from shoddy execution.

The difference again, my friend, was volume.

The executives in the 80s decided that original cartoons weren’t allowed. They had to have marquee value, so they either had to be based on a toy or an old property. The only reason Mighty Mouse got on the air at all was because of marquee value, and that’s a fact. Bugs Bunny would never have gotten created in this system since eh wasn’t based on a toy or pre-existing property! How many Daffy Ducks did we lose due to this stupid rule?! How many true originals were lost? Good things Fred Seibert came along and changed things.

Conclude the rebuttal here.