Cartoons of today: will they ever be classics? (2008 edition)

In regards to Avatar, I'd be more inclined to believe that it would attain classic status in 10 years if it didn't tell a finite story which is now over. Unless the creators are planning to spin the Avatar franchise off into more shows, spinoffs, sequels and prequels a la Star Wars, I don't see the project being retained in the public's collective minds for that long (except nostalgically) considering the story it told is now complete.
 
Well, a TV series doesn't necessarily have to be long-running to be classic - I mean, look at Twin Peaks (30 episodes), Our Friends in the North (9 episodes) or The Singing Detective (6 episodes).

(or, for that matter, Evangelion, Lain, Paranoia Agent...)
 
Okay, forget about the 80s and 90s for a sec, the thread was about today cartoons which I will say spans 2000-current. Will it spawn any memorable characters? Maybe 1 or 2, but will it spawn any classic cartoons? Probably not, but who knows. Besides Spoungebob I cannot think of anyone else who will become iconic and remembered, that kills me to say because I hate Spoungebob.

He-Man, Lion-O and TMNT will always be remembered as icons and are classic characters. 10 or 15 years from now are people going to give 2 craps about the main character in Chaotic or anyone like that? Maybe but I doubt it. Merchendise helps greatly too, I never see any cool figures or anything that would boost character status, or any other kind of merchendise for that matter. Characters need to become memorable and besides Spoungebob these characters aren't doing it.
 
Pokemon was the biggest thing since Ninja Turtles. Heck, it was bigger than Ninja Turtles, which is saying a lot. You couldn't go anywhere without seeing Pokemon on something.

Although the games had a hand in it, it would have never lasted like it did without the show. I mean it's been on the air for 10 years, 500 episodes and still draws good ratings.
 
How many unpopular-but-"good" films are considered classic, though? Besides, critics are people just like any other so why should we care what they think any more than someone else? They can, and have, been wrong. I'm sure plenty of people here would say certain "classic" shows are horrible, but they're still considered classic because they're popular enough to warrant it.

How can you bring in fans to a show that's already ended? Maybe get more people to go back and watch it, but it's a bit late for it to actually mean anything to the ratings or popularity. (Provided the movie actually gets made and doesn't tank)
 
After thinking about it, I can see Pokemon being around later only because they plan to keep the anime going as long as possible, but aside from that, the current "airing a show until it burns out" kills off any chance for these shows becoming a well remembered classic.

The reason why Scooby Doo, Flintstones, Mickey Mouse and Bugs stayed around for years is because they aired in moderation thus the audience wouldn't tire of them.



There are plans for a spinoff, thus anything relationing to the series would be good to keep it in the public eye.
 
Again, with the current method of burning out a current cartoon then restricting them to DVD or Digital Cable I fail to see how these shows will be relevent later.
 
That just looks like one site's "Best Movies Ever" list, which is about favorites, not classics. Plus it focuses only on British films that they like, and one not have to like something for it to be considered a classic)

That doesn't make their opinions more valid than anyone else's. I've seen plenty of "professional critics" get things wrong and not know about the details and history of animation and whatnot. They're people just like you and me, only they actually get paid to complain and praise things.

First I've heard of it. I only heard they have an idea, not that it's actually being made.
 
Oh, God...
Okay, here's more from the same site. The book series is explicitly titled "BFI Film Classics". In other words, these are the films which the BFI considers to be classics. And they're quite clearly basing this status on quality, not popularity.



It does when they're talking about a film which the "anyone else" involved in the equasion hasn't seen :shrug:
 
It will be tough. With what you said and lack of great merchendise it's hard to really make a character or show relevant. When I was a kid I played with He-Man figures, I found out he had a cartoon and watched the cartoon because I was a fan of the figures, that is basicly a dead platform. And with what you said about DVDs it's another punch in the stomach of making today toons ultra relevant.
 
Spongebob, sure, Pokemon, maybe, Foster's has ended, so it depends on how well it holds up over time or if there are any follow-ups/revivals. Chowder, however, is only in its' first year, so it's far too early to tell what cultural impact (if any) that show will have.
 
I honestly don't think that many people remember Lion-O. Sure, some people do, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Thundercats is on the same level of popularity as He-Man and the Ninja Turtles.
 
If nothing else, I'd name it a classic for being the first Spider-Man cartoon that had really good animation. It's appalling to me how many Marvel cartoons over the years haven't. I think it's also the one that pulls off the same trick as BTAS, which is that it successfully cherry-picks elements it likes from all that came before it and turns it into something good in its own right.

In the end, I probably agree with most that SSM is a bit too early to call a classic just yet, but I would agree that it's also well on its way there.



I don't think the definitive ending (so far) for Avatar should have much bearing on whether it's a classic or not. Cowboy Bebop in animation and The Prisoner in live-action are both finite stories (much shorter than Avatar, even), and neither one seems to be in any danger of being removed from "classics" lists. MonkeyFunk also listed a few other examples of finite series that are already animation classics.

For that matter, you could argue that all TV series are, by definition, "finite" because they all end eventually, as do movies.

At this point, I would probably single out the second season of Avatar as a classic, simply because it's one of the finest single seasons of television I've ever seen, animated OR live-action. The fact that I didn't find the third season quite as compelling as the first two (at least until after the midway point) is also a strike against calling all of Avatar classic. That may strike some as odd, but I wouldn't really say so. 24, The West Wing, and the new Battlestar Galactica are live-action examples with extreme highs at their best and extreme lows at their worst, and averaging out the entire series would seem to penalize the highs unfairly.



Organizations like the BFI are collectives of individuals. If an overwhelming majority of them declares that something is a classic, the odds that they are all wrong become much smaller. It's not zero ("if a thousand people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing"), but it's greatly reduced.

Popularity is also a poor gauge for classic status for a number of other reasons. Some works were groundbreaking at the time and set a foundation for what followed, but are hard to enjoy strictly on their own merits today. Metropolis is one example -- I would definitely call it a classic, but I would not call it popular by any stretch. Most modern audiences wouldn't even get past the fact that it's black-and-white and silent. The original Jazz Singer is probably another example. There's also accessibility. Even though Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton were classic comedians and their films are still watchable and funny today, but most people today probably haven't even seen their films. They aren't "popular," but you're in for a long, hard fight if you try to claim that they aren't "classic."

Besides, if critics can be ignored because they could be wrong and, as they say, "everyone's a critic," then there's not much sense for anybody to talk about any films or TV shows at all, is there?

Of the shows in the past 5 years, I'd say that The Simpsons has probably already made it to classic status, and Avatar with the caveat listed above (which I reserve the right to change my mind about after I sit down and watch all of book 3 consecutively). In movies, I'd name Spirited Away and The Incredibles as classics since the last thread, since both managed to really push the boundaries both in technical and storytelling terms.

-- Ed
 
They were popular when they came out, though, which is my angle. They're the most memorable series from that time which is what I meant by popularity. Nothing stays popular forever unless you milk the franchise and drag it out, because people move on. Classics like Citizen Kane and others were incredibly popular when they came out (if not financially, then publicly in the news and the like), which makes them classic; nobody can deny them being classics. I could argue quality is a poor basis for being aclassic as I wouldn't call Scooby Doo a good show, but it's definately a classic and I won't deny that. Spongebob will definately a classic due to its popularity and hold on kids today, despite the hate it gets from some people, but stuff like Avatar or Danny Phantom aren't because they lack the notoriety. Quality has little baring on whether something is a classic. It can help, for sure, since groundbreaking series tend to be popular and well known to the public, but it's not as important as memorability, since there's plenty of shows that are considered classics that are dull and derivative). A show is only as good as what your experience with it is. For example, some people can claim Avatar is groundbreaking for being the first series with a serial narritive, or Danny Phantom is groundbreaking the first series about fighting ghosts, so they're classics, despite the fact there's been shows before them which feature those aspects. However, if the person never saw those previous shows, it would be considered groundbreaking for them. If you take that aspect of "quality" away from those shows, then they no long are groundbreaking which would mean they're no longer classic if we judge by that aspect. Same with "this show is well written" VS "this show is badly written". Where as with popularity you can't really "prove" a show doesn't have popularity if it does. Family Guy will go down as being a classic despite all the people who hate it, because of it's massive popularity.

Sharing opinions is fine, but to devotedly follow someone's opinion just because they have a badge isn't a good idea in my mind.
 
It should be noted that longevity and popularity alone do not a classic make. Influence is also a major factor. And note that influence and originality aren't necessarily the same thing.
 
Back
Top