Cartoons with a strong Sci-Fi theme: Are they not appealing?

G

gothbaby6

New member
I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that cartoons themed around sci-fi, space travel that aren't based on popular comic books or anime franchises don't seem to catch on very well. Futurama failed with the older mainstream crowd and Invader Zim didn't catch on with the youth. Aside from Ben 10 (and I guess) Dragonball Z have there ever been any cartoons with a strong sci-fi setting or elements that caught on with the general populous? If not, why?
 
Science Fiction is problematic on TV, because it has to be dumbed down for the average (poorly educated) viewer. The problem gets even worse when you're talking about animation, which is primarily aimed at children. Remember the politics of the entertainment industry: Science is something that only smart people (i.e.: geeks and nerds) can understand, unlike, say, magic, which is something anyone can do. And technology - especially the technology of industry - is seen as the tool of people who destroy the environment, create global warming, etc., and therefore is inherently evil.
 
Fox and Nickelodeon (respectively) always jumped those shows around, making it a bit hard for the shows to find a solid audience.
 
With Jimmy Neutron a few minor aesthetic changes it could have just as easily been magic as opposed to "science". Most things you see on TV is Sci-Fi not Science Fiction; when things don't even pretend to adhere to even as much the first low of thermo dynamic is just a facade and no explanation is needed and any explanation given will just be technobabel.
 
Sci-fi's a pretty broad term, but most of the popular sci-fi stuff is what I'd call techno-fantasy- where Excalibur is reborn as a lightsaber, etc. And there's the stuff that comes from major news coverage of scientific breakthroughs, like the Spiderman Rogue's Gallery.

Dunno if anyone read last month's issue of Scientific American, but it had a whole article on how salamanders regrow limbs and that "we may be only a decade or two away from a day when we can regrow human body parts." Certainly the Lizard's going to have to be revised when that comes to pass.
 
Why? Seems to me that the Lizard was just another bit of Comic Book Science that was just way ahead of its time :).

That being said, sci-fi is a pretty broad term. The creators of Superman always viewed Superman as a science fiction character, and you could easily call Iron Man more of a sci-fi hero than a superhero as well.

There's also the broad distinction between "hard" sci-fi (which does concern itself with plausibility and little niceties like the first law of thermodynamics and how gravity actually works) and "soft" sci-fi (which, broadly, is sci-fi because it has robots and lasers and space ships replacing elves and magic and flying horses). I don't think it's been a good time for hard sci-fi of late, partially because of the generally rotten science education among the populace and the people writing these series, but then again I don't think hard sci-fi has ever had the same degree of popularity as the average space opera stuff.

These days, it seems if you really want sci-fi, you're better off going off to the anime aisles.

-- Ed
 
You know, that's a good question. I have a feeling that, to those devoted to sci-fi, the biggest allure is the hardware (the ships, weaponry, etc.) and in order for those to be the most believeable, they have to be either live-action or rendered in 3D. 2D animation, no matter smooth and accomplished, doesn't cut it in that regard. And you know, it's a shame. Recently I've acquired a new respect for the sci-fi toon Treasure Planet. It is damn beautiful to look at, and some of the characters, such as the doggy doctor, the catty ship captain, and especially the cyborg Long John Silver, are terrific. But the movie was a flop. And I think it's just one in a long line of sci-fi toon flops. I hope the new Astro Boy doesn't suffer the same fate just because it's sci-fi. Not to mention Wall*E (although of course the Pixar name will probably win even the most ardent sci-fi fans over). 2D animation seems better suited to bringing fantasy characters to life than in creating sci-fi worlds. Weird, but there it is.
 
I don't know. I think that they are appealing as anything else. I think the reason why Ivader Zim failed is because the age demographic that Nick targeted it towards did't like it and Futurama failed because most people were consintrating on the Simpsons.
 
Futurama was not a failure. It lasted four seasons even though it was preempted by sports half the time. The only reason there wasn't a fifth season was because FOX had so much of a backlog of unaired episodes that they didn't feel the need to order more.
 
My thoughts exactly. Treasure Planet, like The Iron Giant and Titan AE before it, was a great animated film ill-recieved due to the sci-fi genre. Sad but true. :(
 
That was undoubtably the undoing considering it went from airing Friday nights to Sunday mornings. Nick will pretty much lose faith in a show when they schedule it for Sunday which is why I wondered if they even cared about Super Duper Sumos and The New Speed Racer considering they premiered Sunday afternoons.
 
Back
Top