Creative Restrictions = Better Toon

M

MZ_RED

New member
I've noticed that with some shows, the network stopping them from actually attempting some things may have actually made the cartoon better. For example, John K.'s "Ren and Stimpy". Without Nickelodeon's restrictions, the show may have done too deep into gross outs and weirdness, and could've become near unwatchable. They may have also had somewhat weaker stories. Another example could be "Invader Zim", which say had better comedy since Nick stopped Jhonen from doing some surreal stuff with it.

What's your thoughts? :shrug:
 
I agree with you to some extent, as I’m sure there have been animated programs that were improved due to a network’s involvement; such is the network’s prerogative, after all. However, it frustrates me immensely when I hear stories regarding Standards & Practices and its meddling in creative affairs. It’s one thing for a network to request changes during the creation and formation of the series, but I really dislike censorship and it sucks when an episode or a scene is shot down due to corporate guidelines.
 
You know, I always felt this way about the DCAU just a little bit. Don't get me wrong, I loved the DCAU and have a tremendous amount of respect for Bruce Timm and his associates. But when Timm had Fox Kids or KidsWB breathing down his neck, the episodes of the show he was writing avoided a lot of comic book cliches and became more intelligent and imaginitive.

Then fast forward to a good chunk of his Justice League stories where the Cartoon Network was pretty much just letting him do whatever he wanted to do. We started getting fight scenes just for the sake of having fight scenes, that added nothing to the over-all story.

I'm kinda oversimplifying things a little here (there were plenty of exceptions to this) but I definately noticed this pattern.
 
Sometimes restrictions work, sometimes they don't:

- Gargoyles may have had restrictions, but still, that was one of THE best animated series of the 90's.

- The Weird Al Show. I never caught it in it's original run, but saw it on DVD, and the show, I'm sorry to say, was a disappoint thanks to CBS's meddling and forcing Al to shoehorn in morals into the storylines. This was watered down and far from the true genius that is Weird Al.

- Someone already mentioned Ren & Stimpy. Yes, had Nick not interfered, we'd have had 'Cartoon Party' in the beginning.

- Invader Zim may have had restrictions, but like Gargoyles, was brilliant none the less. Johnen still gave us a cult series that's still superior to 99 percent of Nick's other shows.

- The Real Ghostbusters. Now, the show was GREAT in it's first season before ABC started messing with the fornula and forcing J. Micheal Stracinsky (sp?) to make the stories less dark and creepy. Then Slimer! got his name added to the title, and things just went further downhill...
 
Well,sometimes restrictions DON'T equal better toon.

Say if certain officals had gotten their way about American Dragon,Jake would have been breathing fire into fireplaces (only) and would be wearing crash-proof helmets while flying.Amdrag barely even got enough airtime to tell a good story.They were cheated out at the end with only a half hour long ending where Kim Flossible got like three moives.It's all right,I'm not bitter.I guess it DID get an extended season.But then,I think Replacments did too.
 
Well if any of this may stand as true, it's because networks piss off artists, not because the network shirts did anything creative. And it can happen only if the artist is a man you really wouldn't want to piss of.

There's no logic with these network executives. Maybe you wouldn't want to listen John K ranting about it, but Jhonen put it clear and simple:

"Why does this person who is sitting behind a desk and never watches cartoons is arguing about what cartoons should be like. Its so creepy realizing that this person is a lunatic."

But from what I've heard CN executives are or were cartoonier according to some creators.
 
Standards and Practices vary from network to network and from time slot to time slot, and while I agree that certain limitations can force creators to think outside the box, injudicious interference is almost always injurious. Just take a look at the cartoon wasteland of the late '70's and early '80's, when S&P micromanagement was the order of the day, and you'll see the entire industy was a creative desert with the rare oasis thrown it. Network censors should be run like governments: those govern best that govern least. Gargoyles and Invader Zim were brilliant shows because they had brilliant creators, not brilliant censors; and the dichotomy between the Nickelodeon Ren and Stimpy and the Spike-TV Ren and Stimpy probably had more to due with Nick having higher broadcast standards that tighter creative restrictions.
 
Okay, so a lot of you half-agree with what I said. And I agree that restrictions can also ruin an awesome cartoon or movie, and near no restrictions can also do the same. :shrug:
 
Some good thoughts there. I see nothing wrong with working within restrictions. Many artists have and nonetheless created great stuff. I suspect having total freedom would only tempt some artists to keep reaching beyond their grasp. I think if an artist would look at restrictions as structure, instead of as censorship, they'd create better works that are more timeless and accessible. Restrictions certainly didn't hinder the Disney films and Looney Tunes from turning into classics.
 
I also want to point out something that can happen when an artist/cartoonist has no restrictions: The 'Gosh-Darn' George Liquor Program. In John K.'s webtoon, he went all out and created some of the weirdest and strangest scenes I've never seen in animation. Why? Because without restrictions, his mind went crazy and he got too deep into stupidity and grossness. :sweat:
 
It depends on how well those the writers and staff work around those restrictions. Ren and Stimpy is a prime example of how restrictions can make a better show. yet on the other side of the spectrum The nineties Spider-man shows how a bad crew can really screw up a show based on the restrictions it has. It seems to depend on the people behind the show as well as what the show can or cannot do.
 
Totally-- He was forced to do a lot of stuff to adhere to the Educational Rules of CBS. If memory serves, they had a heck of a struggle just to call one of their musical guests-- the Barenaked Ladies, by their name instead of just BNL.

I remember seeing it when it first aired and from the animated opening sequence I was like "AWEESSSOOMMEEE!" and then things got weird, and not in a good way.

CBS really shouldn't have worried because Al's work is pretty clean-- but when they forced the educational morals stuff in there, thats when things really began to suffer.
 
Actually look at most syndication stuff, they edit stuff there for SP. Though Drawn Together... That a scarier image of what is needed to be censored just to get it down to broadcast standards.
 
All the executives should do is simply leave the crews alone. Let them strut their stuff (if they have any). In the case of R&S, though, restrictions proved to be for the better.
 
Executives always wants to remind their superiors that they have a reason to have that job, and superiors want to prove to stock holders they actually do something.

Its impossible to fake creativity, when you try it usually ends in a disaster.
 
Restraint is really the key here. Even if you're doing something for adults, there's nothing terribly interesting if it's a constant stream of gratitous (sp) sex, violence, etc. When you use those kind of elements to tell a story, you don't want to numb the audience to their effects by going the Deadwood route. I don't think I watched more than 10 minutes of Deadwood because the cursing got silly. It's no different than characters who get angry or when the editing goes into MTV mode... If it's constant, it's probably overdone unless it's tongue-in-cheek.
 
You just described Drawn Together perfectly. There was ZERO restraint on that show, which killed it's humor for me, and why I refuse to buy the uncensored DVD's. Where's the fun in a show that can, and has, crossed every moral boundary?

At least South Park, who's in the same boat with it's often rude humor, at least steps back once in a while and shows *some* restraint.
 
Back
Top