How High School Musical Has Affected Animation TALKBACK

High School Musical and other crap that Disney has been pumping out like a puppy mill drives me nuts. My girlfriend can't mention Disney around me, or I go off like shaken-up soda bottle.

As far as I'm concerned, Disney is just pumping out kiddy-crack to fuel their merchandising dept. When was the last time Disney released a good, original animated or live-action movie that wasn't made by Pixar or their other new cash-cow whore factory, Pirates of the Caribbean.
 
Well, that was one really interesting article. Like other people here, I had a guess that the sucess of High School Musical would do something like this to animation. Especially considering how Disney focusing more on their live-action shows and less on the animated ones. I definately see how people see CN as just trying to get better ratings, even if that does mean less quality and going against the very name of the channel.

One thing that was interesting that I realized through reading this article was how Nick has a better balance of live-action shows and cartoons. Of course, that's probably because of how Nick stared with only live-action shows and then eventually got into making Nicktoons. Which is why it wouldn't work as well on CN since they've been suppose to be a network for cartoons.

Now, I have to say how I feel about HSM. I find to be competely overrated. I've seen the movies and they aren't that bad, but they're no where near as good as the hype makes it out to be. I'm still wondering why so many kids today actually like this stuff. They might like the songs, but none of the songs are that good either. At the most, only a couple I could actually call decent. I agree on how its only a fad, but Disney is just milking it for all its worth and then some. Like they need any more money anyway. And did that article say that the Johans Brothers have their own show? That's just plain nuts. Giving a band that makes pretty bad music their own song is not a receipe for success. Of course, the same kids who like HSM will probably like it too.
 
Meh you know kids these days don't have actual TASTE in music, they just like whoever is the prettiest and who is better advertised -.-
 
Like that hairball from American Idle.

I really am sick of this crack pop. It ain't even Bubble gum pop! It's kiddy cocaine. I'm shocked that Disney doesn't pull a Hanna Montana Barbera and make a whole bunch of cheap mystery cartoons with that kind of lousy music in the sound track.

Lemme just say, the animation industry is in dire straights when animation fans remember the good old days of cartoon toy commercials like Care Bears over the current stuff. The only way the animation industry can take this hit is if someone comes up with something that will blow the populous's minds. Look at how big Spongebob was, and still is. He's been around almost 10 years. And as much as I hate how kids corrupted the franchise, Naruto's still popular. We need something epic to get kids away from screaming teen nonsense and back into well thought out cartoons.

I want to ad that article says nothing about how older kids are still watching Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park.
 
The big problem is that if Disney had spent just HALF of the energy they spent promoting HSM on any of their animated property *CoughWITCHcough* I bet thatp roperty could have been just as sucessful!

Crossplatform marketing works and it should be applied to animation! Animation shouldn't be considered a second rate program just to fill up airspace -- seriously. When it comes to live action you usually see merchandising really quickly within the first season, with animation you usually have to wait until the SECOND season rolls around, what gives?
 
Just because they don't like what you do doesn't mean they have no taste. They could say the same thing about you.

If anyone needs help on understanding why HSM is so popular, then go look up what made Grease so popular.
 
It has nothing to do with the quality of the music itself. It's just an observation.

Kids buy the music they buy for the same reason they buy brand name clothings. Plain and simple. They can't develop REAL taste until they are out of Peer Pressure Central (a.k.a. High School), and even there few people manage to see beyond the brand.
 
Not necessarily contesting your point, but making some clarifications:

From the moment Scrooge got his own book in the states, he outsold Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and his book has ALWAYS had the highest readership and fanbase. With very few exceptions outside of the norm - for instance if something special happens - that has still remained true to this day. Scrooge is the odd duck of the classic Disney characters in that he was the only one that DIDN'T have any shorts, but was actually a pretty well known character who didn't TRULY blow up until Mickey's Christmas Carol in the 80's.

A lot of people also forget that back when Disney was still doing those little educational animations and such - Scrooge was also the highlight of "Uncle Scrooge and Money", his first animated cartoon where he explains the value of a dollar and all that jazz to the nephews. In fact, Disney printed in the comics at one point, old storyboards that existed of what were a few planned storyboards for a Scrooge classic style cartoon short or two that never made it off the ground simply because they didnt really know what to do with the character at that time.

However, that is just in the states mind you: Overseas, Scrooge was and still is depending on where you go, WILDLY popular and well known. Especially in certain areas of Europe where Disney Comics have outsold even Batman, Superman, and Spiderman in many places.

To base your argument that kids may not have known who Scrooge was totally is somewhat valid due to lack of shorts, but be careful of stretching that too far because he WAS known, just not quite as well as Mickey, Donald, or Goofy due to his venue.


SIDENOTE, TOTALLY OFF TOPIC: Wasn't Bonkers at some point supposed to have been Roger Rabbit, but was changed due to the copyright clusterfreak that RR has always been in (which I still am not fully sure how it works)? Like...Disney owns Toontown, but not specially RR except at certain intervals or a joint partnership with Touchstone or something?
 
Tooth what is your point?

Your original point was that Disney needs to get back into making original cartoons instead of relying on Movies to base their cartoons on. Gyph pointed out that two of your examples; Ducktales and Goof Troop, were based off a comic book and a established character. You then said that basing a show off a comic book was different from basing a show off of a movie because it allows them to add new interpretations to the pre-existing characters. I pointed out that Ducktales were not only based off characters that Carl Barks created, but many of the stories were based off of his concepts as well. Now you're bringing up things about Little Kids not knowing about Scrooge McDuck and so it is different from basing it off a movie people already knew, but how does that relate to your original point.

It seems to me and everybody on this board that you're not sticking to your original argument, that Disney's cartoons have been lackluster of late due to their over reliance of movies and you've yet to address our points:
-How is basing a show of a comic book and pre-existing character any different from basing it off a movie.
-Ducktales owes alot of its success to Barks' characters and ideas.

And what difference does it makes if the source material is based off of a movie or a comic book just because one is more popular than the other? Your argument was about the quality being lesser because of a show being based off of a movie. Defending your point is fine, but don't try to insult my intelligence by building strawmen.
 
Okay, I'll try to post this as clear as I can.

When Disney bases a cartoon on a movie, they usually do one that is still popular with the kids. There's less of a risk than taking an older character whom little kids wouldn't know about.




I reread all my posts and did NOT see anything saying that these shows were lesser quality and this whole technicality of basing shows on outside media. I did NOT say their movie shows were "lackluster." I don't know how you got that one. I'm bringing up the point of current movies that parents take their kids to see, and wind up on saturday morning a couple years later, vs basing something on another outside source.

I was pointing out that they had a string of cartoons based on movies as a reference to the movement of kids of shows they were doing at that period. I will say I was wrong about them doing that as the only shows at the time. They had others like Schnookums and Meat, Recess, etc.

I'm going back to my original argument. They are making shows that fit under government guidelines for educational purposes. These cartoons all feature kids at school. And we've had the kids at school argument for a while.
 
You clearly implied that the cartoons based on movies were mostly inferior to the "original shows" unless they broke out from their original influences.

Here is your original post:



To me and everybody on this board it seems as if you were making the comparison that original shows are superior to the cartoons based off of movies.

That is why Gyph pointed out that Ducktales was based on a comic book and then you said that basing on a show of a comic book allowed them more leeway to reinterpret the show than making one based off of a movie. Then in response I pointed out that many of the concepts were created by Barks (which includes the setting, characters, and plots). Then again you get into your last post which had nothing to do with our discussion. You still haven't answered what the difference is between basing a show heavily off a comic than off of a movie.



THis is why I hate scemantics-fine that was your original point and I agree that cartoons shouldn't be forced into the educational shows ghetto. You're totally right about that and you made a good point.

However, we were talking about your second point about cartoons being based off of movies and how basing a cartoon off of another pre-existing property isn't as different from the former. Again stay on topic and don't build strawmen.
 
I think the point he was trying to make is that shows based on current and recent movies are not given the same leeway as shows that put established characters or new characters in new situations.

They seem to rehash the plot of the movie too often. Case in point is the Emperor's New School where he gets turned into a different animal every other episode.
 
To be fair, that's only near the beginning of the series for part of the first season. The rest of the season and season 2 haven't done that (IIRC they even made a joke about how repetitive it was)

But still, Aladdin, Lilo and Stitch, Little Mermaid, and Timon and Pumba didn't rehash the movie all the time either. (Though W.I.T.C.H. rehashed the comic, but I think that's an acceptable exception. )
 
Underrave... thank you.

That was the point I was trying to make

And with that, let's forget I said anything. Okay. Basing something off a movie verses comic book.

Why is it different. When you base a project soley off a comic book or Characters in one, you essentially can make as many variations off of it as possible. Batman TAS and the Filmation Batman are 2 different things. Teen Titans the comic is different from Teen Titans the book.

When you base something off of a movie, it's a lot more ridgid. Of course, that isn't to say Disney hasn't had their own interpretations with movie characters. Buzz Lightyear and Timon and Pumbaa are excellent examples. Talespin, however, they took just the characters (and only a few of them) and placed them into a new entirely different situation.

That is the only point I'm getting across. And of course, the fact that it's less of a risk on the part of Disney to get something that people recognize off the top of a bat. And what better way than with sequals and cartoon series.



"it seems as if" does not equal what I really am saying. I will say the older ones were more superior to the current ones (and cartoons they made after a certain year or so) was because these shows were pretty daring, going into new territory. After a while it seems that this kind of entertainment has been established, and bounderies are set.



Well, the fact that you keep bringing it up also has nothing to do with the thread. We could do a whole discussion on basing something off something else. The point I'm saying is Dis needs to be a little more daring with its cartoons. Then people will actually pay attention to them instead of pop slop like HSM.
 
They allow need to up the advertisements on cartoons. Now I don't doubt that viewers like High School Musical or Hanna Montana, but would they still be the hits today if they:

- were on at an hour uinconvieniet to the target demo?
- had no promotions?
- little to no advertisements?
 
IIRC, HSM was the first movie on iTunes. I'd say that is the height of convenience. Particularly when the show doesn't have the numbers to sell DVDs. But we're really in the midst of a transition. Advertising and merchandise favor those with disposable income and that sort has increased ability to avoid ads for as little as an extra $20 a month with cable-type services (TiVo payment plan) or $2 an episode on iTunes (with none of the pop-up ads or shrunken credits).

I would look to HSM's predecessors as evidence of this shift. 5 years ago, Disney Channel stopped showing their 50s teenybopper programming at night. And since then, these shows have moved towards DVD compilations and eventually will have their full runs available in some sort of digital format. But since Disney Channel's tweens have tvs in their rooms and/or can use TiVo or iTunes to schedule the shows at their convenience... There's even some device that can transmit your TiVo-saved shows to a hotel tv and such.

The future's definitely in paying for content directly- whether downloads, DVD or access to programming. It's a future of tv monitors but you fill your own cable box. Especially in light of the strike going on, I think free tv is going to continue moving towards acquired shows (The Office may be replaced with the UK original, 4Kids tv's Sat Am status next year), cheap reality programming and required educational shows like the new CareBears. It seems to me that advertisers are becoming less important but nowhere more than with broadcast tv because the more affluent viewers can skip commercials without paying for the channel itself.
 
Just to so you know, I'm a girl.

Anyway, that would explain why I didn't feel much of any peer pressure during high school. I just never really got into trends that other people watched or became a part of any kind of social group. I was just there being who and what I am.



I agree with that about popularity. I don't know if I actually had any social status, but I honestly didn't care. I stopped caring about those kinds of pointless stuff years ago. I did like your story too. It was really interesting and that's great how you felt so comfortable about yourself to say that. I'm not sure if I would say anything. I have Asperger's Syndrome too so I can't understand body lanuage either. I am comfortable with who I am, but I'm just a quite person. I don't really give into peer pressure still, but my quite nature just makes me almost appear invisible to those kind of social problems.

Sorry if that was too off-topic. I just had to put in my two cents in yet again.
 
Oh sorry... Lucario-chan hehe. Edited.

What a coincidence, I know someone IRL with asperger syndrome...he's also affected by very strong seizures but that's a whole different matter.
 
Back
Top