Regarding Analysis

H

Henry I

New member
Do you believe that any good can come from analyzing the fictional worlds that exist within animated programs? For example, the Wikipedia page for Foster’s Home For Imaginary Friends has quite a lengthy attempt to explain the internal logic regarding imaginary friends, despite the fact that it is little more than repeated facts and idle speculation. I realize that this is an odd thread, but I’m asking because I used to write such articles. You see, I had devoted a small portion of my spare time to figure out the internal logic of various animated programs, but I gave up that hobby when I realized that analysis is seldom accurate. I spoke with the creators of several shows on several occasions and I asked them about some of my deductions and theories, and I was always wrong. A lot of episodic scenes that I used to support my deductions were nothing more than accidents or coincidences, as just because something exists within an episode doesn’t mean that its necessarily meaningful.

Truth be told, fans tend to think far more deeply than the creators do. A small scene in one episode may mean a lot to the fans, and be interpreted widely, yet it may actually be of no importance to the creators.

I suppose it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I love reading articles, even though I stopped writing them, but I keep in mind that even the best analysis supported by episodic scenes may not be accurate.

What are your thoughts on this subject?
 
Well, although not all that much good may good from it, I, myself, have always loved to read analyces(?). It's always very interesting to take that highly speculative view of a series.

It's understandable that the creators rarely intended what analists have come up with, but they're probably blown away by how deeply some people are looking into their plots.

For instance, when Home Movies came out, people were trying to figure out just who Josie (Brendon's baby sister) was. One person even theorized that she was an illegitimate child that was the cause of Paula and Andrew's divorce. It was only after hearing of all of this speculation that the creators decided to mention that Josie was adopted.

So, in some cases, analysis can lead to the fuzzy histories of some characters being cleared up, so I guess it can lead to some good.
 
Well, it's interesting to just plain read analysis. And it is also interesting to wonder what the creator (or anyone else) had in mind with that scene, and whether it could possibly have something to do with expanding the world of the series. However, with many comedy shows, it is somewhat like stupidity. I remember that there was this huge article on Bikini Bottom months back. It was an interesting read, but in a series like Spongebob, with limited continuity (if any at all), a lot of that inforamtion can change. Making it useless.
 
Frankly I wish the creators would spend a little more time on making their cartoon worlds logical. It would pay off bigtime IMO. Kids notice - and care - when something in the show they're watching doesn't make sense. Trust me on this. When I've babysat my nephews, they pepper questions at me all the time about the lapses in logic in their fave toons. Like "How can Spongebob build a fire underwater" and "Why didn't Wanda save herself when she and Cosmo fell over the waterfall instead of asking HIM to do something, she's a fairy too" and stuff like that. Makes watching toons with them a PAIN! :ack:
 
I don't really blame them. I'm one of those people who don't really questions what happens in cartoons, but I do think about it from time to time. They must be really curious. :shrug: Do they actually think you have all the answers? XD
 
I admit that I sometimes like to hear fans analysises of shows. Even though I may not agree with them, I still like to hear other people's thoughts and ideas.
 
I generally try not to over analyze animated shows, because sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon and in the world of cartoons, the laws of reality are allowed to be bent.

But as much as I try to avoid it, sometimes I can't help but speculate about certain things that happen on certain shows. For example, in many cases on shows with kid characters where only 1 of their parents is ever shown, I often find myself speculating about where the missing parent is. Another example is the character of Francine Nebulon on Disney's Lloyd in Space: How was it that Francine had magical powers while brother Lloyd and their mother Nora had none whatsoever? It's possible that it may have had something to do with Lloyd and Francine's missing father, who was never seen or mentioned on the series, but no explanation for this was ever given on the show. It drove me nuts! I used to joke that Francine was actually only Lloyd's half sister and that Francine's dad was actually J'onn J'onzz, aka, the Martian Manhunter. :D
 
They're useful when writing a report or a paper on the show, but other than that-- Im just amused by an excessive analysis of a show.
 
Neil Gaiman and Kurt Busiek are pretty careful not to say very much more about fan analysis of their work other than, "That's not what I had in mind." The reality is that once you make something like a book or a comic or a TV show or a movie, it's kind of out of your hands how people are going to interpret it or read into it. I think the most you can hope for is that people won't misinterpret your work to such a degree that they become the next Columbine shooter or Charles Manson.

I do a fair amount of analysis of cartoons here and on my own, but I intend it to be a "pick this apart and find out why it works" kind of exercise. In addition to being a diverting mental exercise, it can sometimes help you spot patterns in other shows or works as well, or pinpoint why you liked or didn't like something. Knowing I had a mixed reaction to something like Meet the Robinsons is one thing, but not being able to articulate WHY I had a mixed reaction to it is just a way to ensure that the opinion isn't taken seriously. That urge is why I can spend so much time surfing a site like tvtropes.org.

There is also a point of diminishing returns, where analysis becomes an end in itself and stops being really useful. That point shifts for different people, but if your point relies on three different assumptions that were each derived from three other assumptions, you should probably stop trying to justify it and just say, "Well, I want it to be this way."

judyindisguise: The right answer to "how do they do that?" ought to be "I don't know! How DO they do that?!" That way, the kids get diverted for a few hours trying to think up silly ways that they DO that and you can neatly avoid having to come up with an answer. Plus, the fact that you can start fielding completely silly answers is an invitation for them to start playing that game, too, which is a lot more fun. "It's cartoon physics" also seemed to work as an answer to "How did that thing float?" at the Edgar & Ellen panel last weekend.

-- Ed
 
To me the only shows worthy of an analysis is one with a strong conitunity, or any for that matter, Since shows like Spongebob seem to be self contained. Of course that only for plot, characters, well that a different story for me since, if you want to analyze how the character thinks, then go for it, just don't expect me to do it.
 
I'm in this camp, although continuity is just a portion of it. Shows can have continuity of settings, characters, and relationships but still not really be worth analysing, especially if they have NO STORY TO TELL. Shows like Spongebob, Chowder, or Foster's can obviously be analyzed on a show-by-show basis but really only for specific gags (sight or writing). For me, it's been really fun speculating over the last few yers over the direction of some of the great series we've been fortunate enough to see (Avatar, Kim Possible, Danny Phantom, American Dragon: Jake Long, Code Lyoko, Ben 10 [including Alien Force], etc, etc.). Currently, the televison landscape is pretty barren, with very few similarly engaging shows airing. We can only hope this cycle is short...

Having been a anime fan since before the 1980s, analysing and speculating about a series isn't anything new....just the fact I can (legitimately) do so for non-anime or anime-influenced series is.
 
They know I like cartoons. Therefore I'm one of their favorite semi-grownups. And in the past, I made the mistake of explaining a few things about cartoons, and now they think I'm the expert. But if I don't know the answer to one of their questions, I usually say something like "The writer didn't think of it. You're smart to notice." They're generally happy with that. BTW, they're 6 and 8 years old.
 
With shows like SpongeBob or Chowder, I tend not to do much "analysis" since they're, in essence, goofy comedies and even occasionally make fun of their own anomalies ("Hey, SpongeBob, if we're underwater, how can there be a fi-" *poof* is one of my favorites). More serious shows such as, say, the DCAU, Avatar or Gargoyles... THAT kind of analysis is fun, although some of the rationalizing in the Avatar fandom (you KNOW what kind) makes my head ache.
 
Back
Top