The "cartoons are for kids" mentality: does it really exist?

The popular conception that animation is a kids medium is deep-rooted in the mass culture, but it probably stems from Disney gaining the reputation as family-friendly in the wake of the Hayes code and other studios followed suit.

Which is a bit silly, when I think of where Disney started off (see Plane Crazy and Skeleton Dance) and wasn't always squeaky clean (see http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/now-that-was-wrap-party.html and the 3 Caballeros- man, that movie blew my mind as a kid)
 
It sometimes does. I don't think that I have really haerd people say that all cartoons are for kids but being 18 I think that alot of other people my age think it is unaccetible to be watching CN and Nick but it will be okay to watch Family Guy or South Park. I mean the other day I heard some girl in one of my classes laugh so hard she fell out of her seat and her face turned bright red because she was luaghing so hard because another boy said his 16-year-old brother's favorite show was Fairly Oddparents. Then they both had a good laugh over how the girls friend likes CN.
 
But this is supposed to be a prejudice harboured by most of the population. Considering how deeply into animation I am, the fact that it's passed me over gives me reason enough to question whether it's happening quite how some people here are describing it.



So... a development that's happening outside America isn't worth discussing?






I notice that a number of anecdotes here involve being picked on by siblings and schoolkids. Of course siblings and schoolkids pick on eachother; that doesn't say much about what the general adult population thinks about animation. Not surprising that "sometimes, but not enough to really gauge public opinion on cartoons" is the most popular poll choice right now - these are just isolated incidents of name-calling, like I said.

A number of posts here have backed up one of my points:







In other words, there's a prejudice against cartoons that are for children. I think a lot of people mistake this for a prejudice against cartoons in general.
 
But most animated programs are made for children, so if there is a prejudice against such animated programs, there is a prejudice against a vast majority of animated programs on television. For that reason, it’s easy for people to perceive the problems to be one and the same.
 
Let's try this one again. Are you saying that if you yourself don't experience something personally, then it's nonexistent?



It's because we aren't aware of said cartoon nor do we have a chance to view it so it's hard to get enthusiastic over something we can't experience for ourselves.



Considering that many adults currently enjoy Disney's kid centered sitcoms, I don't see any reason why they can't give the kid centered toons a chance.

Besides the Fox Primetime and Adult Swim programs, there have been many cartoons that have been written for all ages (adults included), yet most adults don't give those a viewing chance. I'm talking about cartoons such as:

- Batman The Animated Series
- Superman
- Gargoyles
- Batman Beyond
- Second Seasons of Iron Man and Fantastic Four from 1995.
- Justice League and Justice League Unlimited
- Avatar The Last Airbender
- The Spectacular Spider-Mam
- Animaniacs
- Pinky & The Brain
- Freakazoid
- American Dragon Jake Long
 
It's always funny that some people say "animation is for kids" because adult make cartoons. So, it that kind of ironic that some adults say cartoons are for kids and yet adults make the cartoons?
 
When I think about it, the only person who really gives me flack for still watching animated series is my sister, who hasn't watched a cartoon since Rugrats was at it's height of popularity, but loves Hannah Montana. Most else have been cool with me, although my mother does still raise an eyebrow whenever I try to watch Jimmy Neutron. I'd say the sterotype exists to an extent, but if nothing else, Roger Rabbit, The Simpsons, Batman: TAS, and Cartoon Network made it a little cooler for an adult to watch cartoons.

Speaking of which, I really miss having intelligent adult-aimed animated series that don't rely on smut to entertain older viewers. Sure, we still have King of the Hill, but it seems to me nowadays that for mainstream adults(ie, non-Toon Zone members) to enjoy a cartoon, they need nothing but rod and fart jokes, alongside frequent acts of wanton violence and at least 3 cuss words a minute. I may love shows like The Boondocks and Drawn Together, but I miss series like Daria, Home Movies, Futurama, as well as classic Simpsons and Family Guy thay didn't have to aim solely to the lowest common denominator to get their point across.
 
I agree that there does seem to be a bit of a lack of more experimental animation pieces on U.S. television. Most of the stuff that is available are all foreign made pieces that air on the International Film Channel. Despite this, at least film schools in the U.S. do acknowledge that animation is merely another form of filmmaking art. My instructor showed both both Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks' The Skeleton Dance as well as Piet Kroon's T.R.A.N.S.I.T. and Anthony Lucas's The Mysterious Geographic Explorations of Jasper Morello.
 
I suppose it's one of those what-ifs that we'll never know the answer to. Might as well concoct a scenario where Mosley came to power in the mid-'30s, resulting in Britain joining the Axis powers and getting fire-bombed to oblivion by American B-29s, rising from the ashes of occupation to a pinnacle where Rover hybrids are the world's most popular cars and everyone's playing on Sinclair Dual-Screens on the tube to work. Like I did. Just now.

Something like that came to mind when I came across stuff on sixties girls' comics like Bunty and their ilk. A few more years to assert themselves and they could have turned into a genre of genuine, home-grown, honest-to-god British shoujo. Them's the breaks, I guess...
 
Rasputin, I SALUTE Channel 4 for what they do for animators and animation fans. I sorely miss it now that I'm on the far side of the pond. :(
 
Well, there's still time. What with Flash and all, building an animation industry should be easier than ever. We just need to get over our funding crisis. In the meantime... *cheers on Philip Pullman*

(He's a Wallace and Gromit fan, you know)



I don't know if you saw, but a while back I reported that Channel 4 was teaming up with Aardman to make a website showcasing animated shorts, both from 4's back catalogue and freshly-submitted ones. Something to look forward to.
 
Animae is a very different creature from "cartoons" (ie, American style animated material), and it is animae that most Japanese adults follow, not "American style".
 
Not quite, as I stated a few moments ago. Animae has distinct CONTENT differences which separate it cleanly from American style animation (aka "cartoons''). Graphic violence, and the frequency of "adult situations" are two of the primary distinctions between the two genres.

Not that I'm defending "animae snobs"...frankly, true animae doesn't do much for me. The closest I've come to liking the genre is liking "Robotech" and a few of the other "Japanimation" titles (distinct from their animae origins by dint of their reediting and rewriting).
 
Right.

But that still doesn't mean you can't call a Japanese animated program or movie a "cartoon" because that's what it is. The content and style is different but it's still a cartoon.
 
Like there haven't been any Western cartoons that boast adult situations and graphic violence. HBO's Spawn, Family Guy and Drawn Together say hello, as do features such as American Pop and Heavy Metal.

Content doesn't change what an animated project is; if it's drawn and animated, then it's a cartoon, be it adult, kiddie or somewhere in between.
 
In the strict technical/dictionary sense, you are correct.

What many amimae fans object to (and I kind'a see their point) is equivilating animae to American cartoons simply on the basis of both being ink/paint on celluloid.

It's like entering a "Heinz 57" dog alongside a purebred in the WKC dog show. Both may be dogs, and both may have outstanding qualities to their fanciers and supporters, but clearly the mutt doesn't belong at Westmister.

(For the record, I am ascribing the role of "mutt" [with it's implications of inferiority] to NEITHER type of animation. I use the term to describe differences so great, that they make broad-brush linkages based on a simple physical description untenable.)
 
I'm sorry you apparently cannot see the myriad of social, cultural, and stylistic factors involved...you are so fixated on the few similarities that you cannot see the mountain of DIFFERENCES between the two.

It is no more appropriate to compare animae and American cartoons than it would be to compare a Ford Escort and a Lambourgini sports car. Both are cars, but are entirely different designs to perform different functions and with different expectations.
 
Back
Top