Why is it that Animation isn't taken seriously in the U.S.?

See, when we talk about genres, there are really two sorts of genres.

First, there's Drama, Comedy, Horror, and Suspense (and possibly Romance, depending on how you look at). There's no required content for any of these genres, merely that they try to evoke a certain emotion. Comedies make you feel amused, Dramas make you feel empathetic with the characters, Horrors make you feel scared, etc.

Then there are more concept driven genres, like Western, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Historical Fiction, and (again) possibly Romance. These genres are defined by the setting and/or basic tropes they use to tell a story, not by the emotion they invoke, so most stories in these genres also fit into the first kind of genre (Dramatic Westerns, Comedic Fantasy, Horrorific Historical Fiction).

Superheroes is one of the second kinds of genre; people with superpowers and usually costumes or unusual appearances fighting evil people is only a little less broad than the Western genre, and nowhere near as broad as Science Fiction or Fantasy. However, just because Superheroism is a genre doesn't mean superhero stories can't fall under lots of other genres; most are either Science Fiction or Fantasy (often both), plenty have large amounts of Drama involved, many have Comedy, and I'm sure I could track down quite a few Horror or Suspense themed superheroes if I tried.
 
Well, that may be one of the reasons why we can't agree on this subject. As much as I liked Firefly, Star Trek, and SG-1, none of them come close to the "special effects" seen in Justice League Unlimited. The flying character scenes alone would have gone way over those live-action show's budgets. I was not a big Xena fan but I watched enough to know that it didn't even top SG-1 at it's best, either. Or compare any Star Trek series to Clone Wars -- nothing that Star Trek ever did compared, in my opinion.

Also, Firefly's fanbase was very strong but the ratings couldn't justify the budget to the network. Same goes for Enterprise. Both of these shows could have been made for a fraction of the live-action budget if done in animation instead.

When you think about it, the only way even the big-budget live-action movies have been able to compete with the "special effects" of Justice League Unlimited has been to animate them. True, it's a lot more realistic looking computer animation, but it's animation all the same. It's relatively obvious animation when Neo battles multiple Agent Smith's in The Matrix Reloaded, for example. Or how about how many people complained about the CG-Hulk in the same-titled big-budget movie a few years ago? Animating space ships for live-action is one thing, but it takes a big budget to make CG-animated people that can pass for live-action.
 
The thing is, superhero is a blanket statement that can describe pretty much any action hero. All they need to do is have some sort of ability/skill and use it to fight bad guys (which fits a lot of characters, as mentioned.)Heck, DC bills Jonah Hex as a superhero, since he's in the DCU and everything. Just like Disney billed Kim Possible as a teen superhero.

That sort of compliments both our arguments. I think CG is best when it's used to blend live-action actors and objects/settings with CG characters/objects/settings. One thing that irked me about JLU were the jets, which you could tell were CG because of how they stood out from the 2D animation/backgrounds, but the Ents in Lord of the Rings looked pretty real since the background and actors were also realistic looking. What animation can't attain on its own (realism), it can be achieved when paired with live-action to augment it.

Though I wouldn't use Clone Wars as an example.. that was over-the-top even for Star Wars (Overpowered Jedi taking out 100s of people, jumping around like they can fly, over-stylized action, etc) but that's mostly because of Genndy's over-exaggerated style rather than being animated (the new Clone Wars CG DTV looks to be far more realistic/down-to-earth, as Star Wars should be.) So while animation works for the over-the-top stuff, I think a main point was "realistic/serious animation", which you wouldn't want all the over-the-top advantage of animation.
 
Any of the cartoons released now are boring. Some make an attempt as having anime-esque animation, but you can't imitate what's already perfect over in Japan. Plus the cartoons these days are designed for little kids since they assume us older people don't watch cartoons anymore.
 
While animation is still not readily accepted in the U.S. as a medium for telling challenging stories, the situation has overall improved over the last 20 years, particularly on television. Many good shows have been created in the last few years and some have found a good audience. Unfortunately, most, if not all of these were targeted for an audience below 16. Obvously, I am not considering the numerous prime-time animated shows that have similar formulas (Family Guy, American Dad, Simpsons, etc). A few attempts at serious theatrical animation (Titan AE spring to mind) have been met with less than stellar box office. Until somone breaks through with a successful serious to semi-serious animated feature that has big box office, I'm afraid we'll continue to get the same type of feature, probably in CGI.

It's interesting to note that the Japanese were influenced by Disney films when their animation industry started. Over the years, Disney contiuned making features aimed primarily at families and children, while the industry in Japan found success entertaining audiences on many different age and intelligence levels.

It's my contention that artists (and particularly writers) have been influenced by the rise in popularity and exposure of Japanese animation over the last two decades. While using an anime-style kind of art (Totally Spies, Kappa Mikey, etc) can be considered as parodying, ripping-off, or just genuinely being influenced by anime, the art style can only go so far in making a project popular. It's the writing that's the key and we're seeing a number of shows written by non Japanese that have not only found a large audience, but are considered the best shows of their kind on TV (Avatar: The Last Airbender, Code Lyoko, Oban Star-Racers, and even episodes of Kim Possible and American Dragon: Jake Long). Now if the influence spreads to the execs and suits in charge of green-lighting projects....

Shameless plug starts here:
I will be hosting a panel at METROCON entitled "The Anime Effect" that will focus on the influence anime has had on animation around the world (particularly in the US) since the mid 90s, as well as a "Guilty Pleasures" panel on anime and animation. If you're in the area, hope you'll check them out. More information can be found at www.metroconventions.com.
End of Shamless plug
 
I've never really been bothered by that kind of stuff. The earliest example that I can remember was The New Adventures of Huck Finn (which I saw in re-runs, I ain't that old!). Despite being an obvious blend of live-action and animation, I really enjoyed it. I doubt a lot of their adventures would have been possible "as is" without the animation or a much larger budget. Anyways, I know that many of the 3D models in JLU were obvious but it never bothered me.



Well, I would use it as an example. How else could Jedi's have kept order in a galaxy with ships and weapons as powerful as shown in the Star Wars universe unless they could do all those amazing feats?

Likewise, what you refer to as "over-the-top" has become the norm for the big-budget live-action movies like The Matrix Reloaded, Spider-man 2, or Superman Returns. The only reason we're not seeing these sorts of "over-the-top" shows on television is due to budget constraints. I have no doubt that shows like The 4400 or Heroes would do bigger action effects if they could afford it. Of course, if they thought people would accept an animated show about super-powered beings, fantasy, or science fiction that was aimed at adults, they could have they could have an even greater freedom than the big-budget live-action films do.

I've often wondered what the response to a mature-themed animated television show would be if they actually previewed and advertised it as being for mature audiences. Or even if they did it for an animated movie in the theaters, what would the response be? I mean, they would need to come right out and say that it's rated R or has mature themes, not for children, what-ever. The only animated movie for adults that immediately comes to mind is Heavy Metal but I don't know what the adverts for it were like. I do remember seeing adverts for Mask of the Phantasm, though, and while the movie wasn't specifically made for adults, it was more mature than the live-action Batman & Robin. Yet the adverts for MOTP probably came across to most adults as a "kid's movie".
 
And the kid's stuff continues to outsell all the "different age and intelligent" level stuff in Japan, so apparently they're not as far along as America is when it comes to adult animation.

So... what you're saying is the only way an American show can have good writing is if it's ripping off Japanese cartoons? That's a very questionable, not to mention insulting statement to be making. Putting it like that really just making it seem like you have a "American shows have no story/Japanese shows always have a story" mindset that is common with a lot of otaku. If you are indeed going to "teach" this stuff at conventions, you should at least do some research first

Different types of "over-the-top". Luke was never picking up falling jets or flying through the air and moving at hyper-sonic-speed. I was only saying Genndy's Clone Wars isn't good to judge Star Wars because it's not what Star Wars is suppose to be. Mace Windu and Anakin were speeding around and doing a whole bunch of feats that were never in the movies; not because it wasn't possible, but because that's not the physics Star Wars was set in. Sure, animation is better for over-the-top stuff like that, but it was never meant to be like that in the first place, is all I was saying.

I doubt it. The creator of Heroes said it was always about the drama, not the fights. Just like the comic books he was drawing influence from, the main focus was always the plot and characters, not the flashy super-hero fights. I doubt it would be as popular as it is today if they did focus on the fights rather than drama, since all the fans and critics seem to praise it for the writing, not the fights.
 
Okay. I disagree with you but I see what you're saying now.

I think there are two reasons why Luke was not doing the stuff from Clone Wars. The first was that the effects were not possibly to portray when Star Wars was made. Oh, they could have done something like it but it never would have looked good. The second is that Luke was not trained to the level that Jedis were when they were at their peak. Clone Wars was a Lucas-sanctioned product, as far as I know.



I agree that Heroes was created to be a drama. But it was also created in an environment with budget limitations that doesn't allow "flashy super-hero fights". The creators knew this going in so they never included what you call "over-the-top". There are plenty of comic books that do stories just as dramatic as Heroes yet also include extreme super-battles; super-powers and drama are not mutually exclusive. Comic books don't have to worry about their effects budget so they can include both.

On the other hand, despite all the drama in Batman Begins or Spider-man, I doubt we will ever see either franchise turn out a dramatic movie about the character that doesn't also include, as you call it, "over-the-top" action. Why? Because the creators know going in that they will have the budget that a show like Heroes will never have.

My other question still stands, too. What if an animated Spider-man 4 was made for the theaters and was rated mature? Could it be sold to the public? What if they said up front, this film is not intended for children? Would it sell? Would it help if Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst did voice-overs and they promoted it as the next in the franchise?
 
If you mean an R-rated animated film, then I doubt it. Even live-action R-rated movies don't do nearly as well as PG-13 and below movies. You really need the kid demographic watching if you want it to be a real box-office hit, like Spider-Man and Pirates of the Caribbean are. If it was PG-13, then it'd have a much better chance.
 
Man, this is still going on?...

The fact of the matter is that animation is in a fixed state right now, we have nothing but kiddie crap on t.v.. Cartooon Network and Nick are obiously comfortable with their current position because for the past 7 or 8 years all we've seen is garbage spewing out of them (except for a SMALL handful of exceptions) and as for movies, mainstreamers and the movie industry have this thing about animation, it seems that they think anmated films can ONLY be made for children and not for adults, or both! Also in the case of CG vs. 2D, people (mainstreamers and movie execs) seem to think that 2D animation is "a thing of the past" and that CG is the only choice for feature films (which isn't true). And another thing, animation also seems to be a "tool" of sors to the people who work on them, These people aren't the least bit passionate about cartoons and/or animation (like the people who work on EVERY Comedy Central cartoon... yes even South Park, I said it!) no one cares about timing, bounce and streach or any of the 12 principals anymore (except for features).

And also I've come to a conclusion about adult cartoons (that you all probibly already know), adults don't care about animation itself (pretty much all the adult swim origionals are prime examples) All adults care about is the writting and diolouge (sp?)

As for animated drama I think that anime series like GitS and Evangelion are about as close as were EVER going to get.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of it.. I'm just tired of it. I'm very pasionate about animation, as I'm sure everyone else is, and I want to see change, I want to see cartoons on t.v. that adults and kids can enjoy like in the 90's I want to see "good" 2D movies again and a LITTLE less CG, and I want to see LESS crappy adult cartoons like Drawn Togother, Stripperella, Lil' Bush and... Ugh the list goes on! As an animation enthusist I can truely say that if someone doesen't do something animation will never evolve into something better.
 
Now I can see why animation isn't aimed squarely at adults (Aside from say Family Guy, American Dad and Adult Swim), but how can making a cartoon for all ages be a financial risk? You'd still have the kids who buy merchandice related to show, plus the adults who who like a full DVD set. The only difference between it being for kids only and all ages, is that you have a higher audience number.
 
EXACTLY!! I don't get it either it seems Nick and CN are just stuck on stupid, altough, Ivader ZIM was a cartoon that was enjoyable to adults but was ment for kids.. and look what happened to that...
 
It's not taken seriously because adults assume animation is kids stuff and thus no one bothers making mature programming. It's hard to change people's perceptions of a medium when they refuse to watch it in the first place.
 
I thought Mori was talking about as the robot becomes more real, the more positive and empathic the response until it a certain point. When it reaches the "uncanny valley" the response becomes disgust really fast. Mori wasn't really talking about cartoons but that can apply here. It is said that why "Final Fantasy: Spirits Within" failed was because the CGI characters' designs turned off the audience as a whole because the Uncanny Valley effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
 
Sales is not the issue--I'd venture to say that Pokemon video sales dwarf, say, GitS video sales in the U.S. How does this make America farther along than Japan as far as adult animation is concerned? I'm talking about the fact that, until fairly recently, the overwhelming majority of animated programming for American television and animated features created by American producers were targeted exclusively for children and family audiences. Only in the last decade or so have we seen attempts at targeting teens and young adults (Titan AE spring to mind for films and both Justice League series for television). The fact that exposure to the art and/or storytelling devices used in Japanese animation over the last decade has had an influence on today's artists and writers (some, of course...not all) is undeniable...



How are shows like Avatar: The Last Airbender, Code Lyoko, and Oban Star-Racers "ripping off" Japanese cartoons? Are recent shows with excellent writing (Kim Possible, Ben 10, Dave the Barbarian, Brandy and Mr Whiskers) doing the same? I tend to think it is more the bar being raised by a more sophisticated product. There are shows that do kind of "rip off" anime--Totally Spies, Martin Mystery, Shuriken School--that aren't very good or average at best. Those can be rightly criticized (I do kind of like Kappa Mikey, though--it's more a homage to the format than a straight "rip off").

As someone who has been watching animation (TV and feature) for over 40 years, I have seen a lot of phases. The early 60s cartoons (Hanna Barbara and other studios) were great, but I knew I was seeing something different when watching shows like Astroboy, Gigantor, Kimba, and Marine Boy, even at that young an age. In my teens during the 70s, there were many good animated shows and movies, but the ones that really caught my eye were things like Battle of the Planets and, particularly, Star Blazers. Is it just a coincidence that awesome series like Gargoyles and Batman: The Animated Series appeared a few years after Robotech had laid the groundwork and exposed young viewers to a character-driven story instead of just a lot of disjointed fighting sequences (GI Joe, edited Transformers, etc)? I tend to think not. I consider my years of watching these trends, as well as the 20 years I have been involved in anime fandom (clubs, con viewings, con organizing, etc) more than enough research to express my views on this at a con panel.
 
Back
Top