Unconventional or unpopular opinions you have (re: animation)

[Mejo]

The version of Daffy seen in Looney Tunes: Back in Action should be the modern version of Daffy by default.

You see, if Daffy's JUST a grumpy old duck all of the time, he quickly becomes not fun to watch (see the later Chuck Jones shorts). But if he's JUST crazy and wild, he quickly becomes quite annoying to watch in long stretches of time due to him not having alot of depth (see most of Looney Tunes Cartoons). The people behind Back in Action KNEW this and decided that focusing on ALL of his character traits was much funnier than just ONE.

 

[aegisrawks]

Too bad that movie flopped, it could have couse corrected Daffy's characterization.

 

[Mejo]

Too bad that movie flopped, it could have couse corrected Daffy's characterization.

Yeah, it was SO much better than both Space Jam films combined. Though Back in Action DID have a lot of issues (The live action parts and Bugs Bunny's characterization specifically) it was still a great movie. Probably my second favorite Looney Tunes movie (Tiny Toons: How I Spent My Vacation or the compilation movies are probably my favorite)

 

[Ace]

I watched a bit more of Rock Paper Scissors and I've soured a little bit on it. It's a great example of why cartoons shouldn't be too dialogue driven. Seeing characters talk and argue for minutes on end isn't fun. That's stuff is boring and more suited to a live action sitcom.

Some writers can think visually better than others and it shows when looking at certain shows where one episode can be really interesting and fun and the next kind of boring and paced terribly.

 

[aegisrawks]

I watched a bit more of Rock Paper Scissors and I've soured a little bit on it. It's a great example of why cartoons shouldn't be too dialogue driven. Seeing characters talk and argue for minutes on end isn't fun. That's stuff is boring and more suited to a live action sitcom.

Some writers can think visually better than others and it shows when looking at certain shows where one episode can be really interesting and fun and the next kind of boring and paced terribly.

I love Rock, Paper and Scissors but this needs to be said. Writing for animation is way different than writing for live action. This quote from Hanna Barbera themselves shows why this is a dangerous mistake many make in the industry.

Barbera: We did a whole series, Top Cat, we had some of the best writers in the business and the best scripts until I realized to my horror, that it was all terrific dialogue. Where were the cartoon gags? None. Earlier on The Flintstones, we had hired one of the best writers that the Honeymooners had. We had a three episode deal with him. It was a disaster. He hadn’t the faintest idea how to write for animation.

 

[Fone Bone]

I don't agree. Animation is a medium, not a genre. It can accommodate heavy dialogue just fine. Limiting it to cartoon visual gags is the same kind of muddy thinking that led to early Hanna-Barbera stuff having laugh tracks. Animation can tell any kind of story you want. If one is bored with it, fine. Doesn't mean everyone will be. Rock Paper Scissors has plenty of fans. As does King Of The Hill.

 

[Pooky]

I agree in principle, but I am also acutely aware of how much time, effort and talent goes into animation, and it does personally take me out of a something a bit when it strikes me as something that would have been more or less the same if it were live action. For all its merits, I do kind of feel that way about King of the Hill.

 

[Fone Bone]

I agree in principle, but I am also acutely aware of how much time, effort and talent goes into animation, and it does personally take me out of a something a bit when it strikes me as something that would have been more or less the same if it were live action. For all its merits, I do kind of feel that way about King of the Hill.

I don't like King Of The Hill either and that fact about it often drives me crazy. But it's not like the show doesn't have fans. Even more telling, it had the ability to attract a general audience. Clearly cartoony humor is not a deal-breaker for many people.

Also should note this argument effects me personally. There is plenty of action in Gilda And Meek And The Un-Iverse, but for me, some of the very best and most effective issues are essentially extended philosophical conversations. I BELIEVE in the notion that extended prose and dialogue has a place in both comics and animation because I have skin in the game.

 

[aegisrawks]

I don't agree. Animation is a medium, not a genre. It can accommodate heavy dialogue just fine. Limiting it to cartoon visual gags is the same kind of muddy thinking that led to early Hanna-Barbera stuff having laugh tracks. Animation can tell any kind of story you want. If one is bored with it, fine. Doesn't mean everyone will be. Rock Paper Scissors has plenty of fans. As does King Of The Hill.

You misunderstood, but I get it because that quote is misleading when concerning my post. Its not that animation is not a medium, is only for cheap gags and jokes, ot that script driven animation is bad, mea culpa, I just didnt have a more clear quote that writing for animation is not as easy as it seems. But even script only stuff HAS to keep in mind the differences between animation and live action. They are different and unique. Sure Chris Nee is a mostly script driven animation creator but even she lets the animations in as to what she wants visually and the talented animators at brown bag in Ireland make it happen. Even King Of The Hill has several rules and quirks it needs to successfully translate scripts to animation. And I LOVE Rock, Paper and Scissors, it's one of the best shows in a while.

Gravity Falls is script driven and many sequences are left to the animators to work their magic because they know how animators know their way in a visual medium.

 

[Goldstar!]

The version of Daffy seen in Looney Tunes: Back in Action should be the modern version of Daffy by default.

You see, if Daffy's JUST a grumpy old duck all of the time, he quickly becomes not fun to watch (see the later Chuck Jones shorts). But if he's JUST crazy and wild, he quickly becomes quite annoying to watch in long stretches of time due to him not having alot of depth (see most of Looney Tunes Cartoons). The people behind Back in Action KNEW this and decided that focusing on ALL of his character traits was much funnier than just ONE.

Well, I thought Daffy was great in Looney Tunes Cartoons and on New Looney Tunes, but still, that's a valid point. You don't want to far on either extreme. I prefer for Daffy to be, well, daffy, but I'm OK with the character possessing a little bit of spice, as long as he never crosses over into being a villain like in those awful DePatie-Freleng LT shorts from the 1960s.

 

[Mejo]

Well, I thought Daffy was great in Looney Tunes Cartoons and on New Looney Tunes, but still

Yeah, while I do agree with you that Daffy should be well...DAFFY, the HBO MAX and NLT shorts really showcase that him being ONLY insane don't really work well for a TV show. When his only trait is "crazy", you're left with too one-note of character to have as the lead for a good deal of the shorts. Not helped by the fact that most of the stories that are being told with Daffy nowadays are teamups between him and Porky, really limiting the amount of stories that can be told by him and causing them to be somewhat repetitive (look me in the eye and tell me that half of the modern shorts with them WEREN'T just Porky getting beaten up and Daffy being an idiot for 5 minutes). Also not helped by the fact that Clampett's version (the version that these shows are trying to replicate) actually shares more in common with Jones's version than his fans ever try to deny, making Daffy more like Avery's version. Although I DO appreciate how they made an attempt at making Daffy more akin to his earlier self, sometimes I wish that they would use whatever take is right for the cartoon (Ok, I DO know that a few LTC and several NLT's cartoons use the more 50s-ish version, I just wish that they would use them equally instead of favoring one over the other).

This is all a matter of one's view though. Just putting mine out there. I don't want to seem like I HATE those shows. I do think that overall, there are more good qualities in both than bad (I do think they have problems though and in my opinion (save for around 30 - 40 shorts from both) are quite far off from the originals) and I wish they would get more love (no joke, i've met lots of people who didn't even KNOW that LTC existed compared to the Paul Rudish Mickey Mouse shorts), I just wanted to explain my stance on Daffy's modern portrayal.

 

[AdrenalineRush1996]

Animation is a medium, not a genre.

Hear, hear. It irks me very much with some of the recent Oscar ceremonies being relatively flippant on this.

 

[Pooky]

I think Krusty is a great character in small doses, but he's such an alternately tragic and bitter/unpleasant character that I don't really enjoy full episodes dedicated to him. Even the Golden Age Krusty-centric episodes aren't among my favourites. Trying to think of any exceptions but I don't think there are, maybe Homer the Clown but that's really a Homer episode (as the title implies).

 

[Classic Speedy]

I think Krusty is a great character in small doses, but he's such an alternately tragic and bitter/unpleasant character that I don't really enjoy full episodes dedicated to him. Even the Golden Age Krusty-centric episodes aren't among my favourites. Trying to think of any exceptions but I don't think there are, maybe Homer the Clown but that's really a Homer episode (as the title implies).

I would add The Last Temptation of Krust and Bart the Fink for great Krusty episodes.

I'd add Like Father Like Clown too, but to be honest it's not their funniest episode.

 

[khuddle]

I think Krusty is a great character in small doses, but he's such an alternately tragic and bitter/unpleasant character that I don't really enjoy full episodes dedicated to him. Even the Golden Age Krusty-centric episodes aren't among my favourites. Trying to think of any exceptions but I don't think there are, maybe Homer the Clown but that's really a Homer episode (as the title implies).

I never thought that Krusty was that funny a character and couldn't understand Bart (and other little kids) fascination with him. He is not entirely unfunny though: the way he irresponsibly whips through money is absolutely hilarious ("My house is dirty, buy me a new one!").

 

[Pooky]

I would add The Last Temptation of Krust and Bart the Fink for great Krusty episodes.

Last Temptation of Krust is kind of mid-tier for Season 9 for me, but it does have some great bits. Bart the Fink isn't one of my favourites, it typifies the slightly drier tone Oakley and Weinstein brought to The Simpsons that slightly alienated me as a kid, and while I appreciate it more now if I'm honest I'm still not as drawn to as I am the Jean & Reiss and Merkin eras.

 

[AdrenalineRush1996]

I never liked the Earl of Lemongrab from Adventure Time even before the allegations against his voice actor Justin Roiland. Does anyone feel the same as me about him?

 

[Darklordavaitor]

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but one of the things that ages The Simpsons the most is how the most prolific children’s entertainer in the show’s world is a clown. Nowadays it seems harder to find someone entertained by clowns rather than terrified of them. Krusty wouldn’t thrive in today’s market.

 

[[classic swim]]

The least I like Krusty is when he’s a one-note joke about how terrible he is at telling jokes.

 

[Classic Speedy]

The least I like Krusty is when he’s a one-note joke about how terrible he is at telling jokes.

Have you ever noticed how there are two phone directories? A white one and a yellow one? I mean, what's the deal with THAT?!