Which Decade was Better (For Animation): The 90's or the (20)10's?

[Red Arrow]

I`m sorry, what does Hubert and Takako have to do with Scooby Doo! Mystery Inc? I don`t get the correlation between the two. The prior has weird looking characters while the characters in the latter look quite decent IMO.

Both shows have great character designs. (in my opinion)
Weird does not equal bad.

 

[PapaGreg]

^OK we won`t talk about that anymore.

What I don`t find appealing about 2010s cartoons is the character designs, of all things. That`s the thing that sticks out to me first and foremost. The characters are drawn too simply and don`t even look cute IMO. Whether we`re talking about Adventure Time, Regular Show, Pig Goat Banana whatever, Teen Titans Go! etc. none of them just offer the visual appeal for me to want to watch. I didn`t spend my childhood watching internet cartoons (much,) so perhaps those who did have a greater tolerance for that kind of, should I say `lazy` character design. It takes the visuals to get me sucked into something, and only then will I begin to notice any deeper than visual qualities, if there are any to speak of. That`s why I haven`t given most of these cartoons much of a chance. There are some old shows I watch, not for the visuals but for the stories, like Star Trek for example. But, when it comes to cartoons I have certain, different expectations.

The only 2010s cartoon where I like the character design is Alvinnn!!! and The Chipmunks. You can tell that a lot of effort went into that show (comparatively to most other contemporary cartoons.) But the main reason I like that show is because of the stories first and the music second.

But the reason why animators use simpler character design is for better animatiom, for example take TMNT 80s for examplwle detailed character design but bad animation and meh backgrounds and Adventure Time

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk

 

[chipmunksfan]

But the reason why animators use simpler character design is for better animatiom, for example take TMNT 80s for examplwle detailed character design but bad animation and meh backgrounds and Adventure Time

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk

I`m not sure how you can compare the 80s TMNT and Adventure Time but it`s a free internet...

 

[StorytellerMJ5]

I`m not sure how you can compare the 80s TMNT and Adventure Time but it`s a free internet...

I'm not the biggest fan of Adventure Time and I've never seen that version of TMNT, but I'm pretty sure that Adventure TIme is a much better show than that TMNT, based on what I've heard about it. I guess I can't really judge it since I've never seen it.

 

[chipmunksfan]

I'm not the biggest fan of Adventure Time and I've never seen that version of TMNT, but I'm pretty sure that Adventure TIme is a much better show than that TMNT, based on what I've heard about it. I guess I can't really judge it since I've never seen it.

I see what you did there. I was merely talking about the character designs, which are obvious on the first glance.

 

[StorytellerMJ5]

I see what you did there. I was merely talking about the character designs, which are obvious on the first glance.

Oh ok. Still I don't see what's so bad about the Adventure Time character designs. They've never bothered me. But, I'm much more interested in the story and characters of a show than its designs and animation.

Also, just as a side note I prefer the 2003 TMNT series character designs and the 2012 Nick's series character designs over the 80s ones.

 

[TFormersMarvel]

A tad off topic, but...

Simplistic character designs=bad show/lack of effort? Really? This sounds like an argument an obsessive, narrow-minded graphics enthusiast would make. Granted, there are some shows with a simplistic art direction that are, well, not very good, but character design shouldn't always correlate with the writing of a show. Rocky & Bullwinkle was acclaimed for its smart word-play and social commentary, not its '60s animation and art style (which are "just as simplistic and cheap with character design and animation" ).

Allegedly, based of word of mouth, 12 oz Mouse (haven't seen an episode myself) had a good, complex storyline and character development for an early Adult Swim show, despite the actual animation and art being on par with the worst of Newgrounds. I mean, you could also due a comparison between Spider-Man: TAS and Spectacular Spider-Man as well (bonus points if it's a chronological comparison in which you add MTV's Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man as well).

In fact, not every show made in this time period should be highly detailed, "realistic" visual piece make the show seem good (especially if said art does not even work with the show's overall writing). There are various different art styles with varying properties like proportions, shadowing, detail, etc.

As stated before, a simple art style can have various advantages such as smoother animation (less stuff to draw every time, therefore can be replicated more often).

 

[chipmunksfan]

A tad off topic, but...

Simplistic character designs=bad show/lack of effort? Really? This sounds like an argument an obsessive, narrow-minded graphics enthusiast would make.

Not sure who you're referring to exactly, as I never said that. I've simply made it clear that poor character designs don't appeal to me and makes it harder to get into a cartoon in the first place. Some shows like Cow and Chicken have atrocious character design, but at least that show had the weird humor that complemented the characters' weird looks. South Park looks ridiculous but it has the sociopolitical satire and other things that make it worth watching. For the most part, having attractive or relatable looking characters can only be a plus.

Today's American animation is considered a joke in Japan because of the obvious lack of perfectionism in the visual department and the reason is obvious to me. When you compare current animation and design standards of today to those 100 years ago, it is as though we've regressed a hundred years rather than progressed. And when compared to its Japanese contemporaries, the contrast in the production values is again obvious. That's the major bone that I have to pick with the current Cartoon Network-style visuals. The characters are not cute IMO that therefore makes them unrelatable. Unrelatable = unlikable. In my opinion, the character design and animation quality have sunk to their lowest for the vast majority of cartoons on now and in the recent years.

 

[PapaGreg]

Not sure who you're referring to exactly, as I never said that. I've simply made it clear that poor character designs don't appeal to me and makes it harder to get into a cartoon in the first place. Some shows like Cow and Chicken have atrocious character design, but at least that show had the weird humor that complemented the characters' weird looks. South Park looks ridiculous but it has the sociopolitical satire and other things that make it worth watching. For the most part, having attractive or relatable looking characters can only be a plus.

Today's American animation is considered a joke in Japan because of the obvious lack of perfectionism in the visual department and the reason is obvious to me. When you compare current animation and design standards of today to those 100 years ago, it is as though we've regressed a hundred years rather than progressed. And when compared to its Japanese contemporaries, the contrast in the production values is again obvious. That's the major bone that I have to pick with the current Cartoon Network-style visuals. The characters are not cute IMO that therefore makes them unrelatable. Unrelatable = unlikable. In my opinion, the character design and animation quality have sunk to their lowest for the vast majority of cartoons on now and in the recent years.

You are overestimating Japans animation standards too much 80 percent of japanese anime has medicore animation and panders to the otaku base. Also if you honestly tried some of the shows you would probably lile then since they are well made
Also while character designs arent detailed animation itself has improved hell compare the animation of Adventure Time to the 80s thundercat
Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk

 

[StorytellerMJ5]

Not sure who you're referring to exactly, as I never said that. I've simply made it clear that poor character designs don't appeal to me and makes it harder to get into a cartoon in the first place. Some shows like Cow and Chicken have atrocious character design, but at least that show had the weird humor that complemented the characters' weird looks. South Park looks ridiculous but it has the sociopolitical satire and other things that make it worth watching. For the most part, having attractive or relatable looking characters can only be a plus.

Today's American animation is considered a joke in Japan because of the obvious lack of perfectionism in the visual department and the reason is obvious to me. When you compare current animation and design standards of today to those 100 years ago, it is as though we've regressed a hundred years rather than progressed. And when compared to its Japanese contemporaries, the contrast in the production values is again obvious. That's the major bone that I have to pick with the current Cartoon Network-style visuals. The characters are not cute IMO that therefore makes them unrelatable. Unrelatable = unlikable. In my opinion, the character design and animation quality have sunk to their lowest for the vast majority of cartoons on now and in the recent years.

Am I reading this right? Because it really seems like you're saying that good character designs is what makes characters likeable. That makes absolutely no sense to me. IMO what makes characters likeable comes down to the stories and how those characters are within the story. It has nothing to do with how they look.

Also even if American animation was considered a joke in Japan, which I highly doubt, who cares. I like anime, but Japanese animation isn't always better than American stuff.

It really seems like you don't watch any of the current stuff, which is too bad since animation in America is at a pretty great point right now IMO. Just wondering, but how many current shows have you watched at least one episode of? You'd probably find at least a few things you like story wise if you want to.

 

[Mikurotoro92]

Not sure who you're referring to exactly, as I never said that. I've simply made it clear that poor character designs don't appeal to me and makes it harder to get into a cartoon in the first place. Some shows like Cow and Chicken have atrocious character design, but at least that show had the weird humor that complemented the characters' weird looks. South Park looks ridiculous but it has the sociopolitical satire and other things that make it worth watching. For the most part, having attractive or relatable looking characters can only be a plus.

Today's American animation is considered a joke in Japan because of the obvious lack of perfectionism in the visual department and the reason is obvious to me. When you compare current animation and design standards of today to those 100 years ago, it is as though we've regressed a hundred years rather than progressed. And when compared to its Japanese contemporaries, the contrast in the production values is again obvious. That's the major bone that I have to pick with the current Cartoon Network-style visuals. The characters are not cute IMO that therefore makes them unrelatable. Unrelatable = unlikable. In my opinion, the character design and animation quality have sunk to their lowest for the vast majority of cartoons on now and in the recent years.

yeah i tend to like characters that look cute or cool which makes them endearing but keep in mind not everything from japan has good animation & not every cartoon has good animation! remember anime wouldn't exist without cartoons! for me cartoons must meet the following criteria: good character designs & backgrounds, endearing & relatable characters, & good music! cartoons that i think satisfy these conditions are rugrats & SBSP! if a cartoon or anime doesn't meet these conditions then it's probably not worth my time (same thing with movies & video games)! as for CN i think the shows with the best over-all character designs & graphics are gumball, regular show, & uncle grandpa!

EDIT:as to answer the initial question the 90's is better then the 10's because it gave us so many iconic cartoons like the aforementioned rugrats & SBSP & anime like pokemon & yugioh (plus iam a 90's kid so i might be a little biased lol) BUT the 10's gave us the aforementioned uncle grandpa plus other cartoons like breadwinners, PGBC, sanjay & craig, among many others so i think both eras are good for cartoons & anime! but the 90's is still the best!

 

[Mostezli]

New challenger comes new, yet familiar focus!

We're half-way into this decade and it was the best of times and the worst of times for action/drama-oriented animation. "Best" due to the airing of most quality shows with every major tag imaginable done by the industry's most well-known and well-regarded talents. Original, Acquisition, Adaptation, Spinoff, Reboot, Remake, Sequel, Prequel...practically all of them were exquisite. Even shows I don't like had* more merit to them than the bulk of what came before.
*note this past-tense

"Worst of times" because that high point was insanely brief as almost all of these shows either resolved within 1-3 seasons or were cut short (dreaded cliffhangers). It's such an anomaly. Western network tv haver never, reasonably so, been able to churn out this many at such high/artfully effective production values.
eg The best still outweigh this worst.

There are some ongoing IP's left standing, but...
2012-2013 Never Forget.

 

[Red Arrow]

Not sure who you're referring to exactly, as I never said that. I've simply made it clear that poor character designs don't appeal to me and makes it harder to get into a cartoon in the first place. Some shows like Cow and Chicken have atrocious character design, but at least that show had the weird humor that complemented the characters' weird looks. South Park looks ridiculous but it has the sociopolitical satire and other things that make it worth watching. For the most part, having attractive or relatable looking characters can only be a plus.

Today's American animation is considered a joke in Japan because of the obvious lack of perfectionism in the visual department and the reason is obvious to me. When you compare current animation and design standards of today to those 100 years ago, it is as though we've regressed a hundred years rather than progressed. And when compared to its Japanese contemporaries, the contrast in the production values is again obvious. That's the major bone that I have to pick with the current Cartoon Network-style visuals. The characters are not cute IMO that therefore makes them unrelatable. Unrelatable = unlikable. In my opinion, the character design and animation quality have sunk to their lowest for the vast majority of cartoons on now and in the recent years.

Now you're using double standards.

Cow and Chicken and South Park have ridiculous and astrocious character designs, but the stories are great so you like them anyway.

Current CN originals have simplistic character desgins, so you don't give it a chance because you find it unrelatable, thus unlikable.

Also, there is no ''lack of perfectionism in the visual department'' just because the character designs are simplistic.

I know this isn't the first time I've posted these pictures.

 

[Mr. Daniel]

Not sure who you're referring to exactly, as I never said that. I've simply made it clear that poor character designs don't appeal to me and makes it harder to get into a cartoon in the first place. Some shows like Cow and Chicken have atrocious character design, but at least that show had the weird humor that complemented the characters' weird looks. South Park looks ridiculous but it has the sociopolitical satire and other things that make it worth watching. For the most part, having attractive or relatable looking characters can only be a plus.

Today's American animation is considered a joke in Japan because of the obvious lack of perfectionism in the visual department and the reason is obvious to me. When you compare current animation and design standards of today to those 100 years ago, it is as though we've regressed a hundred years rather than progressed. And when compared to its Japanese contemporaries, the contrast in the production values is again obvious. That's the major bone that I have to pick with the current Cartoon Network-style visuals. The characters are not cute IMO that therefore makes them unrelatable. Unrelatable = unlikable. In my opinion, the character design and animation quality have sunk to their lowest for the vast majority of cartoons on now and in the recent years.

1). From what I hear, Japan loves Disney Animated movies.
2). CN shows have great visuals *cough* *cough* Steven Universe *cough* *cough*
3). Are you kidding me! To quote the Nostalgia Critic in his Kids shows editorial "These shows usually look great!"

 

[chipmunksfan]

1). From what I hear, Japan loves Disney Animated movies.
2). CN shows have great visuals *cough* *cough* Steven Universe *cough* *cough*
3). Are you kidding me! To quote the Nostalgia Critic in his Kids shows editorial "These shows usually look great!"

I've never said that Disney isn't universally loved, but Disney aside most of the rest of the animation is in an abysmal state visually, including Steven Universe IMO which looks like a low budget anime. If I were to compare today's American animation to any other market, the closest I can compare it would be to Korean or Chinese cartoons, which are equally mocked on their appearance in Japan.

 

[Mikurotoro92]

but you're acting like japan is the be-all-end-all of countries that produce animated shows which is simply not the case! there's probably tons of anime, tv shows, music, video games,etc from japan that are considered total crap while the same would hold true for US & canadian-produced stuff especially tv shows (two words:reality tv) & music! (bieber, swift, other tween singers) look i love japan but even i know not everything from there is pure gold plus i also like stuff from the US & UK!

btw of course japan likes disney they like really cute characters plus disney is what gave us anime in the first place!

EDIT:im not into steven u but i see absolutely nothing wrong with the graphics they are very good quality! i think some of the modern CG cartoons have crap graphics(i tend to prefer 2-d hand-drawn graphics & one thing anime has over cartoons is they mainly use 2-d hand-drawn graphics style) except nick's revival of TMNT, mickey mouse clubhouse, & some of the preschool cartoons produced by brown bag studios because they all know how to utilize CG properly!

EDIT 2: most if not all my fav cartoons (rugrats, SBSP,house of mouse, etc) have a 2-d hand-drawn graphics style!

 

[Red Arrow]

I've never said that Disney isn't universally loved, but Disney aside most of the rest of the animation is in an abysmal state visually, including Steven Universe IMO which looks like a low budget anime. If I were to compare today's American animation to any other market, the closest I can compare it would be to Korean or Chinese cartoons, which are equally mocked on their appearance in Japan.

Steven Universe doesn't look like anime, and it's not low-budget. Did you even look at the pictures I posted?

And the target audience isn't supposed to find any character cute, so we neither. I don't find Steven cute either.

Besides, almost every CN original has simplistic character designs. Just look at Dexter's Laboratory, The PowerPuff Girls, Johnny Bravo, Samurai Jack, Sheep in the Big City, etc... These characters all look just as simplistic as the ones from Steven Universe, Regular Show, We Bare Bears, etc...

Cartoon Network hasn't changed. You've changed your standards.
I am totally fine with you hating modern CN, unless you haven't seen a single episode of its good shows, then you just can't judge.

 

[Mikurotoro92]

And the target audience isn't supposed to find any character cute, so we neither. I don't find Steven cute either.

but don't kids like cute & endearing characters? i know i certainly did as a kid & still do!

 

[Mr. Daniel]

I've never said that Disney isn't universally loved, but Disney aside most of the rest of the animation is in an abysmal state visually, including Steven Universe IMO which looks like a low budget anime

Does everything have to look complex and abstract for you? Their are many great looking cartoons with simplistic designs. And Steven Universe does not look like a low budget anime! Stop being so hard on cartoons of the 2010's for once!

If I were to compare today's American animation to any other market, the closest I can compare it would be to Korean or Chinese cartoons, which are equally mocked on their appearance in Japan.

Japan does not mock American cartoons. In fact, (like I said before) they LOVE Disney movies! And in return, we LOVE Studio Ghibli films and anime in general!

P.S. Is Japan the only opinion that matters? Only Hardcore Western Anime fans have that type of superiority!

 

[PapaGreg]

I've never said that Disney isn't universally loved, but Disney aside most of the rest of the animation is in an abysmal state visually, including Steven Universe IMO which looks like a low budget anime. If I were to compare today's American animation to any other market, the closest I can compare it would be to Korean or Chinese cartoons, which are equally mocked on their appearance in Japan.

You have no idea what a low budget anime looks if you think SU looks like one. Look at one modern One Piece episode or Dragonball Super episode and tell me it looks better than a SU episode

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk