Well /co/? How could we avoid all of this back in the day?
You can't.
>>152351019I'm talking about back in the day.
>>152350889Why did that happen?
>>152351536The hippy ladies took over and it took until 1983 with Inspector Gadget (and to a lesser extent 1981's Ulysses 31) to get rid of them.
>>152350889Gutsy Frog clones, instead of Scooby Doo clones would have saved us.
>>152350889>making babies teenagersUnironically a good idea. Kids want media starring teenagers, not elementary schoolers and younger.
>>152351648No they don't, they like their adult counterparts want funny animals like Bugs Bunny, Droopy and Woody Woodpecker.
>>152350889Bit weird to ask this when this dark age help give rise to the golden age of the late 80 to 90s.
>>152351717Mid 80s with Gummi Bears actually, the the golden age was between 1928 to 1967.
Do the 60s/70s still deserve the "Dark Age of Animation" title? Feels like that should go to 2007ish-ongoing (indefinitely) now.
>>152350889>dissing Pink Panther, the best era of Woody Woodpecker, and Filmation as a whole>including random slop in the "good stuff"Found the problem, it's you. If anything, now is a dark age.
>>15235088970s was pure kino, you faggot.
Not counting anime I’d say the current era is worse than the dark ages.
>>1523518211967 to 1972 was Walter Lantz's worst era as Paul J. Smith was Lantz's only director, the less said about this era the better.The 40s was Lantz's best due to Shamus Culhane and Dick Lundy being Lantz's head directors.Theres no dissing DePatie–Freleng here, but Friz's DePatie–Freleng shorts were not as good as his WB work.Also, whats on the bottom right corner isn't slop.
You're essentially describing the modern state of things minus the Scooby clones, which might actually improve things unfortunately
>>152351841As anime is even worse.>>152351833Not for animation.
>>152350889>>152351859>>152351869>This is yet another Famicom Thread.Welp, back to the brainrot realm.
>>152351869Nah there’s still at least a few anime worth watching per season. Can’t say the same for western animation.
>>152352033This guy intrigues me because he genuinely has some knowledge about animation history, but for some bizarre reason he blends it with his personal interests and random anime
>>152350889Where Time Bokan?
>>152352047Not the case, as there are no family anime being produced other then the long runners.>>152352094Anne puts it to shame.
>>152352064he knows only enough to feed his obsession
>>152350889Calling the 70's dark-age animation shows how Disney-centric Americans are and how they judge everything relative to Disney circa 1940 (expanded only slightly to include Ghibli – called "anime" – now). Other countries' animation mostly thrived at that time.
>>152352878The dark age is a worldwide thing, not just Disney.America was the best case scenario as the Miyazaki/Takahata World Master Piece Theater projects wasn't the norm in Japan as those shows had NHK money backing it.
>>152353066I suppose I should ask, are we talking economically or artistically? Some of the most visually innovative animation was made in Europe and the USSR in the 70's. I don't know or care if it made money.Also it doesn't need to be said that compared to animation today, calling it a "Dark Age" is about as disingenuous as the "Renaissance" which again only happened at Disney and is a marketing buzzword.
>>152353164No, that was the US in the 1940s.The dark age wasn't just Disney, nether was the renaissance, it was worldwide and it effected everyone, otherwise John K wouldn't entered the animation industry.
>>152353336>John K wouldn't entered the animation industry.That's the good timeline we avoided.
>>152353459No, thats a bad timeline as we would still be stuck in the dark ages if John K didn't show up.
Network executives were in charge of making all these decisions. There was absolutely nothing an animation fan of employee could do except not watch them or change careers.
>>152350889we are in a worst stage right now
>>152351648this.kids want to watch teens and teens want to watch adults
>>152350889Kind of impossible. >>152351536Every studio considered tv to be less than secondary and not worth any budget at all. It was widely considered that tv shows do and should work on bottom of the barrel budgets and it stayed that way until the 80s when Cable started to seriously compete with networks so they started to up their game. But the studios were still run by thew old guys that saw TV as something that was eating their bottom line, not enhancing it so it was looked down on by everyone in the film divisions and in the executive offices. Remained that way until they all died or retired in the late 70s to mid 80s. But in the 70s, in the era of the three networks. No chance. Everyone will laugh at you for waste extra budgets on less legitimate entertainment.
>>152350889>>152351536Studios had little money for their tv departments for years so they kept looking for ways to make kids entertainment for cheap.Then along came Hanna Barbera and Jay Ward who discovered kids will still love cheapest possible garbage, so that became the standard for decades.
>>152351717Competition really. Cable becoming a standard household thing meant that networks could not dominate so they had to get competitive and they spent a lot to remain on top compared to the new cable channels that were edging into their profits. It wasn't just cartoons that got better, but almost all shows improved across the board since major studios like Paramount, Warner, and Universal decided to increase their efforts to better compete with cable channels. It was like some kind of entertainment arms race and they managed workaround by having specific advertisers pay for the productions of certain shows, this is also how we got the toy commercial cartoons.
>>152350889Why do Spumtards love Miyazaki Lupin and not more Monkey Punch influenced Lupin III stuff
We never left
>>152354146>>152354116>>152351551It's always "CEO that doesn't care". It's impressive how rare it is so find people in charge who really wants to improve their business. You need someone that is progressive enough to try new things, improve on what exists, but not too much as to break the foundations that make up their entire company or push for agendas that noone wants to consume/are harmful for business.Also, supposedly with limitations comes creativity. Yeah, but only if you have the incentive to do the work.
>>152354222Because Miyazaki made the better Lupin, thats why.
>>152354558It's because CEOs and other executives are consistently traded around. They are never the guy that made the company, they are the guy who worked at a Tire company a year ago, and a paper company three years before that. None of them last more than a few years before they are voted out or their contract runs out. So it incentivizes hiring a stream of guys that want to maximize their own bottom line. Most are brought in under some concept of >Fixing this placeso they will want to make cuts almost immediately. But since they are almost never from the very field that they are working in now, they have no major passion for it, or much of an understanding either. They are just business guys. And most businesses work on the idea of make for cheap, sell for lots. So a guy that spent the last 8 years making toilet seats will not really grasp spending more than the absolute bottom line, or overspending on a product. Spending more to make quality is insane and destructive to a lot of them.
>This fool sincerely thinks tranime is a legitimate art form
>>152354558>>152355909Sort of, but the same way Theater looked down on Movies as illegitimate and low brow in the 1920s and 30s, the film companies looked down on tv the exact same way. Most film actors and directors wold rather go broke and starve before they would work for tv. The upper staff had a similar mindset, that tv was cheap shit for the common dregs, while films were the REAL art and prestige for the studios. So none of them wanted to spend any more than they had to for it, and usually left it to the paying advertisers. Most of those guys who thought like that were still in charge of things until the late 70s or so, some into the 80s. But also Cable changed things by making a massive amount of competition between the studio networks. Also tv executives started working their way up by that time and they understood that tv is a huge money maker. Eisner was one of these. He came from a tv background, and when he was in charge of Disney, he massively invested in their tv division. something that no one before could give a fuck about. Or only thought was supplementary at best.
>>152355987Not in the 1930s, Betty Boop and Popeye made sure of that and once The Hays Code showed up Porky Pig and Daffy Duck made sure that movies were as legitimate as live theaterAnd by 1928 with Steamboat Willie that was the cartoon that made movie theaters were as legitimate as live theaters.
>>152354207And then everything got ruined by the rent-seeking behavior of the broadcasters. Everyone remembers how cable TV went from a borderline utility that everybody had, even if they had to steal it, to something people increasingly didn't even bother to steal because the offerings were so poor, even as the prices continued to go up every few months. People mistakenly blame the cable companies for the price hikes and decline in quality, but they weren't really at fault for it. They were still really shitty companies for other reasons, but not those. The real masterminds were the broadcasters, the networks who owned the content and channels the cable companies provided to their customers. They were the ones who insisted on selling "bundles" of channels rather than a la carte offerings. They were the ones continually hiking "rebroadcasting" fees that caused corresponding hikes in cable bills, among other bogus fees they invented to continually wring more money out of TV and its viewers.Those greedy fucks killed cable, and they're doing the same thing to streaming services, now, as well.
>>152356042Live theater is still titled>Legitimate Theaterfor the very reason of that prejudice. They still have that same angry spite today a century later. No special event happened that relabeled anything or retitled the different types. Just more people went to movies since they were more accessible to people in smaller and rural towns so they made more money. Didn't stop the artfags from claiming it;s all not Legitimate for the next century. Random 30s cartoons never had a part in that conversation.
>>152356228You're talking about Viacom/Comcast that got very bigpants when they started building monopolies in various central American countries in the mid 90s. By 1995 or so they started mandating that specific channel packages be offered under a minimum price point or else they will pull all their channels. Local cable providers had to give in and raise prices and promote some random nothing channel they knew no one would care about, and they did it pretty consistently until the 2010s. They are still doing it today because Comcast is now called Spectrum and is the primary internet provider in the US. The guys in charge that enforced packages 20 years ago are still in charge today.
>>152350889>How could we avoid all of this back in the day?I just ended up watching the good Looney Tunes and Tom & Jerry all the time. No point in watching Hanna Barbara Flintstones when I could just watch the 1950s cartoons that were still on the air.
>>152356769Not anymore, that hasn't been the case since November 18, 1928 when Steamboat Willie made movie theaters legitimate, plus you got that term from The Simpsons.The spite is gone, since 1928 really, Disney made sure of that, Fleischer, Schlesinger, Lantz and later Quimby once MGM started producing their cartoons in house doubled down on Disney's doing, they were the conversation starter as without them movie theaters would've died out before WWII broke out in Europe.>>152356999The first 2 seasons of The Flintstones kicked ass however, same with Huck, Quick Draw and Yogi.
>>152350889A big one might be to keep Associated Artists from keeping all the 30s and 40s Looney Tunes under lock and key for 40 years until Ted Turner got his hands on them in the late 80s. If those had a chance to get on tv in the earliest days in the 1950s then there would have been an example of decent quality animation on tv at the time. Instead of just about everything being the low budget, cut corners stuff kids did get at the time. Especially if they maintained higher ratings and drew in advertisers over the cheaper HB and Jay Ward/UA stuff.
