Unpopular Opinions You Hold About Animation

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Eh, WITCH had some of the vices that YJ would eventually get. SSM was really good though. Can't deny that. And while I'm not trying to sully Weisman's name, it's a discredit to not acknowledge Reaves who had a credited hand in 22 episodes of Gargoyles. That's like giving all the praise to Stan Lee for creating the Marvel Universe when Kirby and Ditko did all the real work.

Me and Desensitized were never trying to discredit Reaves or any of the other writers or staff members who worked on Gargoyles, or any of the other shows that Weisman was involved with. It just sounded like you were trying to discredit Weisman's input in contributing towards making those shows great, which I personally don't agree with, though to be fair I hardly know any of what goes on behind the scenes with creating an animated show, and no amount of research would really make me sure who deserves the most credit or not. I like to think that the good shows that he was involved with were good thanks to a joint effort from the entire staff behind it to make as good of a show as possible, rather than trying to credit just 1 or 2 guys over everyone else.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Of course it takes a whole team to make a show great. Reaves was obviously an important member of the team and deserves credit for his writing. But I do think Weisman was really good at planning, arranging, and pushing everything forward the way a team leader should.

He deserves the credit he's gotten, IMO.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Ditko didn't do a damn thing for Spider-Man but draw.

The Marvel Method.

[gunswordfist]

Are you trying to open Pandora's Box, Dr.. Even I know when to shut up.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Are you trying to open Pandora's Box, Dr.. Even I know when to shut up.

Eh, everyone who reads up on it knows that the Marvel universe was the house that Jack and Steve built.

[GregX]

Paul Dini needs to stop taking credit for the entire DCAU.

Okay, elaborating a little. All the credit that Paul Dini gets for "Batman" actually belongs to Alan Burnett. Alan Burnett was Bruce Timm's partner on "Batman" and the entire DCAU. He ran story while Timm ran art. Alan Burnett was the Greg Weisman of the DCAU and Bruce Timm was the Frank Paur.

Paul Dini was a staff writer, but he answered to Alan. Alan was his boss, involved with every script and premise from start to finish.

Dini gets all the credit from the fans for what Alan Burnett did, and enjoyed a lot of success that really belongs to Alan Burnett. At this point, Dini has a moral obligation to give credit where credit is due, instead of being a glory hogging schmuck.

[Silverstar]

I think the Fantastic Four are cooler than Batman, except for Franklin Richards, who's too freakin' powerful. I don't like superheroes who are basically God. For all the people who complain that Superman is too powerful, Supey is a gnat compared to Frankie.

X-Men only works in its' own stand-alone universe where mutants are the only super-beings on the planet. Once you start tossing in gamma green giants, Asgardian gods, supreme sorcerers, chemically-created super-soldiers and heroes who were mutated by cosmic rays, most of whom somehow manage to escape the hate, fear and endless persecution by the general public, it starts to not make sense in a big way. (Of course, I think the point might be to show how irrational prejudice against muties is supposed to be.)

Lately I'm getting more into the Littlest Pet Shop cartoon on The Hub. It's not perfect, and I have minor nitpicks with it, but it's shaping up to be better than I originally thought it would be. I think I'm starting to like LPS a little more than My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, to be honest. But my favorite Hub show is still The Aquabats! Super Show!.

[gunswordfist]

So many Marvel characters/groups would work better in separate universes. I remember laughing pretty hard at a post about why Black Cat has never been attacked by a vampire on another site.

[Spark Of Spirit]

X-Men only works in its' own stand-alone universe where mutants are the only super-beings on the planet. Once you start tossing in gamma green giants, Asgardian gods, supreme sorcerers, chemically-created super-soldiers and heroes who were mutated by cosmic rays, most of whom somehow manage to escape the hate, fear and endless persecution by the general public, it starts to not make sense in a big way. (Of course, I think the point might be to show how irrational prejudice against muties is supposed to be.)

I constantly find it odd when they keep bashing mutants in the canon, yet are perfectly fine with people like the Hulk or Thor running around. It makes itself seem a really out of place paranoia that doesn't make a whole lot of sense when they are only different from mutants on a really small scale. If the whole mutant thing was contained to the early days of superheroes in the storyline (instead of being retconned all the time), then it would be fine, but that it's been going on so long with so many other aliens, super-powered people, and monsters running around it's just out of place.

[Silverstar]

^And historically, mutants were created partially out of pure laziness. Stan Lee reportedly conceived the idea of mutants partially as a way to introduce new Supers without having to come up with complicated origins for them or involved explanations of how they got their powers. Just say they were born that way.

[The Shadow Gentleman]

I never really got the point of animated realism. Some shows go to great lengths to create such a sense of realism that I just can't help but feel that this should have just been done in live action. I remember Beck getting praised for how realistic it was, and it even got a live-action movie!

[Silverstar]

I never really got the point of animated realism. Some shows go to great lengths to create such a sense of realism that I just can't help but feel that this should have just been done in live action. I remember Beck getting praised for how realistic it was, and it even got a live-action movie!

Yeah, I never got the fascination with "animated reality", especially stuff like motion capture, I always found that to be a tad creepy and off-putting. I never got why some people want to make cartoons look as realistic as possible. Part of what makes animation so interesting to me is that stuff can be exaggerated. If you're going to limit yourself to 'real' physics and dimensions and the like, you might as well just work in live-action.

[The Reserved Nutcase]

Right off the top of my head (at the moment):

-I liked Shrek Forever After better than Shrek 2, due to the fact that plotlines involving alternate timelines/worlds draw me in.

-Every time on youtube/yahoo answers I say either "There's plenty of good cartoons to watch on today's tv" or "I'd rather take Gravity Falls over any Hannah Barbara production anyday", you bet that I get some nasty replies/thumbs down following that.  Seriously, I don't know why so many people act as if bad cartoons rarely existed until about 8 years ago (actually I do know why, because those people *cough*90skids*cough* refuse to take off their nostalgia glasses and/or embrace change, in a nutshell).  I've recently rewatched a lot of the cartoons made/airing during my childhood (I was born in '92), and less than half of the stuff I watched then still hold up today.

-I still like Animaniacs (especially for Slappy Squirrel and the Warners) and Freakazoid, but within the past year or so, I've been finding myself drawn to Tiny Toons much more.  Elmyra may have been annoying, but all the other characters (especially Montana Max) more than make up for it.  In my opinion, Tiny Toons>Freakazoid>Animaniacs.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Yeah, I like Tiny Toons better too. I know the popular opinion is that Animaniacs is the best thing out of the Silver Age, but I tend to have a lot more fun with Tiny Toons. I feel it's a lot more consistent and likeable as a whole.

[Silverstar]

Right off the top of my head (at the moment):

-Every time on youtube/yahoo answers I say either "There's plenty of good cartoons to watch on today's tv" or "I'd rather take Gravity Falls over any Hannah Barbara production anyday", you bet that I get some nasty replies/thumbs down following that.  Seriously, I don't know why so many people act as if bad cartoons rarely existed until about 8 years ago (actually I do know why, because those people *cough*90skids*cough* refuse to take off their nostalgia glasses and/or embrace change, in a nutshell).  I've recently rewatched a lot of the cartoons made/airing during my childhood (I was born in '92), and less than half of the stuff I watched then still hold up today.

This. THIS. So much this. It's so refreshing to know that there are some other people on the planet who don't think all or most of today's cartoons are swill. That's the popular opinion on the other board I'm on, The Big Cartoon Database, and I get so tired of the "old cartoons=good, new cartoons=bad" rhetoric that I want to tear my hair out. For me, a lot of the so-called "classics" from the so-called "golden age" of animation were dreck when they were new. I actually feel that animation as a whole has gotten progressively better over the past few decades rather than the reverse.

-I still like Animaniacs (especially for Slappy Squirrel and the Warners) and Freakazoid, but within the past year or so, I've been finding myself drawn to Tiny Toons much more.  Elmyra may have been annoying, but all the other characters (especially Montana Max) more than make up for it.  In my opinion, Tiny Toons>Freakazoid>Animaniacs.

I haven't seen Tiny Toons in a while (I probably should get around to buying some of those DVDs) but yeah, I've been catching glimpses of Animaniacs now that it's on The Hub and the only shorts that really do anything for me now are the ones with the Warners, Slappy and Pinky & the Brain.