Funny is Not a 4-Letter Word

Let’s talk for a bit about Genre Busters, shall we?

“Who ya gonna call?”

Now that we’ve gotten that obligatory joke out of the way, GENRE BUSTERS. I’m talking about cartoons like Avatar: The Last Airbender, Adventure Time, Steven Universe, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and Over the Garden Wall, shows which operate on several levels, incorporating comedy with drama, action, adventure and mystery, pushing the envelope and offering something beyond what many have come to expect from your typical ‘cartoony’ cartoons.

Now while shows of this ilk aren’t my particular cup of tea, as a lifelong devotee of art and animation I can’t help but applaud these genre busting shows for showing us all what animation is truly capable of in the hands of skillful and talented people when given the chance.

However, the success of these shows, while noteworthy and commendable, is also a…..

DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.

On the one hand, it’s good that shows like these manage to get on the air, but on the other hand, the successes of these genre-busting cartoons has created a new subculture of animation snobs who now turn their collective noses up at straight-up ‘funny cartoons’ and deride them as somehow being “inferior” and “insulting the medium”. “Bah!” They’ll snort. “That show’s just a comedy!” As though there’s something wrong with a show being a comedy. Not too long ago, a message board poster actually laid out these words of wisdom upon viewing a brief preview clip of the upcoming Wabbit: A Looney Tunes Production:

“I am wondering who exactly is WB catering too (yeah, that’s really how he spelled it). they did an amazing job with stuff like Tiny Toons and Animaniacs but The Looney Tunes Show had little to no emotional moments or depth to their characters, they act as though literally no human being alive liked Loonatics Unleashed and this seems like a return to the shorts that were nothing but animated puppets making jokes.”

“Animated puppets making jokes??”

“Exsqueeze me? Baking powder??”

“You got a problem with puppets making jokes, pal? That happens to be our bread and butter, man!”

OK, where to begin? First, Tiny Toon Adventures and Animaniacs were zany shows which were occasionally sentimental, not sentimental shows which were occasionally zany. Selective memory much? It’s also worth mentioning that those so-called “deep and emotional” segments such as “Puttin’ on the Blitz”, “Smitten with Kittens”, “Homeward Bound”, “Whale’s Tales” and “One Flew Over the Cuckoo Clock” were not only few and far and between and the exception, not the norm, of those shows’ usual fare, but they were also largely HATED by the general fanbases of said shows. Second, why the flaming heck are you watching a clip of a show called “Wabbit: A Looney Tunes Production” expecting depth and emotional moments anyway? It’s the freaking LOONEY TUNES. The Looney Tunes are FUNNY. They’ve always been funny. If you’re expecting something akin to Sophie’s Choice from a Looney Tunes cartoon, you’re living on a different planet than the rest of us and only setting yourself up for disappointment.

This same towering intellect of our time was also displeased by the recent Sonic Boom cartoon, as it commits the heinous crime of not being the 1990’s Sonic the Hedgehog cartoon from 1993-1994. he opines:

“This show is an insult to Sonic fans. Sonic SatAM should be revived, because it had drama and sadness, like My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic which is the super-duper bestest show of all time and will one day replace oxygen as the thing we need to breathe in order to stay alive. Sonic Boom has no moments of drama, sadness, tragedy or angst, so it turns Sonic into a bland character on a show for babies.”

Unfortunately, I’ve encountered attitudes like this far too often recently. I find it’s common among teens and in teen media to mistake angst for depth. They seem to think that if a character is depressed all the time, then they must have really deep thoughts about the world. It’s what we call Emo Disease.

In regards to the Sonic point (aside from the one on this guy’s head): I really get tired of this whole “characters who don’t cry or suffer a ton of angst and drama = bland and childish” rhetoric that genre-buster snobs now hold so dear. Yes, in some cases emotion and poignancy can do a lot of good, but just piling on cheap tragedies one after the other is an empty way of compensating for proper character development. There are other ways to develop characters and make your audience care about them besides just putting them through some contrived emotional wringer.

“If sadness equals character development, then I must be the deepest character ever conceived. Lucky me.”

All too often in this day and age, it seems that the wacky cartoons like Looney Tunes, Sonic Boom and Uncle Grandpa are looked down upon because they don’t meet these animation snobs’ standards of the supposed “right way” to make a cartoon, as if now every single cartoon now has to be Avatar: the Last Airbender or My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. What these chinless wonders fail to realize is that there is no one right way to make a cartoon. It genuinely angers me how people constantly want everything to be the same, and bash something simply because it doesn’t fit their narrow definitions. Cartoon creators typically make what they want to see and what they think is entertaining, which is how it should be. If you don’t like it, fine, but don’t act like every cartoon needs to follow some arbitrary checklist of your very specific desires. Seriously, get over it and yourself.

Right now I’m collaborating on a new cartoon show that I hope can get made one day, but it’s not going to be the next Avatar: the Last Airbender, Adventure Time, Sonic SatAM or Steven Universe. Quite frankly I’m just not interested in making that kind of show. Depth, pathos, drama and heart are fine if that’s what you’re into, but we can’t all be Miyazaki. Someone’s gotta just provide the belly-laughs, and that’s what I plan to do. Some people are going to like the kind of cartoons I plan to produce and some aren’t. I know not everyone out there is gonna share our tastes, and that’s ultimately going to be what we build our show around: OUR tastes, not those of a perceived majority. You can’t please everyone, and you never need to.

I can’t think of better words of wisdom than those of J.G. Quintel, creator of Regular Show, who said this:

“Make the things you want to see, not what you think other people want to see. It’s way too much work to be making something that you’re not even into.”

Well said, man.

Quit Being So Cheap!

You know what really grinds my gears?

When people on animation message boards complain endlessly about how their favorite old-school cartoon shows like The Flintstones, The Jetsons and Animaniacs aren’t airing on TV anymore, and then when I mention that many of them are available on DVD now, someone inevitably comes back with this:

Schleprock

“People don’t have the money to spend on things like this all of the time.”

or

Ventriloquist Dummy

“Even though this series is entirely on DVD, not everyone has the extra money to buy “this want”. Needs come first. And simply getting the DVDs isn’t as appealing as watching the program on regular television to some. Sometimes, just watching a program on TV is good enough.”

In response to this, I have to say…

Carl

“You have got to be freakin’ kidding me!”

I love how retro snobs who want their favorite era of entertainment to go on forever never seem to have any problem with indulging themselves with little luxuries, but then want to play the broke card whenever someone suggests that they buy a DVD or Blu-Ray of their favorite canceled/ended TV show instead of complaining that they’re no longer airing in TV, as if the networks are somehow obligated to continue airing the reruns for all eternity. Sorry, folks, but the excuse that DVDs and Blu-Rays of your favorite shows are an expensive luxury that many people can’t afford, and therefore the networks should be obligated to keep running them on TV is a bunch of…

Bull Cartoon

 

…well, you know.

People need to stop with the “DVDs are too expensive” excuse ’cause it’s a weak one. Cable/satellite TV, video games and the internet aren’t necessities either. They’re luxuries that cost more then the price of a DVD, and yet people seem to have no problem paying for these luxuries every single month. The cost of a complete season of Tiny Toon Adventures is around $35, which is less than what you’d pay for one meal at a sit down restaurant. If you can afford cable, internet and/or video games, you can afford DVDs.

First, what’s up with the quotes around “this want”? What does that even mean? Second, let’s be real about this: shelter, food, clothing and medicine are necessities. Everything else is a luxury. Before anyone starts to lecture me on peoples’ needs versus their wants, let me ask you all a question:

What about this?

No one really needs a smartphone. Sure, they’re neat to have around and they look cool, but all you really need is a phone in case you need to call someone while you’re not at home or if there’s an emergency to report and there are no phone booths around. You don’t need something to update your Facebook status, check your horoscope or watch movies on. No one needs to be carrying around a miniature laptop in their pocket. Smartphones are an expensive luxury, but people buy them anyway. If you can afford a smartphone, you can afford a DVD.

And how about this?

frappacino

You’re going to tell me that buying a DVD of The Jetsons is too expensive, yet you have no problem with dropping $5+ dollars on a cup of coffee with whipped cream on top? If you can afford a frappucino, you can afford a DVD.

And what about pets? Dog and cats at least have their uses under certain circumstances, but does anyone really need a parakeet, a goldfish, a turtle or a hamster? No! But people buy them anyway. If you can afford a pet, you can afford a DVD.

Do you have a job? If so, why not put aside $10 each week. By the end of the month, you’ll have $40, which is enough to purchase a DVD or Blu Ray. Keep doing that and eventually, you’ll have amassed yourself an impressive collection of shows that you can watch whenever you want.

Hauntleroy

“I don’t want to buy a bunch of DVDs.”

Then find a site where you can legally stream your favorite old shows and download them from there, or create an account with a site like Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, iTunes, Crackle or something similar. That’s what, $9 a month? You can afford that can’t you?

Basically, it all boils down to “How bad do you want it?”. Alcoholics will do whatever they have to do to get a drink. Drug addicts will do whatever they have to do in order to get their fix. These fans need to think of these old-school cartoons as their drink or their drug. A true fan would do whatever they had to do in order to enjoy their favorite show, but if you’re not willing to shell out a little bit of money for something that you enjoy, then obviously it doesn’t mean that much to you. If you choose not to buy a DVD or Blu-Ray of a show that you like, that’s your decision, but don’t grouse about it if you’re not willing to stick your neck out.

Scrooge_McDuck

“Maybe the problem is that you’re just cheap!”

2 Funny: Sidekick Elevator

So Snarf from Thundercats and Orko from He-Man and the Masters of the Universe walk into an elevator and…well, see for yourself. Enjoy Robot Chicken‘s “Sidekick Elevator”.

-Personally, I’ve always preferred Orko, since he could at least do magic.

Talkin’ Nerdy: The Hanna-Barbera Zoo’s Big Three

Hey, I’ve noticed something about Hanna-Barbera’s roster of 1960’s ‘funny animal’ characters (hereinafter referred to as the Hanna-Barbera Zoo): Nearly all of them seemed be derived from 1 or more of the same 3 basic archetypes. You have your Big Three of:

Huckleberry Hound

Yogi Bear

Quick_Draw_McGraw

…And Quick Draw McGraw.

…And then you have the others.

Hey, kids. Did you spot Waldo?

It’s no secret by now that HB liked to repeat successful formulas, and so I theorize that just about all of HB’s 1960’s output is in some way a derivation of one of those characters’ shorts. They’re either about an animal who appears in a different setting/occupation each time, an animal in a recognizable human sanctuary like a park or a zoo where they make trouble for some human shmuck in charge of them or an animal hero crime fighter who does battle with wacky criminals and is often aided by another animal with the opposite personality who acts as their sidekick.

Now when I first proposed this theory on a message board, someone hit me with this:

“That’s not true! What about Snagglepuss?! He’s not like any of them! He’s the Shakespearean actor of Hanna-Barbera!”

To which I say:

“IRRELEVANT!”

That’s not my point. Like, at all. I’m not talking about individual cast members, personalities or character shticks. Geez, even H-B’s characters aren’t that autonomous. I’m referring specifically to the tones and structures of the shorts themselves. Many of them can be traced to either Huck, Yogi or Quick Draw. Some examples:

  • The aforementioned Snagglepuss is a Huckleberry Hound archetype: a funny animal who appears in a number of various settings in each short doing his usual shtick each time, regardless of how incongruous.
  • Wally Gator is Yogi Bear in a zoo.
  • Ricochet Rabbit is Quick Draw McGraw except here the smaller animal is the leader and the taller one is the sidekick. Also, the leader here is competent and the sidekick dim-witted rather than the reverse like on Quick Draw.
  • Touche Turtle is Quick-Draw in a French period setting.
  • Squiddly Diddly is Yogi Bear in an aquarium.
  • Hokey Wolf is kind of a Yogi/Huck hybrid: a canny taller animal and his short sidekick who scam humans, but in a different setting each time.
  • Breezly and Sneezly are Yogi and Boo-Boo in the Arctic.
  • Magilla Gorilla is Yogi Bear in a pet shop.
  • Snooper and Blabber are Quick Draw and Baba Looey as cat and mouse detectives.
  • Lippy the Lion and Hardy Har Har are basically a luckless Hokey Wolf and Ding-a-Ling, who as previously stated carry traits of both Huck and Yogi.

-Of course, not every HB funny animal toon falls into 1 of these boxes. Pixie & Dixie is a TV version of Tom & Jerry, but with the main characters able to speak and with limited animation. Loopy DeLoop is a character fighting against his stereotype, in this case a do-good wolf trying to undo the myth that all wolves are evil. Winsome Witch follows a similar formula, only with a witch. Yakky Doodle can be traced back to Tom & Jerry, with a recurring character similar to the titular star and the formula of a small animal being protected from a wily predator by a tough animal with a heart of gold who has no reservations about beating the predator’s brains in (see also It’s the Wolf!). Augie Doggie and Doggie Daddy likewise have roots in Tom & Jerry; they’re somewhat more anthropomorphic versions of Spike & Tyke. The Hillbilly Bears are a family of, well, hillbilly bears. (Incidentally, Ma and Pa Rugg were voiced by Jean VanderPyl and Henry Corden respectively, who’d go on to voice Wilma and Fred Flintstone.) Ruff & Reddy was a takeoff of multi-part adventure serials. Yippy, Yappy and Yahooey were 3 hyperactive canine royal guards who shouted their names and crashed into stuff. Dumas is back and we’ve got him!

So while there are exceptions, it’s no secret who had the stroke in the Hanna-Barbera Zoo.

“You heard the man. You jobbers, second-stringers and ham-and-eggers better pay yer respects. WE’RE the top dogs in this pound, an’ doooooon’t you ferget it!”