It's safe to say that it's become quite the hot topic among all sorts of animation circles about how animation, especially on the western end, is often seen as a 'lesser' form of entertainment by default, not just by the general public but especially the higher-ups at these entertainment companies. Sure, you have an increasing number of people firmly standing by everything the medium stands for (give or take...), but the number of live-action retellings, hit shows getting canned before their prime, and of course creative minds getting horrifically restrained in their potential unfortunately shows no signs of slowing down. However, I think it's always important to take historical context into consideration, so let's really take a general look throughout the medium's history in terms of how it was seen by the public to better analyze our current position.
Film has existed since the late 19th century, with animation arising some years into the 20th thanks to some eccentric, devoted artists like Winsor McCay and Pat Sullivan and a lot of experimentation. In time, after enough techniques were established and enough studios saw it as a worthwhile investment, it became a standard for short-form cartoons to precede major motion pictures. They were meant as little more than casual little amusements. The rather primitive look of pioneers like "Out of the Inkwell" and "Felix the Cat" soon gave way for bigger, more advanced hits down the line that include "Popeye" and "Merrie Melodies/Looney Tunes". But little did audiences know that the art would only grow much more versatile before long. New types of technologies were patented, including Technicolor and the multi-plane camera. And while full-length animated films did exist prior internationally, it was Walt Disney's passion project "Snow White" in 1937 that was the big mainstream push proving how emotionally powerful moving pictures could actually be.
From the 40s onward, not only would animated shorts and films become more widespread than ever before thanks to the consistent artistic integrity, but many cartoon stars quickly became pop culture icons like Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck, and Droopy Dog. They would incite laugh riots to audiences all over, and a wide variety of these players would get acknowledgement in award shows. On top of that, you had Walt Disney's team producing theatrical experiences alongside the shorts which, despite how costly it proved to be, showed how well animation can be used to tell serious, moving stories. Sure, there were still clear limitations on how much it could get away with, and it's not like it took the entire world by storm, but it had come such a long way in just a couple decades. But then, by the 60s much of this integrity was unfortunately hurt by multiple consecutive hits, including theatrical shorts becoming less and less viable, television taking away a great portion of potential audiences, and of course, Walt Disney's untimely death.
For a while, there sadly wasn't much to be said about theatrical animation, at least in the west. Every once in a while, you'd get something from a player with potential, like Chuck Jones with "The Phantom Tollbooth" and Richard Williams with "Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure", and of course you have a certain few artists like Ralph Bakshi attempting to break the mold, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything that left a huge impact. Heck, Disney only released 4 animated features across the 70s (one merely being a package feature), and they were clearly losing the illustrious talent that made the company's animation department as famous as it was. In essence, there was little serious competition for who wasn't doing particularly well themselves, and for a long time, television seemed to be where everything was shifting. One artist, Don Bluth, clearly recognized this and started his own studio which released many of the 80s' best-remembered animated films, a strong forerunner for the movement that'd follow later.
Not that television was necessarily thriving, at least in regards to creative integrity. Most of the late 50s and early 60s consisted of people just trying to figure out how they can make the medium work on such a smaller scale. Some like Hanna-Barbera tried to recreate the flavor of theatrical cartoons in a more toned-down fashion, though they'd also dabble in translating sitcoms to animation, as famously done with "The Flintstones". A few like Jay Ward put extra emphasis on the dialogue to compensate, while others like Rankin-Bass and Marvel masked the cheapness as stylization. Results were mixed across the board, and the jury's out as to how many of these actually hold up well, but what's for sure is that once Scooby-Doo became a smash hit and its success was continually attempted to be replicated, it was sadly in a state of stagnation. The quality didn't really matter for the most part, parents were just content to keep the kids occupied. You'd get a "Fat Albert" every now and then, and programs like "Sesame Street" made very smart use of the medium, but a lot of the content was blending together otherwise.
Things somewhat improved in the mid-80s, as Ronald Reagan famously deregulated advertising, opening the gates for many merch-driven cartoons. The shows became less of a distractor and more a means of marketing a greater whole, allowing for more to be invested in them on average. And while many can argue they only look cheesy and dated now, some like "Transformers" and "Jem and the Holograms" were able to strike a chord with many an audience in a way past shows couldn't, as there was more of a vision behind the base concept alone. However, not long later, companies like Disney and Fox realized the financial potential in leasing original cartoons to syndication, leading to big hits like "Tiny Toon Adventures" and "DuckTales", which themselves spawned entire hit blocks from both parties that lasted the better part of a decade. But things were only going to get better once the growing popularity of cable stepped in.
In the early 90s, both television and theatrical animation each saw multiple massive movements. The Disney Renaissance pumped out huge hit after huge hit across much of the decade, with "Beauty and the Beast" in particular famously making animation history with its 'Best Picture' nomination. This sparked many newcomers to enter the picture with their own high-quality entries, some obviously faring much better than others. Dreamworks, which partly rose from Jeffrey Katzenberg's severed ties with the juggernaut, started out with profitable hits in "The Prince of Egypt" but came into a league of their own with the "Shrek" series. And a new, rising studio known as Pixar was rising until Disney's distribution; their films may've been few and far between at first, but it only took a few entries and cutting-edge CG animation to make them a massive influence on theatrical animation across the world, both for better and for worse.
And of course, the other end had a new wave of its own, starting with Nickelodeon's groundbreaking creative-driven program, the influence of which quickly spread to Hanna-Barbera with shows like "Two Stupid Dogs" (who would soon kickstart Cartoon Network's own originals). There was a definite chain reaction going on in all this, with one Nicktoon, "Ren & Stimpy", gaining such a teen/adult following that it wound up finding a second home on MTV, which would produce its own successful line of cartoons, most notably "Beavis & Butthead"; the creator of which would later make one of Fox's longer-running hits, "King of the Hill". And even the artists who didn't get their own shows made in the "What a Cartoon!" and "Oh Yeah! Cartoons" programs were able to develop their skills within the studios' existing projects and, in some cases, were able to mold their craft into something better overall.
Come the 2010s, more changes would come. Not only were hits more plentiful than before, but many of them were surprise breakout successes that changed the medium for the better. "Gravity Falls" played with tone and semi-serialization in a way that kept audiences glued, "Steven Universe" provided an atmospheric experience all about self-acceptance that made it resonate with so many walks of life, "The Legend of Korra"'s anime influence raised the bar for high-fantasy action dramas, and even the preschool property "My Little Pony" pulled through a generation that could appeal to the old as much as the young. All these branches would stem into a tree of growing diversity within the medium. While it was popular to say the mainline shows blended together, anyone who looks deep enough can see as much diversity as one could ask for, something that would only become more prevalent with the rise of streaming and indie ventures.
But unfortunately, as technology kept evolving, so too did the viability of turning what could previously only come to life through drawings look more true to life than ever before. And so kick-started the ongoing wave of taking animated stories and turning them live-action. This treatment most certainly existed long before, in both TV and film, but they were never quite as prominent in the mainstream as they were when Disney seemed to remake at least one film every year, sometimes as many as three. Some pulled through an interesting vision, like 2016's "The Jungle Book", but those would only become fewer and far between over time, with more shot-by-shot retellings like 2019's "The Lion King" becoming the norm. And while those were huge successes, the real push for other companies following suit was, as said before, the rise of streaming, with the main goal being to get content out that'll get views in the short term. So relying on a tried and true brand seemed like the perfect way to accomplish exactly that.
Despite all the backlash, general audiences still often flock to see them, sometimes to extraordinary success as was the case with Lion King, due to a mix of nostalgia for the source material and being drawn in by the technical showcase. This is part of what made animation fans start to hate them on concept, as they felt like a sign that the masses will never appreciate the medium like they should (which I'll admit I subscribed to for a while). Similarly, despite a large percentage of modern-day fare being beloved among these circles and even some people beyond, they often don't quite reach the same mainstream zeitgeist that a typical live-action sitcom would. Note the lack of non-designated representation in most award shows in particular. It really felt like these live-action substitutes were outright taking away many chances for 'normies' to get into the medium due to live-action generally being perceived as less 'kiddy' by default.
On the whole, the current struggles seem to be a delicate mix between both technological evolution, consumer bias, and outdated mentalities. Thanks to the effect of shows like Steven Universe that didn't sit right with some crowds, and letting nostalgia get the better of them in general, very often original cartoons get met with backlash on first impression, often not understanding why certain trends or styles are the way they are. What would otherwise be perceived as mediocre suddenly becomes a sin against nature. Most of the time, these criticisms aren't necessarily in bad faith nor are they against the creatives, but there's still the sense that they strive for expectations that they aren't even trying to reach. It's why you see modern Cartoon Network art styles compared to their 'classic' styles, and sure an argument can be made about how same-y they look, but not only is that ignoring the nuances with each individual show, I believe it's plain toxic to jump to conclusions like that.
But speaking on the business side, yeah they don't do a great job at reaching out to their desired audiences. I've talked before about the severe lack and imbalance going on with marketing, but I want to add how so often you see networks and brand accounts promote reboots or other projects with tried-and-true IPs attached. Sometimes there is a bigger reason attached, you'd naturally see "What If?" get pushed over "The Owl House" because the former is made with the more prestigious Disney+ in mind. But then you have cases like Paramount/Nick's offerings, where they are more than eager to push that they now own Garfield despite having yet to produce anything with it, as well as their SpongeBob spinoffs, but anything original like "It's Pony" and "Middlemost Post" will inevitably get shafted after the first month. It really feels like any brands they value are solely because of the fact they're brands and no other reason.
Another point of contention I've also previously discussed is problems raised by streaming, specifically how their overwhelming number of content and how multiple things often release at once can cause shows to so easily get lost in the shuffle. It doesn't help either that it's very documented how these services like to view any shows they greenlight as content to market, as like a number, hence why so many get either limited orders or are otherwise short-lived. And of course, there's the ever-present fate of the media itself suffering from executive meddling, undermining not only the creative vision but also its potential ability to resonate with viewers. Even the general processes tend to suffer from strict deadlines across the entire process, with artists often heavily overworked and creatives not being allotted the money to make their vision come entirely to life. Sure, compromise is needed in the business world, and not all investments are guaranteed returns, but a little faith can go a long way.
Despite all this, I think the many stigmas have lightened in a lot of respects. Apart from the growing number of streaming players motivating each other to up their game in the content development, just this year we've had a select few shows that probably would have been cult hits not long ago immediately reach mainstream attention and adoration to the point of being potential game-changers across the industry, with "Invincible" and "Arcane" immediately coming to mind. There's also been a greater push for some underdogs thanks to the streamlining of social media, causing more people to be into at least one non-mainline animated program. The growing popularity of "Tuca & Bertie", "The Owl House", and "Mao Mao: Heroes of Pure Heart" speak for themselves. Not to mention the growing number of successful indie ventures, most obviously "Helluva Boss", with several more independent teams being able to break millions of hits. And of course, mention must be made of the increased transparency from the creatives. So many details about what goes into the production process are now more public knowledge than ever before.
I don't think I need to say that there's still a ton of room for improvement. It's always disappointing how frequently animation is looked down upon, as established at the beginning of this essay. This mentality is specifically why animation-based unions are struggling just to get equal pay to the exact same work in live-action productions, as well as forcing storyboard artists to tackle far more work than they should have to. But with more major hits on mainline platforms by the year, and an increasing number of people incessantly pushing them, I firmly believe it's slowly tapping into more of the public zeitgeist. If the art form can evolve from primitive, simple gag shorts to a thrilling theatrical experience in just a decade's time, then change of similar caliber can certainly happen in the present. Animation may have a rocky history, both in the past and present, but its future is probably brighter than you think.
Comments