SAW A BIT OF "DRAWN TOGETHER" THE OTHER NIGHT...
Now we know how low TV can go!
The idea is interesting- take all of these cartoon characters from all these different eras and styles place them in a room and have them interact...as if they are part of a reality TV show
What the creators have created (some more live-action guys) is an excuse to become the bottom feeders of animation.
I am tired of animation becoming a toilet bowl for comedy.
Fortunately, the program comes on late enough that little kids will be in bed- though junior high and high schoolers will have the opportunity to find a good resource for butt humor and lesiian kissing and gay superheros,and tons of vagina jokes....lucky us.
I picked up ANIMATION MAGAZINE the other day and was very grateful I am not a subscriber. Some actor/writer guy sang the praises of DRAWN TOGETHER and how wonderful it was....wrong!
I have to say I was quite happy after reading A.M. to know I don't have a subscription. I will take AWN any day. Dan Sarto and folks treat animation as an art form and an industry...with some respect!
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
Drawn Together is definitely growing on me.
I actually chuckled a few times during the last episode and found it to be funnier than this week's episode of South Park.
Of course, it's certainly not for anyone afraid of or offended by poo jokes or disgusting violence or sexual references. It's almost like an animated Caligula or Marquis de Sade or King Ubu.:eek:
As more and more and more channels become available to us, the amount of mediocre programming is going to expode, and the reason is obvious: it is easier to make something mediocre than something good. The idea of Drawn Together is good, but making something excellent is all in the execution.
I have been working with a creative team on series and story ideas, and after a year, we came up with one that (a) we like (b) has enough meat to it to actually hold a plot for half an hour and (c) has enough content potential for ideas for several seasons. Oh, and did I mention that it took us a year? That just brings us to the stage where it is good enough to pitch to the Powers That Be. If you want to do this stuff right, it is extremely hard.
I think that at this stage, animation, especially 3D animation, is seen as the magic powder that you sprinkle on top of an idea to make it sell. I mean, Drawn Together is just a reality-type show with higher outrageousness potential because you aren't limited to the physical world. Father of the Pride is just a family sitcom with animated characters instead of actors. How are you going to make that so much better than a regular sitcom? Sorry, it's not going to hook people.
I agree with the old-timers that it is about buidling appealing characters, compelling plot lines, and crises that fit in with your characters and themes. No magic powder is going to cover up the basic flaws in writing and concept.
hear hear.
Not everything in the world has to be kid-friendly. It's okay for there to be some things that are for adults only.
I watched the first two episodes. Not great, but amusing enough to give it a few more chances.
I think the idea is moreso that the art quality itself is second fiddle to the...content. Even though they're all cartoons (or fictionals like Xandir/Link), it doesn't really necessitate nor fully utilize animation as its medium.
It's not Emmy material, but it knows it isn't and certainly isn't trying to be. It's a feather-ruffler and somewhat imaginative crudity (the best humor I think is in the crossover/parody references), and it stays true to itself. Praise it? Can't see why, but it's also not as much of a waste as 40% of the rest of TV.
I think it's a mistake to criticize any television show for not utilizing animation fully. TV show budgets are miniscule and getting ever-smaller, and the professional artists working on a show do the absolute best they can given the financial restrictions they face.
Scattered, I'm interested in how a show about animated characters doesn't necessitate animation as the medium. Could you explain further please?
I've seen the first two eps of this show and have been unimpressed. I put it down to getting older and being generally tired of people going for the easy sex/bodily function joke. Anyone have any ratings on this - is it pulling in an audience?
There's a difference between putting forth an effort and using as limited animation as possible. No one's saying they're lazy bums or untalented people at the helm. If you're going for a look you're going for a look, and it's a team effort in this case, so even Bill Plympton if he was on the staff would have to work with the criteria and the models he was given. Budgets and no real motivation to do more than you have to equals par or subpar animation quality. The question is should it have quality animation or not. If, as you said, it's an animated-characters show, I say yes, rock out. They decided not to. That's more of an observation than a judgement. Dexter's Lab has better comic animation, and even flashes in the pan like the new He-Man in its fight scenes have extraordinary movement in comparison.
The reason the "show about animated characters" doesn't necessitate animation is that it's not, at least not as a priority. It's a reality show first, designed for shock value second, and about fictional characters third. It needs that last tier before it even questions the medium. Notice "fictional characters." Two are from comic books, one's from the 'net, and one's from a videogame. Half the cast originates from non-animation.
How do you know they decided not to? Is this based on intimate knowledge of the show's production, or on your observations of the final product? If it's the latter, I think you're jumping to huge conclusions.
On another animation board, an individual involved in the production of the show has provided specific information about the limited budgets and turnaround times, which directly contributed to the look of the show. Frankly, I place a higher value on this information. And I am in no way defending this show; I made my opinion of it clear in a previous post.
Harvey, nice to see you again too ;)
although my vote won't count that much as I haven't seen it.
But there is also a thing called motive. oldtimers are more sensitive to these things. and you can't hide motive with slickness or spin.
Why put 3d shading on Tweety and put her with a nondescript Michael Jordan to play basketball? The reason escapes me, but the motive is quite clear.
But then again, maybe it's just the good ol days talking. When you're getting old and you see someone snatch your good memory of something and twist into something untastefully modern... well... something twitches inside.
But then that's life.
So here's to you guys. It's your world now.
Don't worry. All shall be well.
First off............. Tweety is a boy! :mad:
Secondly, humor is humor be it scatalogical or literary, the lowest of brow or the highest of brow, as long as it's done well.
Some people just see the body fluids on Ren & Stimpy and declare it a disgusting show. However, they miss the brilliantly intricate key poses and the cerebral pacing of it all. Those unobservant twits are certainly missing a great show.
I haven't been fortunate to see a full episode of Drawn Together yet, just a clip on the internet. From what I've seen, it looks okay but could be better.
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
besides ren and stimpy are just being true to their creator's concept.
to see them do otherwise would be just as disconcerting.
now tweety, he goes by without laying a hand on sylvester.
to put him out of context, like punching his opponent, no matter how slick or innovative the animation or concept, would be just as disconcerting.
characters, after all, belong to their creators. no matter how much you want to see a character... they also go away... like their creators.
why don't they just invent new characters for new concepts? put new wine on new leather as they say. putting old characters out of context needs sensitivity, and any hint of a desperate attempt to make a quick buck just leaves a bad taste.
when you guys eventually become good at what you dream of,
you'll still have to look back one day and ask yourself why.
Don't worry. All shall be well.
Some of the early Tweety cartoon do have him physically attacking his antagonists, and personally I find these to be much funnier cartoons than the later teamings with Sylvester. The one that immediately springs to mind is the one with the Abbott and Costello cat caricatures.
I thought this was a great concept when I first heard about it over a year ago working on "Kid Notorious," and yes that CC show died as well, I remember thinking that, that is a show that needs to be animated in the states for it to work right. Certain overseas studios are good at animating certain types of shows. If you want an anime show, you go to this studio. You want a super hero show, you go to that studio. But they don't really cross over too much. And now of what I've seen of the show, just the lesbo hot tub scene, I'm very disapointed. Not in the content, but how the show was executed. Watching the animation, they only way you can really tell the characters are form different styles is by their character designs. They all really move the same. I think they could have pushed this show WAAAAY more stylisticly. Have the Pikachu knock off move like the real one. Have the super hero move and act heroic. Vary their timing to reflect each person's style. Animate faux-Pikachu on threes and fours. Disney princess on one's. The internet pig at 12 fps. They didn't even animated him in Flash. That pig moves too fluid, and looks like a Cartoon Network character.
But oh well. I'll guess I'll have more chances to watch it now that it got picked up for a second season. :D
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
Good ideas, Ape. However, they do have that Pokemon character making jerky movements, like cheap TV anime.
I think the biggest problem I have with the show is that I hate "reality" shows, so why would I enjoy a series that parodies reality shows? Regardless, there's still some good stuff in Drawn Together, though maybe not enough to keep me watching for long. Watch Venture Bros. instead, I say. It's a much better parody show.
Hahahahah, I watched the episode where we discover the princess's vagina has a spell on it rendering it a tetacled monster--I thought it was hilarious!
I suppose after reading some of you peoples posts that I should be offended that I would stoop so low as to actually let myself enjoy the craziness of the show.
When the superhero guy gets an erection that lifts his pelvis off the ground--funny funny funny!
There is so much complaining about how bad (especially 2D) animation has become, but I don't hear anyone saying, "I don't like a lot of the animation I've seen...you know what...I'm going to write and create my own show that will be better!" Whether shown on the net or other medium. (yes I'm guilty too, however I am making strides to creating my own anim)
I realize a forum is a place to share a personal opinion and that's awesome, I'd hate a world where everyone agreed with me...or would I? I just had to chime in.
If only it were as easy to create a show and get it aired as it was to -say- it.
I know because I watched the show. My words weren't clear enough. When I say "they decided not to," it means, not that they sat there and conscientiously went "How can we sacrifice artistic integrity by slacking off?" It means, for whatever reason, a decision was made. The end result is proof enough.
As well you should, because it's common sense. On the same channel you have South Park, which according to the informal documentary of the production staff, can crank out an episode in a week. It's rather easy -now- when they have a streamlined process. And very simple characters in comparison. And a tenth the animation of Drawn Together. And they've been around long enough, and popular enough, to afford the ability to do all of that. DT is a new show, which most people would think means out of the sheer fact that it's new and unproven doesn't get a huge financial backing, and they've got a lot of work to do in considerably less time (proportionate to the level of animation).
I believe you said you were unimpressed by it, and have seen it twice. I would've never sat through the first one fully if that were the case for me, but it takes all kinds to make a world. If you're not being defensive, why so direct and contrary? Nobody's even attacking it. Observing details (which as you pointed out is all I'm doing) and making assumptions is all that's going on, and as a veteran of messageboards I would expect you to know that everything anyone says is to be taken with an implicit air of "Everyone is barking mad off of what they know until they know better, because they like to hear/read their own voice." Look up my posts, I am young and inexperienced and not even finished with school. I am blabbing away to contribute in whatever way someone like that can. You're completely mistaken if you think I have some air of authority because I assure you I cannot. I think five posts into your history you can find out that you've been around the bend with a track record, a line of jobs, and thus have nothing to prove.
Hello.
Like I said...
Compare the tripe on TV with the Looney Tunes- they were made for no budget and they are still witty, smart, and very funny today.
Everyone talks about budgets...well Rocky and Bullwinkle had no budget and the animation was crummy (most of it done in Mexico) and still if was and is hilarious.
And I don't blame the animators- it's the writers, creators, etc.
Some folks think to make a name for themselves they have draw attention to their show by having controversial content.
I hope this show goes the same way as Father of the Pride and the Dodo bird!
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
You'll probably get your wish, Larry. Other than South Park, Comedy Central doesn't have much luck with animated shows.
Personally, I'd rather see them cancel Shorties Watching Shorties. Now THERE'S a bad show. At least Drawn Together has some interesting characters. Shorties has some nice drawing, but little else.
Did they cancel Father of the Pride? good riddance
I have to say that this is a great discussion. I had a couple of things to say early on, but I've mainly been watching the ideas unfold and weighing them a bit. While I tend toward wanting "smart" entertainment or "intelligent humor", a laugh is a laugh. I still haven't and probably won't have a chance to see Drawn Together. But some great points have been made on both sides of this discussion. When I let go of my need to be right, I got to learn a few things.
Then again, I have to tip my hat to Larry-- you've pretty much been keeping it on the level (I think) of personal response without the need to back it up with intellectual discourse, which I'm sure you're more than capable of.
Jeez, listen to me... back in my classroom for a couple hours and sounding all literary and smart--what would Holden Caulfield say?
Cartoon Thunder
There's a little biker in all of us...
What do I have to be defensive about? I've stated that I'm not a fan of the show. I contributed information about the production from a first-hand source regarding budgets and their effect on quality. If that strikes you as defensive and contrary, I can't help that.
Regarding seeing it twice, I try to watch any new show twice, especially if the first episode doesn't do it for me. It's the way I avoid making snap judgements, giving the benefit of the doubt for what may be a weak ep in the season.
And if that were the only thing you had said, yah, I wouldn't have made the comment.
Damnit. Good point. You win, I'm done =)
The precursor to fart jokes is hit-on-the-head-with-a-safe jokes or slipping-on-a-banana-peel jokes, i.e. violence jokes.
Most folks here consider Looney Tunes to be the acme (pun intended) of animation, but nobody accuses Jones or Clampett of going for the easy laugh. Any topic that makes the audience laugh is fair game, whether it's an "easy laugh" or a "difficult laugh." Interesting that many of the folks who have a problem with the "I've crapped my pants" jokes have no problem with the "I've been shot in the face by Fudd" jokes.
I believe what separates those two is the element of character motivation. I considered having a snowman in the Christmas episode for my website break some wind on a character who falls down next to him, but I didn't like it for several reasons. First, it was too much like South Park. Second, I want to create something that can legitimately appeal to a wide audience age range. Finally, there was no real motivation involved other than the cheap laugh. And I come from a family of windpassing enthusiasts.
When Fudd blows Daffy's bill around to the back of his head with a shotgun, his motivation is that of food, power, or domination. There's a vested interest on his part, based on his character, that drives him to that act. Admittedly, it isn't high brow, but it's a few cuts (no pun intended) above changing the local atmospheric content.
What's the real motivation behind wind passing humor? I haven't seen the show you speak of (no cable is a great thing), but if it were a more integral part of the story, we may have something. Did circumstance keep the character in question from being able to pass wind or other from his/her body? If it becomes a consequence of a situation involving other motivations or intentions, it rises a bit more, like methane to a ceiling fan (sorry, I'm no better than anyone). Ultimately, however, it's still what it is, and not representative of much thinking, since that moment can override all the other work in the story.
The word a*s is used even in commercials and primetime sit-coms today. We're pushing the envelope again on what we can get away with, like giddy children who've discovered they're on their own. We may eventually get over it, not with more taboo, but getting over the global realization that it ain't such a big deal after all.
Cartoon Thunder
There's a little biker in all of us...
I think the whole fact that a post about a flatulence-arrested rectal tremor (medical terminology, aka FART) started with something as sincere as what rupert had to say speaks highly about our maturity levels, and yet the point is right there: Grown adults with significant intelligence can still appreciate the proper contexts of what might be considered "base" humor. Really is an affirmation that it's "all in how you use it." Intelligent animated shows have been successes, and pants-dropping shows and profanity shows have done just as well. And then there are hybrids like Clone High which disappear and get replaced by junk shows, -ending the entire series on a cliffhanger-. But I don't mind =P
So you're saying a character must be motivated in order to be funny? No, no, no, and wrong.
A character can be funny purely because of his inherent traits, like he's a slob or a klutz or talks funny or wears funny clothes. Stan Laurel's character doesn't need to be motivated to be clumsy, thereby triggering most of the gags in his films. He simply IS inherently clumsy. A clown, after all, is not motivated to accidently slip on a banana peel.
But if you want to talk about motivation, Jeff Daniels' character in Dumb and Dumber has an awful time on the toilet because Jim Carry's character was motivated to slip a huge dose of ExLax into his drink.
Eric Cartman is repeatedly motivated to fart in Kyle's face in order to humiliate him, thereby exerting "power or domination."
Moot points, since motivation does not equal funny.
Hold on a sec-60% of TV is worth watching? ;)
Hello.
You can say what you want...I still don't agree. I think DRAWN TOGETHER is about as low as it gets.
The old Looney Tunes were smart and funny and are still funny today. They were directed by folks who were young, knew the art form and how to use it and how to show characters in funny situations.
DRAWN TOGETHER is just a hack job!
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
Nah. There's some good drawing and animation in Drawn Together, particularly when compared to the animation in shows like Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Superfriends, and Ruff & Ready. Give credit where credit is due. Bash the writers all you want, but recognize the animators.
And, just to clarify, I wasn't comparing the artistry of Looney Tunes to that of Drawn Together. I was merely comparing the content. Due to our puritanical nature, we often have a big problem with sexual content, but little problem with violent content. Hence, most adults will let their children watch the Powerpuff Girls beat the crap out of everybody, but if Buttercup points to her pee-pee, oh no, it's the fall of western civilization.
We are an uptight and repressed society.
Anyone want to borrow my soapbox?
I must admit I haven't seen the show that triggered this whole discussion, but I think I get the idea. First of all, whether 40 percent of TV is worth watching or not depends simply on what percent of the population are you. TV is, alas, aimed at the masses, the idea is to get more audience, not to educate people, so TV shows are naturally low quality. What makes shows like South Park special is that they know how to combine the lowly fart joks with very sharp reflections on society, so, even if I think South Park could really do without 50% of its fart jokes, I find the other, more "elevated" jokes reason enough to watch the show. And I understand the foul language is justified-even ncessary sometimes... you don't hit your finger with a hammer and say "oh, dear!"
What usually bothers smart people about jokes involving foul language is that they usually aren't jokes at all, but people have found that taboo words sound funny. As somene just said, once people realize they're no big deal, they won't laugh at them anymore. The problem with those jokes is that they are not imaginative, but that can be applied to other more "serious" material. Am I the only one who thinks Disney has been making the same movie for decades?
I'm not very sure what is worse. You guys have a lot of TV channels, but they're full of talk shows and terrible stuff, so you have to keep sifting through the trash to find something worth watching.
Here, they want TV to educate, and it gets relly lame. Of course, we don't get South Park here... well, not even the Simpsons, and I once got a script rejected for TV because the Grim Reaper (A.K.A. skeleton with sickle) had to appear, and they said it was too shocking an image for TV.
That's funny. Here we have the Grim Reaper in children's cartoons.
http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/billymandy/
But I'm sure there are many things that they allow in your country that they don't allow in ours, like delicious cigars for instance.
I was going for the "waste spectrum" (a la these examples):
Animaniacs - little waste
Drawn Together - significantly more waste, but not the waste-iest
40% of TV beneath - sludge-level waste
So it doesn't necessarily make 60% of TV good as much as it makes 60% of television better than Drawn Together.
I haven't seen the show but I've seen the ads. Initially, I was interested b/c an animated reality show sounded like a great way to spoof all the stupid reality shows out there. But the ads turned me off:
1.) "Are you defecating into a cantaloupe? ....Oh... this is awkward." Shot of small pig/man character sitting bare-assed on a cantaloupe half. (Snore.)
2.) WASP Princess character lifts her skirt to show Hip Hop Girl character what I'm guessing is a raging venerial disease in progress. Huge tentacles come flying out from under her skirt. (Yawn.)
3.) Hip Hop Girl sticks her tongue in WASP Princesses mouth. (Whatever.)
4.) Pig/Man calls Betty Boop-like character fat. (ZZZzzzzz)
5.) A shot of Hip Hop Girl putting on her top and adjusting one of her boobs in the process. (ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz)
I'll try to catch it next week to see if it's really as lame as it looks. I may just be getting old. I used to love South Park five years ago and now it bores me.
We'll see.
Ciao!
I've only watched a part of one episode, and that was enough for me!
Funny premise, no doubt...for a one-off. Anymore and you'd be digging a bit deep for laughs, imho.
Harv, it is possible to find a fine Cuban cigar here in the states...ya just gotta look a bit harder (wink, wink. Nudge, nudge!)
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got mud-wrestling on TiVo...
Splatman :D
SPLAT digital
Well, we do have Cubans here in the city who roll cigars from tobacco leaves grown locally from Cuban seeds, which is perfectly legal. Maybe those are as good as the Cuban cigars. I don't know. They're good enough for me, though. :)
The whole Cuban embargo is so friggin' dumb and hypocritical. Oh well. Speaking of lowest common denominators, this country's run by 'em.