tymime's tumblr

It’s kind of ironic how much hate was wasted on the Disney direct-to-video sequels. It seemed like everybody was raging against them, making claims that they were “cheap cash grabs” and “disrespectful to the originals”, as well as being terrible in general.

After having watched nearly all of them, I can say with absolutely certainly that two of those statements are 100% untrue. And the third, that they’re “cheap cash grabs” is only partially true.

Yes, a few of them early on were definitely produced on the cheap, using low-budget TV animation studios rather than the usual. But as time went on, the animation got better and better until it was nearly indistinguishable from theatrical animation. Heck, some of them were released at a time when Disney wasn’t doing 2D animation in theaters at all.

And as far as the other claims go, I think most if not all of them are very good films in their own right. And in some cases, I’d say they were actually better than the originals (Cinderella III comes to mind). Why they made so many sequels/midquels to movies that weren’t really that popular to begin with (Brother Bear, The Fox and the Hound, etc.) I’m not sure, but it never did any harm.

It’s sad that John Lasseter seemed to agree with the criticism when he pulled the plug on direct-to-video movies. And now that Disney’s been pumping out live-action remakes, the controversy seems so silly and pointless now. The remakes may not be cheaply-made, but they’re definitely cash grabs, and without a doubt disrespectful. (Just watch any of the direct-to-video films, and you’ll see a special thanks to the original artists in the end credits! The remakes give them diddly-squat.) But what makes things different now is that, unlike before, it feels like only a small number of people seem to think so. The box office numbers show that everyone else doesn’t seem to give a darn, and are more than willing to give the bigwigs at Disney more money to pump out more remakes.

I’ve heard the argument “it’s not made for you” and “the originals still exist, they’re not getting replaced” repeated ad nauseum, as if that really disproves the real issues these remakes have.

What happened between then and now that brought about these kind of apologists anyway? It seems like it’s been happening all over pop culture discourse in general- people who can’t see the problems with a piece of media, and will bend over backwards defending it. Sometimes it feels like you can’t criticize anything without somebody jumping on you and telling you that the people who made it can do no wrong and should be practically worshipped. (Of course, there's also the opposite type of person, who seems to think that they can do no good and that everything they make is terrible. I can’t decide which is more annoying.)

To end on a positive note, if you’re a fan of traditional animation, and Disney in particular, do yourself a favor and watch the sequels. Not all of them are great, but all of them are still worth watching in my opinion, and the ones that are great are unforgettable.

One of the worst things the 2016 Powerpuff Girls reboot did was set a precedent for replacing the voice cast of an older show.

It used to be that a voice actor would play a cartoon character until they died. Mel Blanc and George O’Hanlon died before they could complete recording for The Jetsons Movie, and the only reason Joe Alaskey did Yosemite Sam’s voice for Who Framed Roger Rabbit was because Mel Blanc was physically incapable of doing it.

Now every time a reboot comes along, the question “Will the original voice cast reprise their roles?” comes up every single time. And the answer is “yes” only like 40% of the time, if even that. It’s not fair to the voice actors who worked so hard the first time.

I have mixed feelings about the Rugrats reboot. On one hand, I’m glad most of the original cast is coming back, and that Arlene Klasky, Gábor Csupó and Paul Germain are on board as producers. I can sort of see why they chose to go CG because of the original show’s deep focus and weird angles to make the babies feel small. On the other hand, I seriously question the choice to make one of the characters lesbian. Progressivism for its own sake, sounds like. It’s not so much that a cartoon character can’t be lesbian, but as far as I can guess, it’s gonna be Betty DeVille. The whole problem with that is that if that’s the case (and I can’t think of any other choices), then they’re turning Betty’s defiance of gender stereotypes into the “butch” lesbian stereotype. Is that the sort of inclusiveness we should be okay with? But ignore me if I somehow don’t know what I’m talking about, I suppose.

So, having seen all 13 episodes of the new Animaniacs, I can say without question it’s a very good show. Not perfect by any means, but definitely worthy of your time if you’re a fan of the original.

Most comments I’ve seen have praised the show, but I’ve also seen some criticism. Mostly from people who haven’t watched it. Now, I seriously believe that it’s perfectly okay to criticize something you haven’t seen the entirety of, but if you’re going by the trailers and clips released online, well… I can’t see what there is to complain about. It’s fantastically animated, well-drawn, and I actually laughed when I heard the first joke. I actually felt some tension release when that happened!

But I would like to talk about some unfair (and also fair) criticisms from people who actually did watch it:

Having watched several episodes of the new Animaniacs series (bypassing Hulu, thank you very much), I can safely say they actually got it right.

It was kind of maddening and anxiety-inducing waiting and hoping for three years to find out if it wasn’t some sort of edgy bean-mouth travesty like what they did to the Powerpuff Girls. It took forever just to find out if the original cast was returning, and it was disappointing that they didn’t hire the original writers like Tom Ruegger and Sherri Stoner. Why did they wait until a couple of months before its premiere to say anything about the writing and animation anyway? It would’ve been so much less stressful! But yeah, I was waiting to hear somebody say something along the lines of “it’s faithful to the original” and they finally did. What a relief that was!

I’ve been wanting a show like this for over ten years, really. I’ve mentioned it several times over the years on this blog how much I’ve grieved for the end of the Animation Renaissance and cartoons that pay respects to the past in general. There have been several false alarms for the return of such cartoons, like Epic Mickey and Wander Over Yonder, which didn’t have nearly the same impact as I’d hoped they would. And there have been plenty of terrible, cringeworthy reboots for the past ten years. I don’t know why it’s been so difficult to find writers and artists that actually like the originals that they’re basing their new show on. Why would you want to make a reboot if you don’t enjoy the source material? How hard is it to not offend and alienate the older fans?

But the new Animaniacs finally manages it, and it’s such a breath of fresh air. Finally, fans of the original, old and young, can actually watch the show together without arguing about it. The animation is really amazing too, some of the best I’ve seen in years. I never understood why fluid, lively animation disappeared in the first place- the obvious answer is that it’s too expensive, but why the heck do the vacant Hello Kitty-like stares of bean-mouth cartoons have any appeal to begin with?

I do hope that if they do another season, they’ll bring back Slappy Squirrel. She’s just as important and funny as the others. I suppose it all depends on whether or not Sherri Stoner agrees to do it- she’ll probably want to write the episodes too.

Of course, it’s not absolutely perfect. I didn’t expect it to be, really- the original wasn’t perfect either (Katie Kaboom, anyone?). There are occasionally gross-out jokes that feel very out-of-place, and I’m not sure why. But overall, it’s very good. I can’t think of any reason to dislike it entirely.

The DuckTales reboot is indefensible.

You can’t possibly convince me that the new DuckTales is somehow more faithful to the comics. It just isn’t. I’ve read lots of Carl Barks comics. And you don’t have to have read every single comic to know this either.

Drastically changing the personalities of Huey, Dewey, and Louie and Gyro Gearloose is disrespectful to Carl Barks’ work, plain and simple. The Nephews aren’t eye-rolling, sarcastic, smart alecs. Gyro isn’t an egostitical jerk.

Even if I were to somehow look past these changes (and I won’t), I’m sick to death of that so-called “edgy”, “ironic”, smarter-than-thou, smug attitude that so many cartoons have. All it is is just another iteration of the outdated ‘90s “‘tude” trend that half-baked Sonic the Hedgehog clones like Bubsy and Awesome Possum had. And don’t try to tell me that HDL didn’t have personalities before. They did: mischevious all-American boys. If you don’t know that, you must not have read the comics either, or even seen the cartoons. Besides that, I honestly don’t think differentiating them adds anything of any significance to the story. Any time I’ve ever read the comics or watched the old DuckTales I never felt any desire for them to be more distinct. The last time Disney tried to do that was in Quack Pack, and that series flopped. What gets me is that kids were smart enough to not be fooled by it then- I don’t know why we’re getting suckered into the snarky edgy cool kid thing now. (Probably because they never saw any of the old HDL before.)

Shall I get more specific?

Anybody who thinks it’s somehow “closer to the source material” has clearly never read the comics. (And yes, I have seen people say this.) Like I’ve said elsewhere, reboots that disregard the source material are divisive- they cause generation gaps because older fans aren’t gonna enjoy it, and the people who make reboots should know this. And why reboot it in the first place, anyway? It’s not a superhero comic. Even if it weren’t a reboot, even if I pretended the old show didn’t exist, I still wouldn’t like it. It’s not as if I’m nostalgic, actually- I didn’t watch the show until I was in my late teens, so I didn’t grow up with it. If you think one’s teenage years are nostalgic, you’re a freak of nature, honestly. I just like Disney cartoons in general. It’s not as though I think the original is flawless.

Also, I’m all for making Webby a better character, but the trade-off of cutesy Mary Sue to obsessive fangirl is basically exchanging one negative stereotype for another.

And it’s not as though I expected a carbon copy of the comics, either. I’ve never been that purist. All I really expected was for Webby to be less cutesy, for there to be no Bubba (seriously, wtf?), and for there to be a bit more of the complex psyches that Carls Barks’ characters had, which is one of his greatest accomplishments. You could’ve just added a few minor tweaks to the original DuckTales, wrote brand new stories, and you would’ve had a cartoon that was even better than the original. It’s that simple. So when I see an otherwise intelligent person comparing it to the comics, my mind just can’t comprehend it.

And this whole shared universe thing? Are you kidding me? How is this a new concept?? Launchpad alone is proof that DuckTales and Darkwing had a shared universe, whether Warren Spector botched the crossover comic or not. And the Disney Adventures comic “The Legend of the Chaos God” united DuckTales, Darkwing, TaleSpin, Rescue Rangers, AND Goof Troop together into one story 25 years ago! And don’t get me started on all the more subtle ways the characters have met each other. And I shouldn’t have to... Mickey, Donald and Goofy have always known each other. Is anybody saying that the Disney Afternoon incarnations are somehow separate entities?

I hate to assault you guys’ eyes with these monstrosities, but in light of all the “nostalgia”-exploiting “live action”... things coming out lately, I keep going back to this and wondering how in the world nobody looked at this movie and thought “okay maybe we need to stop now”.

Like I said in my last post, usually when a cartoon character gets radically redesigned, it goes along with plenty of disrespect of the source material and the fanbase in general. But in the case of Looney Tunes, it’s the opposite with the two recent shows for me. I absolutely hated The Looney Tunes Show despite the decent stylized look, but I actually quite enjoy Wabbit/New Looney Tunes even though Bugs and few other characters are kinda ugly.

Rocky and Bullwinkle is coming back. Oh boy, more cartoon reboots!

At any rate, at least this time I can say that it looks like they’re actually fans of the original. It’s got a nice ‘60s-style hand-painted look. And voice actor Piotr Michael (Fearless Leader) says it’s faithful:

Not sure why they didn’t get Keith Scott to do Bullwinkle or Boris, since he does them nearly dead-on. But the new guys sound pretty good too.

I’m just hoping that the multiple underwear jokes in the trailer are just the result of selective editing and not a major running gag. Not that I have a problem with underwear jokes, it just didn’t seem very Jay Ward-y.

Another thing I don’t get about reboots is the argument “they’re not made for old fans, they’re made for kids today!!1”. I keep thinking: is it so hard to make it for both? I can think of so many shows/movies that are both new and different and enjoyable by older audiences. Off the top of my head: Star Trek: The Next Generation, Tiny Toon Adventures, the Marvel Cinematic Universe... it’s not impossible.

Y’know what I hate about cartoon reboots? It causes a generation gap.

You just know there’s some younger folks out there who have no knowledge, much less appreciation, for any of the shows that are currently being rebooted- DuckTales, The Powerpuff Girls, and to a lesser extent, Looney Tunes. (I actually like Wabbit.) Scooby-Doo makes less of a difference, since it’s been rebooted umpteen times already and it didn’t really matter. Without this context, it’s entirely possible for a child who doesn’t know any better to learn to like the inferior reboot. The result is some kid who’s always going to argue with their parents which version is better.

This is why an unfaithful, disrespectful reboot is a bad thing, especially when coupled with careless parents who don’t bother to share with them what they grew up with. “Reboot” should be considered an ugly, taboo word when it comes to animation. Sure, several franchises like My Little Pony and Care Bears have been rebooted with success, but those are shows that didn’t use to have beloved, iconic characters that fans adored and related to into adulthood.

The key difference with Hey Arnold! The Jungle Movie, Rocko’s Modern Life: Static Cling, and the fifth season of Samurai Jack is that they aren’t reboots, but continuations by the original show creators (as will be the upcoming SWAT Kats Revolution). It actually matters very much to let what made the original great live on, because it matters to the people who watched it in the first place. It doesn’t make sense to disregard these people who are still very much alive, who can still tune in to watch new shows. Cartoons should bring people together, not tear them apart.

(I hope and pray that because Spielberg is involved in the new Animaniacs series, he still has respect and admiration for classic cartoons and wants to bring that spirit back again.)

Crap, now I have to finish buying the Animaniacs DVDs (and probably Pinky & The Brain too).

Do NOT screw this up, Spielberg. Seriously.