Archive for category Writing
The Rise of the Animated Sitcom, 2.0
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Animation, Television, Writing on June 6, 2011
When an exasperated Bugs tries to passive-aggressively flee a misguided Lola Bunny from her insane belief that the two are dated, he spouts the usual one-liners that would normally invoke an exasperated laugh-track, only to have her respond in kind, invoking another theoretical laugh track. Here, however, Bugs ends up crushed under a giant, weighted barbell, his eyes popping out momentarily as a goofy weight-lifter looks on, confused. Don’t worry, Bugs is a pro. An animated pro.
Welcome to the new animated sitcom. Here, the stories are taken from the well-worn box of typical sitcom tropes and conventions and placed in animated form, but the kicker is that we allow those characters to get hurt, and our conflicts can involve magic and surreal insanity and goofy chaos to resolve them. These characters are real in spirit but fake in action. You’ve seen them before, but not quite like this.
The new animated sitcom differs from the old animated sitcom in that they embrace their cartoony elements more than ever before. The creators adore their squash and stretch roots, their sillier and exaggerated plot-lines, their anvils or otherwise heavy-objects crushing or hitting their characters flat along with their rooted, serial dilemmas easily solved within a 22-minute period. They aren’t The Simpsons, or King of the Hill, or Bob’s Burgers. They’re not Animaniacs, Freakazoid, or Spongebob. And they aren’t Batman, Justice League, or Ben-10. They are an oddly perfect mix of the three.
It was birthed in the fires of Family Guy, but sloppily regulated to cutaways and minor sight gags. It was fine, but MacFarlane’s titular show was always emphatic on the pop-culture gag and, in the end, falling back on the typical sitcom tropes we know and love (or tolerate). While Family Guy post-cancellation has been a hodge-podge of a mess (American Dad seems to be the stronger show nowadays, with also an firmer grip on its cartooniness and sitcomy-ness), the first three seasons broke the physical wall of what an animated sitcom could and should do. It said that animation should and could be, at times, goofy and silly. It is a fucking cartoon after all; maybe, on occasion, can it act like one?
Of course, critics don’t really care too much for such antics; when animated sitcoms get too “cartoony,” this is considered a bad thing. Take a moment and think about this, and reveal in the unaware irony. It’s good to know that the newer batch of critics and viewers, those of use who grew up on Rocko’s Modern Life, Angry Beavers, Invader Zim, and Eek The Cat are a little more lenient when, god-forbid, a cartoon act like a cartoon sometimes. Of course, our tastes and expectations change. We’re older and we’d like to explore older themes. We love our wallabies and beavers and aliens and (non)helpful felines, but now we want something a bit more deeper.
Family Guy was the trigger, but the first cartoon to really embrace cartoon and sitcom alike was Regular Show. It’s somewhat hindered in it’s 2 x eleven minute short format, but it’s a cartoon and a sitcom all the same. Two kids with a somewhat backbreaking job while trying to find ways to slack off and party? How many times have you seen shows like this come and go on ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC? Of course, those shows don’t end with a powerful being of the likes of Party Pete floating in the air and glowing. Or it doesn’t have a song that sends objects and creatures, literally, to the moon.
And yet there’s a heartfelt style to it. The dialogue is goofy and the beats in the early parts of the episodes are quiet, low-key, verbal based. They say they’re “pissed off” and “what the ‘f’.” They are frustrated by crappy video games and annoying friends, but are somewhat impressed by their boss who both hates and loves them. Regular Show kinda reminds me of the new Comedy Central show Workaholics, but more cartoony, more appreciative of its animated format. A few times, I’ll say to myself, “Ahh, so that’s why this is animated.” I couldn’t say that for King of the Hill.
People will be confused and ask who this is for. Who is the audience? It’s for you, guys. Anyone who understand the nature of demographics is in that demographic. Another great irony. Of course it doesn’t get as deep or life-reflexive as a typical sitcom. There are no character or story arcs as far as I can see. But re-occurring characters are committed to their roles, and the characters have a real, grounded place and real, grounded stakes.
Enter Lauren Faust and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.
I wrote about this before, but My Little Pony is the first real show to gauge itself as both a sitcom and a cartoon. It’s easy to focus on the cartoon elements, due to the colorful cast, the pun-based terminology, the expressions and squash-and-stretch emphasis, and the crazy situations the characters get into. However, the characters are deep and unique, the stories are grounded (in MLP-world terms), and there is indeed a story arc, or at least a consistency to the world Faust has created. The only thing that holds it back is it’s perceived demographic (young girls), but as far as the internet is concerned, My Little Pony is for everyone. And it’s a full 22-minutes, too.
Other shows can be argued to be part of the Animated Sitcom, 2.0, but fall short. Ugly Americans utilizes an exotic cast of wizards, werewolves, and robots as legit, fleshed-out characters; it’s limited animation holds it back, however, keeping it along side Futurama and most content on Adult Swim. It’s rare to see the characters of those shows really embrace their cartoony natures. I won’t count action cartoons either, as 1) they aren’t really cartoony and 2) they really aren’t sitcoms. (Batman: Brave and the Bold comes close, but it’s too removed from the “sitcom” trope and is firmly in the action realm.) Phineas and Ferb seem like a good candidate, although character depth is more or less focused on the characters of Candice and Doofenshmirtz, there’s no central theme (beyond two boys making the most of their summer), the 11-minute format is too restricting, and warmer, subtler moments come too few and far in-between to register any poignancy (although there is quite a bit of potential on the peripheral, like Doofenshmirtz’s daughter.) Likewise with Fairly Oddparents and TUFF Puppy. In fact, if you want something closer to compare this phenomenon to, look to the classic Disney Afternoon block from the 90s, where each ‘toon fully embrace it’s 24-minute timeframe for a solid, character-rich show with some pretty fun cartoony elements (although lacking in the sitcom department, there was a few basic elements from it, mostly among character relationships).
(As an aside: a lot of live-action kids TV shows seem much more cartoony than not these days, with their outlandish premises and storylines, like iCarly, The Wizards of Waverly Place, and Hannah Montana.)
With the new Looney Tunes Show embracing that dual role of both cartoon and sitcom, probably in the strongest fashion thus far (although it lacks both 1) the manic energy and 2) a coherent, fleshed-out world as tightly created as MLP), we’re slowly entering a brand new era of the late night, 8pm entertainment. It’s interesting to note that as of a few weeks ago Seth MacFarlane acquired the rights to reboot The Flintstones, arguably the first animated sitcom of its era, a show brimming with cartoony potential but held back by Hanna-Barbara’s limited animation. It’s interesting to see where he takes it; there is a chance that it will be a lame, pop-culture riddled mess, but there’s also a chance it could be a fairly fun, silly animated sitcom as well – after all, he did do typical cartoons before he received FOX money.
It will be interesting to see if Cartoon Network, Nick, or some of the outlier networks like Spike, Comedy Central, or FX start to snatch up sillier cartoon fare with a sitcom base. It would be nice to see more animated sitcoms embrace the “animated” portion of its namesake versus the “sitcom” part, and it looks like we’re seeing more of this in the coming years. Here’s hoping audiences love it as well.
The Looney Tunes Show – Review
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Animation, Television, Writing on May 16, 2011
I usually try not to do straight-up, out-and-out reviews, but I feel like The Looney Tunes Show do warrant at least a bit of a discussion, since there’s been a lot of talk, mostly negative, about this reboot. This cast of wacky characters, made immortal by the likes of Tex Avery, Robert McKimson, and Chuck Jones, have been thrust back into the limelight in a more generic, suburban area, redesigned in look and style. They are essentially goofy animals in a sitcom instead of characters in random, crazy situations. The “Looney” is hardly even touched upon, and the “Tunes” are relegated to 2-3 minute shorts which has a character singing about something dumb (perfect for the inevitable Youtube promo). And yet, I have to admit what I’ve seen was… rather entertaining.
It’s a tricky game. Essentially, in placing Bugs, Daffy, Porky, Speedy, and the rest in a sitcom, we’re entering territory which would usually involve character development. Not to say that they don’t deserve a bit of development, but it’ll be interesting to see how the writers will toe the line of keeping these characters fresh without retconning them to create audacious or inconsistent backstories or histories. Not many people are asking exactly how Bugs developed his acerbic, sarcastic wit, and whether it was in high school or college, and whether he went to those two places at all. So it’s easy to avoid that early on, but come season 2? I wish you luck.
The redesigns, for some reason, don’t look good in still photos, but work very well in motion. It’s refreshing to finally see models that have solid design, recognizable body types, and weight to them, designs that don’t look like they we’re created by interconnected straight-lines and/or what some have been calling “notebook doodles”. One of my favorite moments in Cats Don’t Dance was a simple scene where Danny and Miss Dimple talk back and forth at a table, and just watching them interact, watching their expressions and reactions and body language, was a real treat. And in a way I see that here. The sitcom elements actually work to emphasize the face and body. Animators can concentrate their efforts on the simpler movements and expressions, and you can tell these animators are truly enjoying it. (Although, anything below the waist looks kinda crappy. Daffy’s feet look like spikes, and Bugs feet are big, round Chi-pets.)
May 10th’s episode consisted of Bugs and Lola going on a date, while Daffy uses someone’s club ID number to schmooze in a fancy country club. The pacing and gags were solid, but nothing spectacular. Lola has went through the largest character change, from a strong, aggressive basketball player to an athletic, talkative crazy geek. The change-over, in theory, makes since. Space Jam Lola is pretty much impossible to develop in any long-term way. New Lola (NuLola?) can be mined much more for jokes, and seeing that she’s voiced by SNL star Kristen Wiig, there’s no need to worry about the comic timing. Still, the little things bother me, mainly the fact they moved her away from basketball (here, she plays tennis).
It’s clear that most characters will be regulated to jobs and roles that fit their character personalities. We probably will see Lola in most athletic events. Pepe Le Pew appears as the wedding planner (calling it – future roles include: interior designer, theater director, love guru). Porky seems to be the guy that never has pants (which is weird, since neither does Bugs or Daffy). I’m not sure how deep they’ll go in explaining how they make their money, but I’m somewhat fine with that.
What IS a nice surprise is the adult undercurrents the show has, which is probably the best throwback the 60s and 70s creators and writers could do. Remember, the classic cartoons were pretty risque by today’s standards, so it’s nice to see them push those boundaries, if even by increments. I was surprise to hear Lola mention flat out that “she had to pee”. Pepe gives both Lola and Bugs kisses upon introductions, and his sexual proclivities are pretty obvious (he was married 7 times, and steals Lola at the end for a potential 8th.) We probably won’t have characters shooting each other, but I think we’ll have some sly humor and relatively mature innuendos here and there. There’s no fart jokes, so there’s a start.
I don’t love the new show, but there’s a bit of potential, and it’s certainly no “Lunatics”. I’ll be keeping my eye on this. You should too, as I think we’re entering a new era in animated cartoons. (Tune in next week to see what that is.)
What does Black’s “Friday” Say about our culture today?
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Music, Television, Writing on April 26, 2011
It’s pretty easy to dismiss “Friday” as a shitty song – and it most certainly is. It’s also pretty easy to believe that such a song may “represent the downfall of American culture” or some other hyperbolic sentiment on how a fleeting piece of awful pop entertainment implies the end of the essence of American civilization. I’m going to get into that on my next entry – and that one will be a doozy – but I’m here to talk about the pure idiotic spectacle that is Friday, a music video that has no legal right to see the light of day.
I’m not a music guy, to be honest; in fact, I’m kinda sorta looking for a person who knows music well but isn’t a snob; who can “bridge” the link among entertainment forms in relation to his or her knowledge of various forms of music, without overwhelming the piece into a music criticism screed. Pitch aside, I do know what I like, and I definitely know what I hate, and I indeed join the nearly two million people who “thumb down” this song.
This song and video is a product of ARK Music Factory, a “record label” that is pretty much an overwrought virtual music video machine, an overpriced version of that carnival sideshow attraction where you and your friends can overact and lip-sync in front of a green screen to your favorite songs (this was big in the late 80s/early 90s). While such an act would cost you maybe 100 bucks (20 bucks split among your buds isn’t too pricey), ARK charges $2000 – $4000 for the same thing, albeit they assist in the writing and distribution of the song too, which is inherently a sadder revelation.
Still, for the wealthy, or desperate, it isn’t an awful idea, and ARK claims it isn’t doing it for fame. In fact, if the whole thing was an elaborate joke or silly game, it really wouldn’t be that bad. Rich kids have spend a lot more on stupider things (I’m thinking of a too-young-to-drive Bow-Wow owning a lime green Beetle with an X-Box inside), so four grand on a disposable song and music video isn’t the worst thing in the world.
Somehow, though, Friday became a “hit,” and it’s a little unclear how that happened, or whether the song’s popularity is due to overwhelming, misguided enjoyment (like how young teens buy whatever pop-crap album some pop-crap artist releases) or pure hate masked as ironic approval (the same idea that made William Hung and Tay Zonday popular). It doesn’t seem as if ARK did anything extraordinary in pushing the song, other than dropping it on iTunes. Perhaps it’s just that there’s a particularly brand of awful that pervades the song that made it so notorious; even crappy garage bands put more thought into their songs than this.
But there’s also something else about Friday that’s striking. In terms of the realm of all-things awful, there’s nothing new about it. Shitty lyrics. Inexplicable moments in the video. Terrible green-screening. Clothing from another dimension, let alone decade. Incomprehensible “guest” rapper. Awful lip syncing and camera work. There’s hundreds of Youtube videos out there with the same amount of crap, with budgets larger that four thousand. But it seems that the complete combination of all those elements make Friday into a particularly infamous disaster.
And it’s not even that much different from the songs that make the billboards these days. If you heard this on the radio during a mix, would you even bat an eye? Probably not. Like most pop songs, certain moments have a distinct “likeable-ness” to them, and while this song almost has nil, I kinda enjoy the “Partying, Partying (Yeah!)” part, a line that’s essentially interchangeable in every dance single, ever.
But everything else in this song is unworldly, in the sense that it’s popularity beguiles its content. The opening lyrics:
7am, waking up in the morning
Gotta be fresh, gotta go downstairs
Gotta have my bowl, gotta have cereal
Seein’ everything, the time is goin’
Tickin’ on and on, everybody’s rushin’
Gotta get down to the bus stop
Gotta catch my bus, I see my friends (My friends)
Kickin’ in the front seat
Sittin’ in the back seat
Gotta make my mind up
Which seat can I take?
— are the lyrics your five year-old child would sing to him or herself during the morning routine before school. You know, when they sing about everything they do and see and kinda try to make it rhyme, but fail, but doesn’t let it bother them? This is what Black did, and what the rapper did as well, if one substituted “white suburbia” and “black ghetto” into said child’s surrounding environment.
In the end, though, the truth is, Friday says nothing about our culture, other than terrible things can spread quicker than expected. If we’re truly judging the world based on arbitrary pageviews on a song that is, objective and subjectively, an abomination, then we really need to re-establish how the entire judging process and really examine what we mean by culture. Because, seriously, confusion over the days of the week can’t really be what America is all about. There’s too many cute animal pictures to counteract that.