AnimationNation Forum

AnimationNation
Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
my profile login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» AnimationNation   » General Discussion   » RUGRATS/ Klasky style-UGLY!

   
Author Topic: RUGRATS/ Klasky style-UGLY!
Smeeb!
Member
Member # 67

Icon 9 posted      Profile for Smeeb!           Edit/Delete Post 
Every time i see that Klasky Csupo "style" it makes me want to puke. I dont think its a good idea to bag on anyones style of art except there are so many shows with this wretched style of drawing it hurts my eyes to watch. Enough already i say...
IP: Logged
talos72
IE # 66
Member # 85

Icon 9 posted      Profile for talos72   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
it has been the art-house rave in animation ever since Simpsons...granted simpsons have decent design. but when beavis and butthead came on board, all bets were off in the design department. i guess those like clasky believe they are breaking design grounds with a totall disregard for common sense drawing elements (construction, appeal....etc). well now so many are doing the so called arthouse, most with poor results, that it has become tired and an eye sore.
IP: Logged
Scott Ruggels
IE # 56
Member # 60

Icon 9 posted      Profile for Scott Ruggels   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Ruggels         Edit/Delete Post 
i'd have to agree. the whole "bleckman-esque" (Gary Panter) style of ugly characters relly leaves me cold, that and theyalways pair that style with the most crushingly mundane crap. i mean You have rugrats, wild Thornberrys, and a whole raft of (I love this term) White Kids In School" cartoons (Thanks for the descriptor, Mr. Beck). Awful. there's no adventure in them, no decent 9mildly offensive0 comedy either.it's all just cooperative, and oversupervised crap.

I am an art snob, and the only thing that i appreciate is draftsmanship, and clean design. This "lumpy edgy" style is tired, and hopefully we can put it to bed, and put people that got good grades in art school back in charge. So if i am out of line, it's because of that POV.

Scott

scott


IP: Logged
Map
IEcm
Member # 9

Icon 5 posted      Profile for Map   Author's Homepage   Email Map         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not much of a fan of this style either....but I think when the movie comes out....it will make some dough.
IP: Logged
PonsonbyBritt
Member
Member # 136

Icon 7 posted      Profile for PonsonbyBritt   Email PonsonbyBritt         Edit/Delete Post 
Ahh, for the days of Hanna-Barbera in their prime, with those great Ed Benedict designed characters like The Flintstones, The Jetsons, Huck, Yogi, Snagglepuss, et al.
Not to mention the crazy stuff that Jay Ward gave us, as well as the Pink Panther and The Inspector cartoons that Friz did.

Yes, there was a time when TV cartoons were appealingly designed and just plain funny! They were also drawn by real goddam cartoonists, not these present-day so-called "animators" who consider cartooning to be somehow beneath them, never realizing that to be a real cartoonist takes a hell of a lot more talent and ability than they'll ever have. The result is the visual crap like the Klasky-Csupo output, as well as all those hideous things that come out under Disney's "One Saturday Morning" banner.

Blechh! The only guys trying to carry the torch these days are the brilliant John Kricfalusi and the folks that do Dexter's Lab.


IP: Logged
Map
IEcm
Member # 9

Icon 12 posted      Profile for Map   Author's Homepage   Email Map         Edit/Delete Post 
You tell them Britt....Yes more appealing and likeable character designs...not this ugly crap....that have bug eyes and to big of head's that would break off at the neck.
IP: Logged
Codrick
Member
Member # 162

Icon 9 posted      Profile for Codrick           Edit/Delete Post 
You know what kills me about the current crop of ugly character designs? They're hard to draw!! Or should I say, that no matter HOW well you draw, the Klasky folks don't think you've drawn "their characters." That's because it's not based on solid drawing--or even a grasp of design. But most of john krisvalucci's work is in this camp as well.
IP: Logged
talos72
IE # 66
Member # 85

Icon 8 posted      Profile for talos72   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
i hope animation does not go the way of many areas in fine arts where you have a group of elitist, egomaniacal artists who think they are so above folks with actual art skill and drawing ability. what you end up with are modern art galleries filled with nonsesical psuedo-intellectual schlock hanging on walls...hope i am not too off topic.
IP: Logged
Map
IEcm
Member # 9

Icon 6 posted      Profile for Map   Author's Homepage   Email Map         Edit/Delete Post 
I think artsy fartsy animation will allways be somewhere else instead of being on tv. Unless you are on a cable channel for art films?
IP: Logged
Scott Ruggels
IE # 56
Member # 60

Icon 9 posted      Profile for Scott Ruggels   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Ruggels         Edit/Delete Post 
Art after WW2, especially through the 60's just got into this rarified and closed little subculture that basically placed it out of the view of the common man, and therefore became irrelevant. This is not to say ARt is irrelevant, it is relevant, just not that NYc Gallery culture ****. after Pollock, art left the realm of craft. i like craft.

But then Paul driessen, is not exactly a fine draftsman, but his stuff doesn't look ?bad?. A little slow, perhaps, but very clen and watchable.

artsy fartsy animation will always be the slow spot in an evening's animation festival. :-)

Scott


IP: Logged
Map
IEcm
Member # 9

Icon 12 posted      Profile for Map   Author's Homepage   Email Map         Edit/Delete Post 
That's when you can take those cap naps during the screenings......
IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 9 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't like modern art much either, it doesn't speak to me personally... too much intellect and not enough gut feeling, and I also admire craftmanship, but I also recognize the value of highly conceptual "****". Many of these artists are complete flakes, however some are geniuses whose conceptual skills and sensibilities are well beyond most peoples understanding... I had an proffesor like that, when you were in her pressence, you were in awe. So I always feel a sting of resentment when these people are out right dismissed as artsy fartsy. It may not appeal to you, but if you don't dismiss it all outright, you may find some value in it. Of course I'm not talking about rugrats here... I'm talking art house animation.
IP: Logged
VixenDrawer
Member
Member # 128

Icon 11 posted      Profile for VixenDrawer   Email VixenDrawer         Edit/Delete Post 
OK, let's really break some ground here: all in favor of dropping the "Artsy" from "Artsy-Fartsy", signify by putting up the following smiley:


IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 12 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
I have a dear friend that works at Klasky as a character design supervisor. Before he was hired his style was far superior to those of the people he is working for. I haven't seen him in about a year, but i heard his portfolio reflects his tour of duty. I hope he snaps out of the nipple sucking for awhile to regain his natural abilities....its a sad state of affairs we live in.
IP: Logged
Bruce
IE # 1
Member # 36

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Bruce   Author's Homepage   Email Bruce         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott Ruggels wrote: "But then Paul driessen, is not exactly a fine draftsman, but his stuff doesn't look ?bad?. A little slow, perhaps, but very clen and watchable."

Driessen may not be a superb draftsman, but he is a damn fine Cartoonist with that kind of whacked-out persepective on things that's the mark of a truly eccentric artist, somebody with a unique and comically skewed view of the world, where the style is an expression of that view. I've always enjoyed his stuff, in part because he found a way to make his style move from the inside out, not from outside in like the Klasky krap, which I also loathe and despise. Driessen's timing isn't slow - its peculiarity is a big part of what draws you into his world, and I'm happy to go there whenever the opportunity presents itself.


IP: Logged
Scott Shaw!
IE # 132
Member # 172

Icon 4 posted      Profile for Scott Shaw!   Email Scott Shaw!         Edit/Delete Post 
I once interviewed for some storyboard work at Classless Cheapo a few years ago. I left a bunch of storyboards, including a few MUPPET BABIES samples, since I did a lot of stuff on that series, which RUGRATS bore more than a few similarities with (childlike action and posing, low POV's, etc.) I was eventually informed that my "talent obviously up to the task" of working on RUGRATS.

In response, I feigned total understanding and cooperation. (Actually, I was pissed!) "Well, I realize that RUGRATS requires a unique approach," I replied, "but I'm willing to adapt and if necessary to capture the show's style, could draw with my feet."

Needless to say, I've never bothered with applying there again (except when I worked with their Raoul Garcia -- a fine fellow indeed -- on a Pebbles cereal commercial a few years ago.)

------------------
Get your daily dose of the CRAZIEST comic books ever published -- SCOTT SHAW! presents ODDBALL COMICS, a weird 'n' wacky new comic book cover, every weekday, only at Comic Book Resources! www.comicbookresources.com


IP: Logged
gergley
IE # 200
Member # 74

Icon 9 posted      Profile for gergley   Email gergley         Edit/Delete Post 
but doesn't this varied approach lend itself to expanding the possiblities of what can be done.
i ain't defending the Rugrats here. far be it from me to even try understanding that series.
there is a disney sat. morn thing called "Teacher's Pet" that has a "lumpy" approach that i think works. it is well done, IMHO, because it takes advantage of the possiblilites of animation. true it is chatty, but, i think the cartoon style lends itself to the humor.
you can dis artsy fartsy til the square sun goes down but in terms of designing. obviously during the fifties there was a push at incorporating a form of synthetic cubism in the form of backgrounds. this approach won't work for char. design, unless as a joke, but, it is worth mixing it up a bit., on the whole,no?
obv. there are many diff cartoon styles that are used and can be effective dispite being difficult to animate or hard on the eyes to observe (i would think those panter-like ones would belie the 'look and feel' of the cartoon)
agreed or disputed?

IP: Logged
talos72
IE # 66
Member # 85

Icon 12 posted      Profile for talos72   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
hey, i am not completely against "arthouse" or "artsy" designs in animation. case in point were the great Ward Kimball animated shorts about the history of music (the name of the film escapes me). he was definitely influenced by the likes of Miro (kimballs favorite artist) and salvadore Dali. so it is possible to do experimental designs with good results, but the current slew of animted stuff ala clasky is just bad design, period. i for one do not go for the relativist view of "well, there is no such a thing as a poor design...its all subjective"-- WRONG! there is a definite set of universal elements in design that have different affects on the way people respond to them....roundness in design conveys warmth and "cuteness", while pointy elements in a character's design convey evil and sinister personality as an example.
IP: Logged
Jon
IE # 110
Member # 10

Icon 8 posted      Profile for Jon   Author's Homepage   Email Jon         Edit/Delete Post 
My theory about ugly-mation is that even the execs can draw that way, so they don't feel that the animators have anything up on them. It effectively keeps qualified, talented artists out of the equation.

As an interesting example (the names have been changed to avoid lawsuits), Studio A, with a track-record for Emmy-Award-winning, beautifully-drawn animation, is currently dying of head-up-its-ass disease. In the mean time, Superstar X has been working with that Studio to provide small amounts of animation for her show. That Superstar, however has a tight relationship with Network B, known for hideously ugly animation. Network B execs have admitted an admiration for Studio A's work, and are willing to air a show done by them, featuring Superstar X as an animated child (brilliant new concept? regardless ...).

So Studio A has determined that they need to come up with a style suitably ugly to air on Network B, even though the work they've been doing for Superstar X, which drew Network B's admiration, was done in the traditional beautiful style.

It's now clear that network people - the insiders - have become conditioned to LIKE bad animation and HATE good animation.

Remember "New Speak" in Orwell's "1984"? It's arrived in the animation industry.


IP: Logged
Scott Ruggels
IE # 56
Member # 60

Icon 9 posted      Profile for Scott Ruggels   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Ruggels         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh. who's gona narc from here? besides, most people post anonymously. what's the real dirt? :-0

And you are correct, in that there IS bad design, and "Crappy Cheapo" is it. Teacher's pet also falls into that, and i am not a fan of "chatty', though Nathan Lane is always amusing.

Scott


IP: Logged
gergley
IE # 200
Member # 74

Icon 9 posted      Profile for gergley   Email gergley         Edit/Delete Post 
i agree on the bad design comments. you're right and i can see it in things like the rugrats and the hideously lame kids in school cartoons.
my thing with Teacher's Pet is that it at least takes the cartoon aspect seriously in that it exaggerates characters and takes full advantage of the freedom that cartoons/ animation allows.
and, i like to see that style. i saw some character sheets on it last summer and just like the fact there there is something different like that under the disney umbrella. it ain't the tired looking afterschool special animation styles most of the disney one sat morn use. and it gives it just enough alt weekly comic- street cred to meet my likes with out going Derf on my tastebuds.

IP: Logged
PonsonbyBritt
Member
Member # 136

Icon 13 posted      Profile for PonsonbyBritt   Email PonsonbyBritt         Edit/Delete Post 
Since Gergley brought up Teacher's Pet, I feel I have to get my two cents in on this topic.

For the record, I have never liked the results of Disney getting into TV animated series. Though their first show, The Gummi Bears, was at least reasonably well designed and written, it could never hope to come close to Disney theatrical quality animation. So it followed with all the other series such as Darkwing Duck, Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers, Talespin, etc. All of them came off looking second rate, as one couldn't help but compare them to their theatrical counterparts of the past.

But then something else started happening. Disney decided to start putting out animated shows on characters that they had not even designed. One of the first was Marsupilami, a French comic book character, that did not translate too well for American tastes and quickly fizzled out. Then, much to my horror, Disney bought Doug away from Nickelodeon and put him on the air as "Disney's Doug"! Yeesh!

And so it followed that Disney felt it could put out shows that no longer looked anything like traditional Disney character styling. So now we have "Disney's Pepper Ann", "Disney's Recess" and this latest monstrosity, "Disney's Teacher's Pet". Some of you may like this diversity in design coming from Disney. I do not.

Up until that idiotic Eisner came along to ruin the company, there was always something distinctly recognizable about a Disney animation. A Disney film looked, sounded and FELT like a Disney film. You couldn't mistake it for anything other than a Disney film. In short, Disney had a strong "brand" appearance.

This used to be true of all the studios in the heyday of theatrical cartoons. A Disney cartoon was distinct from a Warners, which was distinct from a Lantz, etc. etc. Even the early TV animation was distinct. Hanna-Barbera was always unique and individual, as was Jay Ward's output. But now, there really are no brand distinctions. All the studios want to look like Disney, except Disney, which wants to look like Warners, Klasky-Csupo, Kricfalusi, you name it, so long as they don't look like Disney!

I hate Disney's contemporary TV product. Give me the days when Disney would produce theatrical quality animation like the Ludwig Von Drake specials that they generated for the old Wonderful World of Disney show. Now that's Disney animation!


IP: Logged
Map
IEcm
Member # 9

Icon 12 posted      Profile for Map   Author's Homepage   Email Map         Edit/Delete Post 
Ponsonby Britt.....Now that's the way to say it...I totally agree with you on this. Let's get back just producting better designed cartoons.
IP: Logged
gergley
IE # 200
Member # 74

Icon 9 posted      Profile for gergley   Email gergley         Edit/Delete Post 
as for 'some of ' us liking the diversity in design, i am sure it is just me.
i remember the fireside chats by Ludwig Von Duck. You are right, they matched the quality of the theatrical releases. And, the ABC tv fare doesn't come close to even a shade of a theater released short by disney.
i did some work for a studio that does the animation for disney's website. they animate all the tv properties that disney puts out now.
i don't like the lameness of the character designs for the most part. Doug looks nice and works for what it is, but, as for it not being Disney: it ain't.
you're right, those properties don't do Disney's brand justice. however....ugliness (Recess!?!?) aside, somehow this experimentation is ok to me.
don't get me wrong, i am all about respecting the sanctity of that which came before us (forebearers who drew/created) and showing that respect in the work that is done now.( being a comic book/strip dude, i try to remain true to George Herriman, Segar, Crumb et. al) but, i think i understand where disney's tv arm coming from in doing this stuff....
sure, you can say it is cheapcheapcheap, and it is for the most part cheap looking work, but, one assumes that someone must be jumping on the boat cuz it ain't all off the air yet.
i can't quite explain the phenom of what is occurring with what disney is doing now just yet. though, it obviously has to do with marketing the 'product' and spreading its wings beyond the already popular main Disney brand (the staple stable of characters.).
I will 'say' now that Rugrats does suck.it is scary looking. Too much uneccessary motion in that the lines are going all over the place.
though now that i think about it, i wouldn't have cared about Teacher's Pet if i were a kid. that may have frightened me too.

IP: Logged
Steve Carras
Member
Member # 2426

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Carras   Email Steve Carras         Edit/Delete Post 
Charles, is it okay if I put in a reply (sinc eat the TIME i was not even registererd?)

PonsonbyBritt and the others (Mr.Fun,etc.) in favor of the CLASSIC 1960s era are AB-SO-LUTELY right on.

I hate that K-C got evne in the BUsiness, and it has only gotten wrose (ED EDD AND EDDY, FAMILY GUY-yeah I know, not KC inspired but still ugly..)

REN AND STIMPY and BEAVIUS & BUTTHEAD OtOh, WAS UGLY on PURPOISE--that was the point, and they did a good job at it. Unforntunately ALL the CATOON CARTOONS, (PPG,too) that seem tof ollow take nly a few good hings from it..


Disney DID have several deviances like TOOT WHISTLE, and DALMATIONS and as som others have said got in some tr0uble But I even defend the entertainment (and in the first, educational) aAND aestetic value there (DALMATIONS micesd the "Ronald Searle" British style with Disney.

And the Prof.Von Drakes..right on, P.Britt. [Smile]

(Sorry to reply to a five year old topic but notinhg in the rules and again, I did not register till a few years later)

IP: Logged
The Mod
Administrator
Member # 854

Icon 12 posted      Profile for The Mod   Email The Mod         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, this topic is a bit of a resurrection isn't it?
IP: Logged
eboles
IE # 266
Member # 917

Icon 1 posted      Profile for eboles   Email eboles         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think the Clasky-Csupo influence is quite as prevalent as it once was. Which in my view was the only real problem. These things are okay when they are in moderation, but when one approach seems to take over, it can get irratating as hell.

I look forward to the day when you get the occaisional decade-old thread resurected. Because it's always interesting to see how things change over the passage of time.

IP: Logged


 
Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Animation Nation

Animation Nation © 1999-2012

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0