What is it about the year 1960 that made our cartoons go downhill?

What is it about the year 1960 that made our cartoons go downhill?

Attached: download (4).jpg (474x355, 33.99K)

Less money

Hanna Barbara realized that huge amounts of money could be saved by only animating small portions of a character at a time.

Why do you think so many animal characters of theirs had collars or ties and their human characters all had 5 o'clock shadows around their mouths? Those are the only areas that needed motion

The switch from movie theaters to television, this making the budgets dirt nothing.

Not just the animation, but characters just seem really obnoxious now, they're one dimensional. Nowadays, it's even worse. They lack humor except stuff that appeals to lgbt millennials who are a bunch of retards. They like high pitched squeaking.

Attached: download (5).jpg (474x266, 11.83K)

I really hate Hanna Barbara except Jetsons is good

There were a number of reasons

>popularization of television on expense of movie theaters
>no more government funding for propaganda cartoons
>a law that forbade using cartoons to advertise any kind of products
>strict censorship and guidelines on what was "acceptable", which caused cartoons to be derivative and soulless, recycled the same half a dozen storylines over and over again

Combined with the stigma that cartoons were "for children", the lack of interest (and profits) to be had from animation made the industry scale back and quality went down the drain. Only Hanna Barbera even bothered to try on this era
It wasn't all bad, though, this era was the days of glory of the saturday morning cartoon, and during the 60s, there was still plenty of creativity. The 70s was were things hit rock bottom, with endless Scooby doo clones, one worse than the other. The 80s ended this era when Reagan revoked the law that banned advertisement in cartoons, which instantly made them profitable again, and not only dedicated animation studios but also literal toy companies got in the ride. Quality rose, but the tradeoff was that cartoons became basically glorified toy commercials. Then came the 90s, which were marked by a reaction against this, but that's another story.

The 60s did have some pretty good stylization however. Too bad they were really cheap however

TV would also tighten the production schedules. Expecting new episodes in a timely manner.

The "golden age" generation started retiring, and they were replaced by kids who grew up watching other cartoons and copying superficial stylization without learning or understanding the fundamentals. People make a big fuss about the low budgets and shift to television, but that’s overblown to an extent. The earliest H-B cartoons look pretty good and visually pleasing, even if they’re cheap, and even Ren & Stimpy was technically cheap, limited animation (they just took advantage of layouts and strong direction). The biggest flaw with TV cartoons was the emphasis on (bad) writing, but that’s not inherent to the medium.

Conspiracy theory time

The reason for why animation went down hill is because of the Vietnam War. Animators and writers ended up getting drafted to fight, leaving only a bunch of no talent hacks to pick up the pieces until the year 1975, but by then it was too late to return to form.

The reason why Japan's animation continued to get better and better is because they didn't participate in any wars during those times.

That's just a theory, a GAY theory, thanks for watching.

Dont
They did what they could

Disney moved out of theatrical pictures
WB shutdown Termite Terrace
MGM shut down their animation division
Unviersal and Columbia weren't ever relevant.

DePatie–Freleng, UPA, and HB created a cartel on poorly made, cheap animation.

H-B was fine from about 1958 to 1962. There is a lot of good stuff in there (character designs, color theory, gags, solid drawing, unique expressions, voice acting) that carries the otherwise limited animation. The first season or two of the Flintstones is more-or-less the perfect demonstration of how to do a good animated sitcom with limited resources. They fell apart pretty quickly though, I suspect that they quit putting in the effort when more and more shows kept getting ordered and they got spread too thin.

How has no one given the obvious answer? Morality went down and took motivated talent with it. People without morals and Christianity have little reason to use their abilities to better society.

Sir this is the cartoon board.

Like even though UPA was cheap, there’s something very charming about this sort of art

Attached: 2849A67C-9A44-4AC7-86D8-35E57740E038.jpg (715x538, 49.25K)

Cartoons reflect our society. And they predict the future. What kids watch is the future.

Cute

That was a conscious design choice by people who were classically-trained in traditional drawing and understood the fundamentals beneath. The problem started when newcomers started to copy the superficial aspects of the modern style right off of the bat without learning the basics underneath. Furthermore, that’s not an inherently "cheap" style, there are full-budget, big studio theatrical cartoons from the 1950s and 1960s which incorporate it.

This isn't a cartoon board. It's a site made to change your mind and psychological function, baiting your loneliness with dopamine social interaction hits.

Well I can get that, even when I shitty do art I can’t do much without just looking at other people
>can’t into perspective
>anatomy is shit
I was more making a note of how simplistic and very easy this is compared to say very detailed backgrounds. Lots of UPA characters could be even transparent
Cute as fuck

Attached: 4B302F1E-97A1-429A-9054-10A841D6EA37.jpg (710x1268, 98.39K)

Oh something I forgot, I guess it’s kinda like people thinking Picasso was a bad artist because of how bizarre his art looked even though the man was a total child protégée and made shit that would make any master blush at like 12

Attached: 6841E545-0898-4855-A9B5-736F8A1AC493.png (1182x885, 789.91K)

Attached: C4113466-E46B-45A0-ADDF-B91B9C718634.jpg (400x306, 119.04K)

Hanna-Barbera created Tom and Jerry, so they definitely understood how to make great cartoons with big budgets that incorporate a full orchestra and foley, etc. Cartoons in the Golden Age were able to do all that and stay profitable by recycling plots, gags, one-liners, etc. This works for cartoon shorts that would play in cinemas, but you can't do that for weekly cartoons made for TV like The Flintstones or Scooby-Doo, so they had to cut corners in other ways.

There’s a big difference between the Flintstones and Scooby-Doo, though. The latter is virtually assembly line product with no direction.

We elected a papist.

I think that's because Scooby-Doo came nearly a decade after The Flintstones started, and was intended for kids while The Flintstones was more of an adult/family sitcom.

Tv budgets.

Then Hanna Barbara and UPA proved you can make a cartoon with one tenth the budget of anything that came before and audiences will still watch it. so everyone else jumped on board.

This is my favorite cartoon of all time. It just doesn't get any better than Mickey, Goofy and Donald going on a road trip in their camper.

The law came right back in 1990 making it so that no show could be a vehicle to sell merchandise again so everyone moved to anachronistic 1940s style series.

The no advertising law is still there but people are paying a lot less attention to it with things like Lego movie and the spinoffs.