Ever before noticed the cartoon demonstrates that were animated before 1950’s seem to be to have more life and exaggeration to it? For example, have you ever compared a 1940’s Looney Tunes cartoon to a 1960’s Flintstones animation? kim cartoon

You know before I actually begin, if you’re interested, why don’t you Yahoo, sit back relax and look into the two toon videos I listed below. Decide if you can point out different things about them, and of course you don’t have to wact a film. Although if you can to keep things interesting, just take a top.

The first video is a Looney Tune toon in short supply of Daffy Duck/Elmer Fudd called To Duck or To never Duck. The toon short was a Warner Bros. production that was released to theaters in 1943. Yes, read that right 43…

The second show is a Flintstones cartoon, Simply no Help Wanted, which began on ABC’s TV network in 1960. Yes, Yet again 1960…

So go brain, don’t be afraid to give it a shot, take a look and I’ll come back later. Trust me, Soon we will be right back.

Okay, so notice any differences? Yes? Certainly you did! But for fun let’s assume you didn’t.

Though by looking at both the videos it can blatantly evident that the animation in Looney Tracks seem to be far more fluent and exciting. Personally, I was drawn in by the exaggerations of the movement. Where as, the Flintstones portrayed little to no animation movements whatsoever. In fact, I was HAVING very annoyed by the regular isolation of the bobbing heads.

I was having frequent reminders of driving to work, finding the Bobblehead bobbing again and forth in the corner of my eyesight on the dashboard. With all honesty, I cannot believe this was even thought to be a form of animation. But hey, We guess it falls under the same thought of The talanted taylor being a country artist.

So just why the step back? Why is a 1943 cartoon more aesthetically appealing than a 60 cartoon? (And even some of today’s cartoons. )

Simple, looking forward to it?

Back in the 1940’s and even before the 1940’s, cartoons were called ‘theatrical cartoon shorts’. These cartoons were at first released to theaters and only theaters. They were considered side shows or previews for a premiering live action film. Many cartoon shorts were only about 5-7 minutes long hence, the key reason why they were called ‘shorts’.

Nevertheless the real key to why these cartoon shorts were more pleasing than early TV animation shows were due to a couple things.

First, there were usually, approximately 10-13 theatrical cartoon shorts produced every year for an offering studio, with each animation being only a few minutes long. Yet , for TV cartoon shows, companies were producing a new show each week with an overall total run time of approximately 20 minutes.

Of course to effectively produce a 20 minute show each week, the quality of the animation had to be cut. Often times cartoon cells or backgrounds would be re-used multiple times in several shows. (You’d probably noticed this a great deal. )

For animators and the animation studio, the process wasn’t very fun, challenging or thrilling. Yet as for networks, they did not care if the animation was advantages or disadvantages. The only thing they cared about were the ratings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *