What cartoon has aged the worst in Yea Forums's opinion and why?

Both contain different kinds of shameless indoctrination

Attached: meirl.gif (500x281, 936K)

They did have some kickass intro themes though. Silverhawks, MASK, Wheeled Warriors.

I've been watching the New Adventures of Superman on DC Universe and it's been alright so far.

The original He-Man.

It's fucking terrible.

Her line makes no sense

nice revisionism

This is wrong, He-man ham and cheese didn't age at all. The animation is really fucking weird with all the reuse, that's it.

Haha, no.
t. forced myself through all 193 episodes

For me personally, Noah's Island.
Remembered it as this grand adventure epic similar to Watership Down. Upon rewatching it however I found it boring, awkward, incoherent and generally retarded. Especially season 3.

Some things are better left in the haze of childhood memories.

Attached: 9bb0d989cc251d7c4dca8a804ca11e02ba00fb91_hq.jpg (818x611, 35K)

Yeah, should be an and not some.

first season tmnt fucking sodomize SU and Star butterfly in any possible way.

It's five fucking episodes out of one hundred and ninety three

Avatar: The Last Airbender?

This

Whatever [your] favorite is.

Umm, ACTUALLY it's five pretty damn sweet episodes out of one hundred and ninety three.

No but yeah, it's a good and fun show but there are a lot of episodes that don't hold up. There is some good stuff in there though.

Attached: 1517689522014.jpg (750x558, 32K)

80s Thundercats was a toy commercial, but I'd rather have that toy commercial then that basedlet powered Calarts show that doesn't attempt to understand it's source material.

>s o y is still filtered
Are you fucking serious?

Based 9gagger

If you are five years old, yes.

I won't lie there's some nostalgia there. But it's still good fun.

In all honesty. Tiny Toon Adventures is the weakest of the Spielberg cartoons. It suffers from trying to imitate Genie from Aladdin, dates itself months in advance (Really? A 30 Something parody in 1992?), had tons of psa episodes like anti smoking, drinking, and a lame environmentalism episode . The show doesn’t understand the craft of pop culture during the 90s, as seen in the shite rap episode.There are still some great character banter, especially in the “dying joke” episode, and the actors loved working together. But TTA is weak compared to Animaniacs

Attached: 4AFA4939-4819-44EA-AC19-B91F1F5A8FCC.jpg (1043x1427, 1.37M)

Reboot, Beastwars, Any 1st generation CGI series to be honest.

>some
What you're doing is unadulterated nostalgiafaggotry.

Blame Yea Forums and /g/ the most for spamming it literally everywhere
Toys get taken away if people don't deserve them

I tried to watch three episodes of the 87 TMNT and it was pretty.bad. Their swords and weapons rarely connect with anything, none of the villains is ever threatening, the jokes don't land, and April is barely onscreen most of the time.

Maybe the earliest ones are better, since the three I watched were in the 50s, but 2003 is much better even if it also has lots of "wasted potential" moments.

yeah she's the reason for my bondage fetish too

Attached: april_oneil_tied_and_gagged__by_didandbondagegirl_dcsjstw-fullview.jpg (1280x720, 69K)

Movie is still dope though.

>since the three I watched were in the 50s
There’s a time travel episode?

Rocket Power

Attached: bait mtg.jpg (375x523, 29K)

30-something nerdy critics
30-something nerdy critics
30-something nerdy critics
Whining over nothing
GEEKY POWER!

Even if there wasn't, it's hard to tell sometimes: the 80s had a huge "duuuuuude remember the FIFTIES? Now THOSE were the days *sip*" nostalgia push. It's why you might see something contemporary of the time still have its cast go "hey, who wants to hang out at the malt shop?"

Rugrats

reboot.
has some severely dated visuals, along with the whole computer speak...

I still love it, but fuck me did that date itself worse then most other cartoons.

avatar is less fast forward because its bad and more because you want to see specific set pieces.

whenever I go to something old, i'm fast forwarding quite a bit because I have seen the setup before, or they are filling time.

I love this series. 2003 was best tho.

that's a tough one.
I never liked tmnt outside of the arcade game
SU while it has some massive faults later on... the first season had me because they would show a bit of the world as it is compared to a kids rose tinted glasses. that aspect wears off over time, but its something I enjoy seeing when shows do it right.

Visually, the early CG and the super-stylized ugly shit from the late 90's/early 00's. Story-wise, soulless corporate stuff from the COOL fad and the EXTREME fad periods. The stuff that doubled down on the cool and extreme because it really believed in it is at least fun to watch today, even if for the wrong reasons.

Hard to believe the same people also did Animals of Farthing Wood.

>In all honesty. Tiny Toon Adventures is the weakest of the Spielberg cartoons.

Ignoring Pinkie, Elmyra, and the Brain. I have never met any Histeria fans.

It's obviously drawn by an ESL.

I think LOSER POWER fits more than GEEKY POWER. The syllables are more distinct from one another.

>Even if there wasn't, it's hard to tell sometimes: the 80s had a huge "duuuuuude remember the FIFTIES? Now THOSE were the days *sip*"
I have no idea what you mean, fellow teen! Here, have some hot-roddin' teenages from Dimension X! with ELVIS shades! COOL? Daddio, these hep-cats are FROZEN!

Attached: Neutrinos.jpg (474x355, 18K)

>first season seasons
>one hundred and ninety

A lot of the premises of episodes DID feel lifted from the '50s, whether from Otto Binder-era Superman comics, B-movies, old sitcoms or hell, even the MUSIC of that time.

Like, remember the MULTIPLE episodes dedicated to Irma's Buddy Holly-lookalike boyfriends who croons doo-wop love ballads about wishing he were a turtle? That was fucking surreal in the 80s, but it makes sense if you realize how obsessed baby boomers were with that decade.

>Irma's Buddy Holly-lookalike boyfriends
Shit, that should be boyfriend, singular, there weren't mulltiple Buddy Hollies interested in Irma, although there WERE multiple Elvises... that were interested in Vernon and Berne...'s feet...

...it was a weird show, even for its time.

Attached: elvis.jpg (555x396, 64K)

I like it and maybe it is nostalgia that is talking here but i still laugh at stupid jokes they make in the show.

What is your problem? You really don't like TMNT 87?

The jokes land because they are so stupid.

That’s the nature of nostalgia. 30 years ago was the best time ever. I don’t get this BIG YOTE stuff the kids talk about these days.

AND I SAY

Attached: heyya.jpg (480x360, 14K)

Eh, not really. It's clear Farthing Woods had good source material but the presentation is kind of incompetent, especially third season.

It is shit.

Third season was cartoony. Too cartoony.

It gets very awkward side to side with characters dying and fighting for survival etc

In your opinion. Are you that same guy who is still mad that cartoon become more popular than the comic?

80s TMNT was a really fun show, but it was also an objectively bad one.

I don't even fucking know what you're talking about. You sound mad people won't buy into your plastic figurine commerical.

I don't really like either 2bh. The original was obviously designed with a much higher budget than it actually had in mind, and suffered a lot because of it

Atleast the intro is still very nice.

Best part of the show honestly (same thing with '87 turtles)
I love the concept of Noah's Island though. If there ever was a cartoon in need of a (competent) reboot it's this one.

lmao seems like the guy who did Farthing Woods 3rd season also did all of Noah's island.
web.archive.org/web/20061130160228/http://www.swalks.com/biography.html
So this might why they are so similar in quality.

Every 20's/early 30's cartoon.
>Hey guys look at these inanimate things prance around! Lmao!

This

Mirage purist? 2k3 poser or 2k12/Rise zoomer?
Choose your destiny

Would South Park count in this category too? Or is it exempt because it tried to ape cut out style while Mainframe and the other companies tried to realism-ish?

At least I have a destiny other than being a retarded nostalgiafag thinking a cartoon unilaterally written for 5 year-olds is a masterpiece of the century

The thread is things that aged badly. If betty boop is more enjoyable than season 4 of star vs. Then the cartoons of the 20's didn't age poorly.
The thirties I'll give you. Snow White is boring.

>piss is better than shit! pwn'd! xD

Gi Joe was weirdly subversive satire people don't give enough credit to.

I fucking love Histeria, hi.

>le ebin cartoon intellectual defending dumb shit

>revisionism
Sure, thats why every new TMNT cartoon is more closer to 87´s TMNT than original comic.

>forced myself through all 193 episodes
Why you forced yourself to watch something you dont like? that is a really retarded way to loss life.

>80s TMNT was a really fun show, but it was also an objectively bad one.
The first two seasons was fucking great and had an outstanding world building. After that the show become an endless filler, but that 2 original seasons stand as better shows than a lot of modern stuff.

youtube.com/watch?v=6MHg1-mpcUY

Objectively.

Attached: clutch11.jpg (300x225, 13K)

>shame they ripped it off from anime
Do you know which one?

Animation wise, I'd agree, but the designs and writing are top notch.

Beast wars designs with is shity. Writing is ok

Second season was shit already. First was mediocre.

80´s TMNT is heavily based on silly B horror movies, if you don´t like that you will hate the original show.

It's based on marketability to little kids you autist. It's doesn't become good because they referenced The Fly a few times.

>lamest kids jokes ever
And then some...

Attached: 8DCF10D9-B16B-452B-B568-A2FB46812237.jpg (426x438, 19K)

Why you post on Yea Forums? that is a really retarded way to loss life.

Which was especially stupid on the writer's part considering that one of their major voice actors was Lebanese-American.

>mommy! mommy!
>guess what my favorite youtuber told me to think this time!

>t. manchild watching youtubers ramble how intellectual and sophisticated every piece 80's schlock is

I don't think anything can beat this

Attached: ClutchCargoTitleCard.jpg (250x189, 10K)

>It's based on marketability to little kids
It is, but you fucking zoomer don´t know that silly B horror movies was really popular in 80´s thanks to VHS rent and the obsession people had with 50´s back then. TMNT had a lot of cameos and mentions to ScFi and horror because the writters were fans of b-movies.

that only makes it funnier

>Why you post on Yea Forums? that is a really retarded way to loss life.
Because I like to lurk on Yea Forums? you said you FORCED yourself to watched 193 episodes of a show you dont like, that´s retarded.

This

My point still stands you fucking redditor. If referencing shit makes a series good then Family Guy is to be considered the highest acheivement of animation.

Do you enjoy this convo? That's retarded.

>Do you enjoy this convo? That's retarded.
Yup! Enjoying this convo. Your reply looks like you FORCED yourself again.

>n-no I don't
>y-you do...!

As opposed to yours?

Hit the spot didn't I?

>Beast wars designs with is shity.

Let's try that again.

tfw no tmnt 87 reboot with april as the POV character

Well, there's things like Yo Yogi that were dated the day they were aired, but for something that was seen as a big deal then and is nothing much in retrospect, I'd go with Doug.

Still surprised this wasn't something Seth MacFarlane came up with.

Thank's Hasbro...

>I win because I said so

It has its gems

Attached: 1555322878042.jpg (1145x946, 193K)

i remember being very little and hating this series but youve convinced me to give it another chance

How's this?

Attached: April interview.jpg (536x793, 98K)

Dude, I´m not the guy who forced himself to watched 193 episodes of a show he didnt like it.

And you sound mad that someone disagrees with your opinion.

Gen1 Transformers is unwatchable.

T. Michael Bay

Every episode of that show is garbage EXCEPT The Dragon's Gift which is one of the best episodes of anything ever

Bayformers puts G1 to shame.

Yeaaaa, no.

>but 2003 is much better
Cringe.

Better, but wrong font.

Which font was it was using exactly? I tried a few of the normal, non-stylized ones, but nothing seemed to match.

Idk, I just noticed it's similar but not a total match.

Yea, but I didn't want to waste too much time trying to see which one was it, if it was even in the list of font styles to begin with.

Yeah I'd probably just have re-written the whole thing in a new font and changed it to an and Who's instead of who is, but you don't want to go and change someones work too much

True. Of course, a different kind of innuendo could have even been "Anyone up for an ""in-depth analysis?"" or something like that. I get that the joke is a play on words, so there's a lot of News-related puns that could be made.

It ain't masterpiece but you seem to get mad when people say they still enjoy it.

>After that the show become an endless filler
True but there was still some funny episodes.

>r-r-r-r-reddit!
>saying this because someone likes a show for having references

Attached: 1539731116061.gif (480x270, 528K)

"Who is up for some interview"?

They ape the '87 cartoon because that cartoon was so commercially successful. Just because it was commercially successful doesn't mean it was actually good. It's not hard to understand.

As someone said, English probably isn't the artist's first language. Kind of reminds me of that one Mavis pic where she's saying "You wanna some?"

>it was commercially successful doesn't mean it was actually good
True but why can't i still like it even to this day without faggots going HURRR IT AGED BAD SO YOU SHOULD NOT LIKE IT ANYMORE

Just ignore the guy. He's literally got no argument other than "I didn't like it, so neither can you!" and clearly isn't going to be persuaded by any ration reason you give him.

Art doesn't age. If something is bad now it was never good.

Except some art can age. What might have been decent/solid animation back in the day might not be all that great today. Even then, it still boils down to a matter of person taste and what one personally enjoys out of animation.

I find He-Man almost fascinating in how it doesn't in the slightest try to hide that it's just a toy commercial. Even in interviews about the show and toy line, the creators pretty much upfront say that they made the show purely so they could get the toy line produced.

Its an awful show, but the production background of the show is just the epitome of action based cartoons from the 80s. It may be THE example of merchandise driven cartoons.

Attached: Cg7GAuOU8AE5MOn.jpg (448x260, 32K)

I wouldn't say awful, just poorly realized since there was potential in the product, as what would be seen years later with the 2002 reboot. The comics produced around the time of the original, and the live-action film did have more substance to them, the latter of which even included an almost undeserved performance by a very talented actor who gave his role the love and attention you rare seen given to a literal cartoon villain.

The 40's had better technical animation that we get today. Animation quality is essentially timeless.

I repeat, if something is bad now, it was never good.

Depends on what you consider bad. There's a difference between something that is actually poorly made and something that you personally consider poorly done.

Of course. But that is the fallibility of taste, not the nature of the work changing from an objective standpoint. Recontextualizing a cartoon doesn't change the form or nature of the cartoon itself. Art doesn't age.

yeah but taste can change

Except some art can age. Certain techniques that were done before due to limited budgets might not look as good today.

The art itself has not aged, unless you are refering to the actual deterioration of film. Limited animation never looked good from the same angle that you are approaching it today. Likewise, if you approached limited animation with the same perspective as a hyperfan in the 60's, you would see the beauty of it. Art doesn't change, we do. It's up to you to adapt your taste to differing perspectives and see if something contains value TO YOU.

For example, Leiji Matsumoto's Captain Harlock might be animated like fucking Scooby Doo, or worse, but that doesn't mean you can't appreciate the beautiful choice of color, composition and his haunting character designs. The same applies for any art. Can you look past ideological shifts like the crows in dumbo? Can you see UPA toons and appreciate the artistry there, even though porn animators today have more movement?

It's your taste, not the art.

It's fucking both. Older animation was considered passable back then for various reasons, but as time goes on, it does show it age. You make it sound like age = bad, despite that never being how the word has worked. To say something has aged can mean a lot of things, good or bad or a bit of both.

Yeah, a lot of that can be attributed to that many of the decisions regarding the comic and show were made last minute just to get the toy out the door, so they didn't really put as much thought into it as they probably should have. On that note, I need to check out the 2002 cartoon.

I've never once heard someone describe a cartoon as "aged" and that be a positive point. You may say "vintage" or "retro" or "old school" but never "aged".

If you DO use the word age, you have to clarify immediately by adding "well" or "like fine wine", and all that really means is that your arbitrary modern standard is being applied to it and it "passes".

>nostagia
>nostalgia
Did Nostalgia fuck your girlfrend or what

It's hardly being arbitrary, you're just displaying the ability to critique older works. Again, not like "age" automatically means bad.

>At least I have a destiny
>he says, whilst screeching on a Taiwanese Wicker Basket weaving forum

Attached: Laughing Masons.png (438x469, 20K)

Some people are incapable of comprehending someone liking something older without there being some sort of personal investment from your youth. I get it all the time because I love a lot of older stuff. The truth is i'm relatively young so much of what i've discovered a fondness for is after the fact and well beyond the romantization period of my life.

It's arbitrary. Your standards are based on your time and place and your personal beliefs and artistic inclinations. You can change your perspective on pretty much any art by changing how you think about art in any way you see fit. Tomorrow you COULD look at Cluch Cargo and decide you love the character design and the unique process of Synchro Vox, if you really wanted.

Art doesn't age, it's all a matter of taste and perspective.

That, and the designs both in the show and comics were pretty good, it was just that the cartoon threw everything in and did whatever it felt like with little to no consideration, not unlike some of the Hanna-Barbara action cartoons where they had some great ideas on paper, but ultimately nonexistent/weak stories. The original Thundercats largely followed the same idea (make a big commercial for the toys), but did try to put more effort into the characters and world, which is probably why its 2011 reboot was met with higher expectations.

Oh yeah I'd say that other than He-Man's hair, I find their designs massively appealing. They have a distinct feel of sort of Conan the Barbarian and comics of that variety. The original comic that was packaged with the toy had an almost Heavy Metal Lite feel to it which was neat as fuck.

Maybe what's best to take away from this is that these not-so-great original shows set a groundwork that made it possible for better incarnations to exist later, after the concept had had a little more breathing room to let itself expand. You learn to love the characters in round one anyways, so you'll be waiting eagerly to see what they do in round two.

It's not arbitrary. The only way for it to be arbitrary is if you're judging something solely because you feel that you can or that you somehow think you must. An older work can age, but that doesn't mean it's suddenly bad, it's just that it's showing age due to whatever time it came from. Sure, we have the tech now to restore things like the resolution and film quality, but even then only so much can be done without either going overboard, or just tacking on fancy effects that may or may not help the original work look good in today's light. It's not just about taste, some things just age as time goes on. Paintings and music might not be quite as subject to age, but something like animation or certain practical effects can eventually start to show their age as the years go on. But again, saying something has aged doesn't mean it's got to be a bad thing and that it's somehow lost its original status of being good.

Pretty much, original Transformers was fun, but hardly anything other than "robots fight and turn into cars and shit". Things like Beast Wars built on the bits of lore that came from G1/G2, and of course the various anime and newer cartoons have found ways to expand on the general concept, to varying degrees of success. The films manage to do the same, at least early on before they just largely became noisy action flicks. Haven't seen the soft reboot with Bumblebee, though it sounds like they managed to bring in some zest after all the Bayformer nonsense.

I don't think you understand me. Let me try to explain it this way.

A man in 1789 can look at A Tom and Jerry short and see an abomination. A person in 2058 can see the same Tom and Jerry and see a masterpiece. Assuming that the work is preserved as originally intended, time has no bearing on the nature of the work itself. What "ages" is the median perspective of the observer. But even then, our taste is not strictly tied to the era in which we are born, through knowledge, context and our own personal viewpoint on life and art shifting, we can appreciate a work of art in a different way than we have moments before.

Taste ages, people age, perspective changes. Art is ageless.

I understand, I just don't agree. Art can age, but it still depends on all kinds of factors. Old video game that were considered great looking back in the day might be considered bad or okay nowadays. All it means is that what was possible then was great, but has started to show its age with the advancements in tech. Sure, it's harder to say that with animation given the current standard is pretty low with only so many shows really putting forth the effort to look good compared to older ones, but it doesn't mean that things can eventually show their age as time moves on.

The only thing that has aged in regards to, say, Atari 2600 Berzerk is the median perspective. A child born in 2015 or a sub saharan African man who has never seen a Television before can play it and see it for what it actually IS without the median perspective on what a video game is supposed to look like clouding their perception and decide that they think it looks beautiful.

As taste and perspective is relative, and we are able to modify or decide our taste through our thoughts and experiences, I believe an average 30 year old man from New York is able to understand what that child and African feels, if they are so inclined to do so.

I am defining the age of art as an objective standard, removed from generalized perspective and as a sole quality of the art ITSELF. You are conflating general opinion and experience as an age ascribed to the art.

The thing about general opinions is they are only a median perspective that can and is altered for each individual, so they are not a valuable or defined metric in which to base a theoretical "age" on a piece of art.

Doesn't change the fact that some things in art can age, maybe not everything, but there are cases of some things that were considered great back in the day not looking as good, and it's not just due to changes in taste.

Can you provide an example?

Cartoons age? Are you fucking delusional?
They're exactly as cool as they were. It's just you who has grown retarded bitter and discontent.

Off the top of my head, let's say the animated portions of Curse of Monkey Island. Back when it came out in 97, it was pretty damn impressive looking, certainly well above most cartoon shows, though arguably not quite on the level of what Disney was doing (though really, it's kind of unfair comparing 2D stuff to Disney who were always staffed with the best of the best more often than not). But looking at it now, aside from not only looking pretty grainy given the compression of the footage, there was only so much going on within the animated segments. Though that's not to say some parts weren't impressive.
youtube.com/watch?v=6p9bpguYS7A
This part with Lechuck appearing does have some great shots, and the detail as his body forms is pretty impressive. But there's no denying that the backgrounds are static and almost lifeless, and things like the water effects (and the 3D used in some shots for ships in scenes like this and others) are kind of jarring. Since we've been arguing with the word "aged", I would say this is a case of the art aging well enough, since some of the issues I mentioned are due to the compressed quality of the FMVs.

Attached: LeChuck.jpg (643x483, 42K)

I don't know, G1 Transformers episodes really weren't all that great, there are so many errors with continuity and just logic, the pacing sucks, and it just wouldn't work if it was released now instead of in the 80's. I'm not saying the whole show was bad though, just that it isn't super great on its own, but it opened the doors to a lot more cartoons and comics and whatnot that actually was good on its own merits, rather than just being a stepping stone to the franchise as a whole and all its pros and cons.
The movie was pretty good though.

Now ask yourself. If time travel exists, and you traveled back to 1997 as you are now, and watched The Curse of Monkey Island, would your opinions on it change?

What if the you from 1997 were able to travel to 2019 and watch it, would your opinions change then?

The answer is, quite obviously, no. So it isn't the art itself that has changed, but your perspective. In this case, what acceptable video quality looks like.

For christs sake man, the fact that you need to bring out such hyperbole just makes it sound like you don't want to admit that things can age artwise. As I said, not everything in the realm of art ages, but some things do. Doesn't mean something is bad now if you say "well that's starting to show its age, it just means the quality isn't able to keep up with the times. That in no way means it'll continue to decline until it's suddenly bad, just that it's only going to look so well up until a certain point. You can bring up hypothetical things like "what if someone from the distant future saw x", but it doesn't change the fact that the quality of something is pretty much locked unless there's a way to ensure it can be cleaned up and presented in its best form years and years later.

You've been unable to provide a piece of art that has aged by virtue of itself. The Curse of Monkey Island has "aged" because of a change in your perspective.

Guess what? That perspective is not universal either. For example I really like lo-fi VHS recordings because of their aesthetics. While someone else may prefer a digitally remastered bluray of the same piece of art.

The thought experiement is to illustrate clearly that the art itself has remained the constant, the only thing that has changed is the perspective of the person viewing it.

>t. Nostalgiacritic

Whatever, I gave an example, if you're not going to even try and accept it and just go "it's all just perspective", then I don't know what else to say. Art can age, it's not like it's some bizarre concept nobody has ever stated before.

I think you've been unable to provide an adequate example, because what you've posted is, quite literally, an example of something "aging" by your change in perspective.

You believed it looked good in the year 1997, you believes it looks less good now. It looks the same as it did in both years and anytime in between, a textbook constant. The only thing that changed in the equation was you.

Didn’t the show became absolute garbage on the last couple of seasons when they tried to make it too serious just to follow the fad other shows were establishing at that point? I legit remembering losing interest in TMNT at that point.

I gave a good example. I explained my example. You just seem to want to keep holding to the idea that it's just purely perspective when it's clearly more than that.

Can you articulate clearly how the art itself has changed in any way, divorced from perspective? I want to understand your point of view.

The art doesn't have to change to have aged, it just simply to show that it isn't as comparable to other things now. Aging doesn't mean that the subject has changed, just that the quality isn't able to match up as time goes on. Certainly older animations hold out much longer due to the care put into them (among other things), but then you'll have things that can look dated within a few years or almost right out of the gate.

TMNT 87 wasn't considered good when it came out either. The only ones who think it's great are retarded nostalgiafags with their heads too far up their assholes. Alternatively legit manchildren who are five years old mentally.

107194392 (You)

>comparable to other things
You see what you just did there, right? You are now talking about the art through the lens of an observer, someone who, by virtue of their human faculties, has a perspective.

Other art existing around the original art doesn't change the nature of the original art, all it does is introduce a new context with which one may color their perspective. You need an observer for there to be context. On top of that, context is not necessarily objective, I may see Toy Story and think it's beautiful, someone else may see it and think it looks like shit. We are seeing the same thing in a rather similar context, the only difference is perspective.

I believe the theoretical age of a piece of art should not be determined by a nebulous and ever shifting concept like the average perception. Art doesn't age, people do.

South Park got "remastered" and I think it was made of all pictures of construction paper anyway, not a lot of purely computer generated images.
It is interesting how it started out as the show with "lazy animation" now almost every other show is much lazier and more static.

Only the shorts leading up to the show and the pilot was done with paper. The rest is computer animated.

Whatever, clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree. I say some art can age, you feel that it doesn't. It's obvious nobody is going to budge and things are just going to keep going back and forth.

Alright then. Good talk, while I haven't really been able to understand your perspective at all, i've solidified my own into words. Thanks.

Much of the Early Zoomer era was kinda a dark age for animation.

Attached: 1554425635207.png (1400x1039, 3.15M)

Yea, it was a good talk.

Attached: Beast Boy.jpg (640x480, 60K)

It's going to be amazing once we reach the 2040s and zoomers unironically try to convince people how great the 00s were.

2000-2005 was more millennial, but 2005-2009 was more zoomer.

Ugh, I hope I'm dead by then. The TMNTfags ITT are deluded enough, but at least I didn't have to live through the awfulness of TMNTmania as an adult only to have people mindlessly praising the shit out of it later on.

The early 00's were not that bad.

Already came across fuckers nostalgic for Hannah Montana

Zoomers now post nostalgia for 2006-2010 on social media. Feels surreal, when that era was i remember it was widely considered the "downfall into shit era" on social media.

Attached: 1554929456256.png (1096x1059, 1.07M)

that's the problem with the internet. People with no life, freshly 18, with the desire to drag attention to them. But unlike their parents, they haven't lived any historic moments to segregate together, so they have to shill their superficial, extremely mundane and personal experiences like "omg who remember spaggethi-o's friday?"

This is a bait, right?

The ´87 cartoon is referenced, not only for the success of the formula, but also because did a better work expanding the original concepts and characters. TMNT world building was better on 80´s cartoon, thats why people still connect turtles with cowabunga, pizza, Bebop & Rocksteady, technodreme, mutants, etc.

tfw Zoomers probably don't even remember Spaghetti O's

Yea Forums - Comics, Cartoons and meditations on the nature of art

I liked character designs from the 80s over the super stylized/realistic designs of some variants today

tmnt looked like bobbleheads and splinter resembled a dog but they still are more recognizable and iconic compared to newer versions of the show

Super stylized/realistic designs are cancer.

Beast Wars trumps RePuke in both animation and story.

This thread is about cartoons that aged poorly.
Clutch Cargo was always poor.

So then what isn't?

middle point.

Nope
3-6 seasons are mediocre. 7 season last of the pre-redsky is very close to season 1 both in quality and animation.
Season 8 and 10 were excellent. Shredder blowing Chanel 6 building is kino and Dregg slowly loosing his shit is good too

There is a lot of good episodes, I give you that, my complain is how the show stopped to had arcs and become mostly a filler show with no direction beside "technodreme is in the center of the planet", "Technodreme is in dimension X", "Technodreme is in the antartic"; etc.
This, the show start to take a new direction at the end, people can like it or not, but arcs become important again, and each action remained for the next episode.

80´s TMNT is a great show overall. In my opinion is still the best and most consistent show of the franchise and the one with the best and more memorable gallery of villians and allies.

Attached: irma.jpg (734x950, 224K)

How is it more consistent than the 2003 series?

>Yea Forums - Comics, Cartoons, Toonami, and Live Action Heroes

The people who made Hysteria did not even like it.

That's back when America was Great

It's really season 3-5 where it turned into incredibly lazy "Who the fuck cares, just have them say Cowabunga and eat pizza and kids will like it" pointless crap. Episodes were dedicated to showing off some new character that will never appear ever again just to sell a toy, or the endless Shredder needs to steal some thing to power the technodrome plots over and over again.

No one over the age of 10 was supposed to like it in the first place. They buy the toys, play with them while watching, then they grow up realize this is stupid and move on.

>then they grow up realize this is stupid and move on.
Evidently not everyone.

[citation needed]

Interior Semiotics has ruined it for them.

Wrong, fag. With cartoons like this it's:
>enjoy it for the action as a kid
>jerk of to the girls in it as a tween
>call it stupid as an edgy teen
>enjoy it for how pleasantly silly it is as an adult

>rewatch Teddy Ruxpin
>actually has a continuous plot from beginning to end
>tons of worldbuilding
>history of a lost civilization is gradually revealed over the course of the series
Sure, some of the songs can get kind of annoying, but some aspects held up pretty well.

>Interior Semiotics
What does semiotics even mean? Is the title indicative to what happened, or is it like the "bear" in koala bear, where it isn't that accurate to what the actual thing really is?

knowyourmeme.com/memes/interior-semiotics

I know that already, I'm asking if semiotics is a real word by itself or not, and if it is what does it mean?

It's amazing how popular the Turtles were, their show (after the first half of the first season) was corny even for the time. But I guess they had a bit more self-awareness than He-man and Thundercats.

>se·mi·ot·ics
>/ˌsemēˈädiks/
>noun
>the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

Hey now. Adults also watch to jerk off to the girls.

Okay, now does the title actually make any sense considering what happens, or is it irrelevant? I can't see a relation between the title and content, but I'm not exactly an expert when it comes to analyzing titles.

2003 still take more elements from the 80´s cartoon than the comic.

>TMNT 87 wasn't considered good when it came out either.
I guess you wasnt even born by 87. I was 15 back then and the show had rave critics, except for people who critized it for the ninja/violence element. The show had one of the biggest ratings of the season.

Fucking newfags

So does the first movie which is often agreed to be well made.

Dude why do you think TMNT got a live action movie just three years after the cartoon started airing?

>WOW THEY HAD AN ARAB IN THE TEAM HOW DARE THEM MAKLE FUN OF REALITY ARABS DINDUNOTHNG YOU DESERVE DEATH ANYWAY
calm th fuck down, muhamad.

Because five year olds ate that shit up.
I don't know about you but I don't particularily care using the tastes of five year olds as a reliable measurement of quality.

I don't actually hate red sky seasons but it was clearly them trying get kids back to watching them and not X-men.

The characters from the movie are more closer to ´87 cartoon than the original comic, also april reporter, also cowabunga, also pizza, also childish turtles, also, colored turtles, etc.

>Because five year olds ate that shit up.
The show had rave reviews FROM critics. There was a turtlemania and a lot of teen and adult people watched the show and played the arcades. It had a cult following more closer to transformers than he-man. TMNT a big worldwide phenomenon, closer to what was pokemon, of course thats dificult to realize watching the poor performance of the last shows compared to the original one.

In the 80's especially, cartoons were judged by their appeal to kids. Critics would invariably give a show good ratings depending on how into it their kids were. Not because they themselves found it captivating seeing Shredder stumble and fall on his behind for the 62nd time.
>There was a turtlemania and a lot of teen and adult people watched the show and played the arcades.
Yeah I don't buy that at all. Maybe 12-13 year olds and a select few autists.

>In the 80's especially, cartoons were judged by their appeal to kids. Critics would invariably give a show good ratings depending on how into it their kids wer
I think you wasn´t born by ´87, a lot of cartoons got terrible reviews back then. TMNT was one of the few who got praise because of the tone, self-awarenes and references to b-movies. The only critics come from violence/ninja thing.
>Yeah I don't buy that at all. Maybe 12-13 year olds and a select few autists.
Again, it shows that you wasnt alive by 80´s, since there was a broad audience for TMNT. Its pokemon over and over again, product targeted for kids, but with a cult following from a lot of people.

>TMNT was one of the few who got praise because of the tone, self-awarenes and references to b-movies.
Cherry picking the most autistic reviews.
Alternatively reviews only concerning itself with the first season.
>Its pokemon over and over again, product targeted for kids, but with a cult following from a lot of people.
No adults fucking liked pokemon either when it came out. They found it obnoxious and the anime series, dumb and shitty as it is, is still light years ahead of TMNT 87 in terms of entertainment value.

>Cherry picking the most autistic reviews.
Moving goalpost, uh? Most critics back then divided between negative because of "beware of violence" or praise because of script, production values and self-awareness. There wasn´t a middle point, TMNT was above your regular marketing cartoon of 80´s and was the model for a lot of 90´s shows. Most of negative reviews are from contemporary reviewers who compare it with more "serious" take of 2003 series.
>Alternatively reviews only concerning itself with the first season.
Most critics covered until season 3. I remember because it was the last time I read a review of the show.
>No adults fucking liked pokemon either when it came out.
I´m starting to think you wasn´t even born by ´98

>Moving goalpost, uh? Most critics back then divided between negative because of "beware of violence" or praise because of script, production values and self-awareness. There wasn´t a middle point, TMNT was above your regular marketing cartoon of 80´s and was the model for a lot of 90´s shows. Most of negative reviews are from contemporary reviewers who compare it with more "serious" take of 2003 series.
[citation needed]
>Most critics covered until season 3. I remember because it was the last time I read a review of the show.
Where the fuck did you find these "reviews"? Mouthbreathers Monthly?
>I´m starting to think you wasn´t even born by ´98
See, this basically confirms you're a fucking retard and a manchild. You expect me to mindlessly defend a shit show just because I grew up with it? Pokemon was my favorite show back in the day, but I've matured enough to admit I was a retarded seven year old obsessing over mind-numbing tripe made to sell merch. I can still enjoy the memories of watching it but I'm a bit too self-aware nowadays to go propagating it as good to anyone above the age of 10.
All the parents in our neighborhood were fucking sick of pokemon by the way. To adults it was the worst thing ever.

>Where the fuck did you find these "reviews"?
I was alive back then, I read them on magazines, you know paper, not digital.
>All the parents in our neighborhood were fucking sick of pokemon
I´m sad to read your parents and their friends were such a cunts.

>I was alive back then, I read them on magazines, you know paper, not digital.
Yes and I asked what kind of special needs magazine would praise anything TMNT past the five first episodes?
>I´m sad to read your parents and their friends were such a cunts.
It's not about being a cunt, retard. It's about the fully developed adult brain finding content-less toy commercials boring and uninteresting.