Are there any theatrical animation studios who you thought did better work when they transitioned to television in the 1950s and ’60s, whether for weekend cartoons or television commercials? If so, which ones and why? For example, how does THE BUGS BUNNY SHOW of 1960 compare to the Warner Brothers theatrical cartoons of 1960? How do Terrytoons’ television commercials for Piels Beer in 1957 compare to the studio’s theatrical cartoons of 1957? How does the DISNEYLAND tv show compare to Disney’s theatrical shorts of the 1950s? How do Paramount’s tv cartoons for King Features Syndicate between 1960 and 1961 compare to its theatrical work of the period?
Are you raising this question because you want to know which studio had better animation on television compared to others, or better concepts and stories? Because a misconception to be aware about is that most television animation is outsourced to 3rd party companies who work by contract. And so while I think it has been obvious that back in the 1980s and 1990s, Disney had the strongest and most successful tv presence along-side their theatrical productions, most if not all of their tv work was outsourced to Japan and Taiwan. They contracted a fantastic Japanese studio named Tokyo Movie Shinsha (TMS), to create the first season of "Ducktales," "Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers," and the entire short lived series "The Gummie Bears." They also animated the first season of "Inspector Gadget" for DiC. But after those initial seasons, the animation quality dips off quite a bit, because Wang Film Productions began taking over as the sole studio, until periodically, you'll see much more expressive and skillful work by Disney's Austrailian Branch pop in here and there, especially with the show, "Timone & Pumba." So basically, you need to be more clear about what you're really trying to get at with this question, and what you expect people to be researching and talking about when they write this article. – Jonathan Leiter3 days ago
Thanks. I'm talking about theatrical studios that produced for television while still making theatrical cartoons. For example, how does THE BUGS BUNNY SHOW of 1960 compare to the Warner Brothers theatrical cartoons of 1960? How do Terrytoons' television commercials for Piels Beer in 1957 compare to the studio's theatrical cartoons of 1957? How does the DISNEYLAND tv show compare to Disney's theatrical shorts of the 1950s? How do Paramount's tv cartoons for King Features Syndicate between 1960 and 1961 compare to its theatrical work of the period? – drchrisp3 days ago
Okay, then you MUST state that you are talking about a TV presence from that era. Because when I read this, I thought you were referring to things like Dreamworks making films like "Kung Fu Panda," "How to Train Your Dragon," and "Madagascar," and then creating TV shows based on those properties. Or Disney making "Aladdin," "The Little Mermaid," and "The Lion King," and making TV shows based on those, as well as any other original series that followed along-side. Being that you want to talk far more specifically about a time in early television when these studios were still doing all of their animation "in-house"--which allows for a much more reasonable and accurate comparison--you should make the time period very clear in your topic description. – Jonathan Leiter1 day ago
An analysis of psychopathology as a plot device (particularly in horror films), a phenomenon I’ve come to identify as "sexy slasher" movies, and humanism (or lack thereof) in depictions of mental illness in mainstream television, films and books.
Think deeply about how movies such as Inception, Interstellar, or Memento get people to think over and over again about the outcome of the movie, and if they have the same exact thoughts as the movie director had. Movies like this use the depth of the mind to extract a thought-process that evokes a sense of confusion and disbelief. Do movie director’s do this on purpose, or is just the viewer thinking too deeply about the outcome or plot?
Is Game of Thrones misogynistic or empowering? While it is generally accepted that Game of Thrones was originally geared toward young men there is a large and growing fan base of young women who follow and enjoy the show. How can Game of Thrones market itself to young women, or how does it market itself to young women already? Has its approach changed over the course of its running time?
The question I propose is who influences who? Does the media influence the people or do the people influence the media?
Many people believe people influence the media because the media shows the people what they want to see. That is not always the case.
I recently began to realize that it is actually the media that influences the people simply because the media chooses what the people see. I am sure this is not intentional, but how can the people know what side to choose if they are not getting the full story?
In defense of the media, they only get so much time to present the story, and they must choose what to write about. They must pick what the most important information is, which is not always what others feel is most important.
Theorists go back and forth on this, and the question still stands. Who influences who?
I think it's both in the sense that people react to scandal and shock and controversy. That's what they watch. Because of this, the media needs to generate views and ratings so they give the people these types of stories. Unfortunately, these stories often exaggerate and leave out pieces of information that could help debunk whatever side the story is siding with. I think the thing to remember is that everyone has a motive and some sort of propaganda they want to push. So while I think it's a little bit of both influencing both. I think the bigger issue is is it okay to show stories a certain way to incite certain reactions? Is it okay to show news in a way that makes our opinions for us? – Tatijana1 week ago
Both cases can be tricky to communicate. The media definitely has a lot to do with how society as a whole is shaping America, but have the people forced the media to partake this way? The media only reflects what the people want to see.
– Whitaker6 hours ago
Analyze and discuss the more adult themes and issues in the recent Disney movie "Inside Out." This includes subjects such as depression, anxiety, self esteem, personality identification, memories (long/short term and the concept of the subconscious), and differentiating emotions within the self, especially the imbalanced ratio of generally happy to general sad emotions.
I think you could also look at this psychoanalytically in terms of repression and the 'return of the repressed'. We see that Joy controls a couple of memories that are initially believed to be entirely happy, but then we see that there is more to these memories and that there is some other emotion connected to them. That hockey team memory is the one that really comes to mind. The sadness that Riley felt in losing the game/feeling responsible for the loss is not there at all, all we see is her team suppoesdly celebrating with her. But later on we find out the whole truth to the memory and that there is some repressed sadness there. – Jamie White6 hours ago
If you ever played an online game, whether it was a platform based shooter like Call of Duty or Halo, to popular MOBA games like League of Legends or DOTA 2, you most likely have come across a "toxic" player. While the general definition can vary from person to person, but the general consensus is that it’s an incredibly rude person who will most likely use inflammatory language, otherwise known as the "I f’ed your mom" guy.
Why do people act like this? This stems from internet anonymity. The idea of cyber bullying and the mysterious veil the internet provides. While this is an issue all of its own, it is worth talking about in the context of gaming.
While not always the case, run of the mill cyber bullying is a premeditated action, adding the element of gaming can enhance this. In competitive gaming, adding the adrenaline can make even the most mild mannered person can succumb to creative (or lack thereof) name calling. I consider myself a laid back person/gamer, but every now and then if I’m playing League of Legends I find myself saying in real life, or rarely in the in game chat, things that I wouldn’t normally say, and I can get away with it because it’s such a fleeting moment without any real punishment.
This topic can explore anecdotal evidence, psychological analysis of why things like this happen, or even if it’s really a problem in the gaming world at all, and it’s just some friendly and competitive smack talk and that people are just too sensitive.
I would really find things that argue both points of view for this topic. Yes, being anonymous has something to do with the slamming, but what else goes on in a person's mind in these types of scenarios? – BethanyS1 day ago
There are definitely psychological reasons behind this. The level of accountability someone will face is absolutely a factor involved in how an individual chooses to act. Also, because they don't have to physically seen the person they are hurting, it is very easy to dehumanize and distance themselves from feeling any sort of empathy for the victim. – krystalleger1 day ago
Hyperbole and a Half. Let’s Pretend This Never Happened: A Mostly True Memoir. Humans of New York. Even Dog Shaming. All of these are blogs turned into books—although some are more successful than others. What makes for a successful transition from blog to book? How has this changed publishing (for better or worse)? Should prospective writers be writing in blogs, in the hopes of building an audience base and working towards a book deal? Or is this a fad that will play itself out?
This would be a great article I'd love to read. I'm sure lots of people on this site would like to know whether writing on a blog is worth it and if it would in fact get them and audience or book deal? Research the stories of the aforementioned blogs and rate how successful each was, why, and how they could have gotten more popular. Are they getting book deals or just self-publishing? What markets are being targeted? – Slaidey2 days ago
I am interested in the relationship between creative and commercial endeavors when it comes to blogging, writing and publishing (particularly as a blogger and aspiring author myself). This subject material is definitely relevant and that's why I decided to comment on it -- intriguing stuff, for sure! – emich134 hours ago
Our Home’s Fox Deity, also known as Wagaya No Oinari-Sama, is a genre-bent anime based on a series of light novels by Jin Shibamura. The plot is fairly standard (a family is plagued by youkai and so release the family guardian spirit to protect themselves, but said spirit has to find a way to fit in with modern society), but don’t let that fool you. While far from perfect, Our Home’s Fox Deity goes out of its way to differentiate itself from other shows with similar set ups.
Combining elements of shōnen action, a small degree of harem-esque set-up, a smidgen of horror (including some beautifully done werewolf transformations later in the series) and boasting a fair few slice of life tendencies, it’s no wonder that the show is commonly described as not knowing what it wants to be. Rather than come across as directionless however, the genre-bending pays off thanks to a decent cast that includes a nice variety of spirits: the title fox deity Kuu switches between male, female and fox form throughout the series (it’s been locked up so long that it doesn’t remember what gender it was) and works as a fine lead. Meanwhile, Ebisu (the god of commerce) throws out some wonderful comedic moments and Daigoro the fox child is absolutely adorable. The humans, while less interesting, are not without their charms either. Misaki Sakura, the potential love interest of the elder brother in the plagued family, is an absolute hoot when she lets her paranoid mind run away with her.
On the downside, the lack of pulling in one sure fire direction will no doubt be harder to stomach for some viewers, and it is undeniable that some characters have been given far less depth than others. In truth though, these are minor issues. The show may not be to everyones tastes as a complete package, but it can safely say that it has a little something for most. It’s simple, uncomplicated fun.
Plus, any show that has two bath house episodes and avoids devolving into a mass of fan service gags (one is a ghost story and the other a comedy mystery) has got to be worth a look-in!
One-Punch Man is the type of manga/anime that could bring in all types of anime lovers since Dragon Ball. It has humor, insanely awesome fighting sequences and the animation is top notch. The voice acting is exactly like how you would imagine the bald headed protagonist to sound like and the music is exactly how you would imagine the music would be in a superhero and a fighting anime. The manga is also a must read because some of the art is better seen in a manga than in an anime. For example the meteor scene is so believable that you would feel that the meteor is actually gonna fall on you.
The humor is funny as hell. It will actually make you laugh out loud. Even though the protagonist is overpowered, you wouldn’t feel that the fights are one sided. Saitama, who’s the protagonist is an interesting character to witness. His design is simple, whereas the environment around him is complex and beautifully drawn. His simple character design is truly magnificent. The villains are funny and freaking strong as well. Some are suggestive but they can pass. No sexual content, which is a first in thi skind of genre. Overall, it is a must see anime and everyone must see this
I agree. I had heard of One Punch Man back when it was just a manga. I didn't give it a shot. However, after hearing good things regarding the anime, I watched it. I clearly was wrong not to have given the series a chance before. – Jiraiyan1 week ago
I guess I most curious to see how they manage to make amazing fight scenes with a character who ends a fight in just one punch haha. Seems like they'd be short and anticlimactic. – Tatijana1 week ago
Tatijana the fights are really good. One of the main reasons to see the show is for the fights. Give it a try. U wont regret it – exavenger6 days ago
What’s the life of a rabbit weighed against the life of a human? Most people would probably say it’s not much; that a human life is obviously much more important than a rabbit’s. But when Kino encounters three strangers caught in a snowstorm and on the brink of starvation, she has trouble justifying stealing one creature’s life to feed another. As soon as she stumbles upon the situation, she is forced to be responsible for one set of lives or another.
In episode 2 of Kino’s Journey, our protagonist continues to struggle the hardships of being a free agent, condemned to make decisions and be responsible for their outcomes. But when she doesn’t owe malice or debt to either the rabbit or the men, what right does she have to make such a decision? And is she responsible when her decision leads to the deaths of both parties? We have an obligation to our own wellbeing, Kino suggests, which justifies hunting for one’s own food. And it seems that same obligation can be bought by others, as, after the men give Kino an expensive ring, she has much less trouble hunting for their food.
The choice of a rabbit life as the stakes in this episode helps maintain the steady somber pace that characterizes Kino’s Journey. There doesn’t have to be tension or climax to Kino’s choice like there would if she was killing a person, so the episode can carry on and develop the significance of Kino’s decisions after the fact.
Certain dub changes indicate both production confusion, and a difference in vision between the original Japanese writers, and English adapters, but nothing significant. The episode also delves a bit further into Kino’s character, and Hermes’ purpose as an object.
I think given the circumstances, it could definitely be viewed that Kino made the wrong decision.
If human life > rabbit life. And let's pretend things didn't work out for Kino, those men would have gone on taking the lives of a LOT more humans. So Kino actually risked the lives of the 3 rabbits, her own life, and the victims that those three men would have taken for the duration of their lives. – Tatijana2 weeks ago