Talk:Animated cartoon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Animation
Animation Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Merge with Animation

Information included here is nothing different than Animation. KyuuA4 05:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, just what is this page about?

I'm getting more and more confused the more I look at it. Is this page even necessary? We already have an Traditional animation page. Doesn't "animated cartoon" specifically mean "traditionally-animated cartoon"? That's what people who're changing my edits (not that I blame them) seem to be saying to me. I understand that that article is more technical in nature than this one, but I can't help but feel that maybe this article should be somehow merged with either the traditional animation article or the Animation article (which bears many similarities to this one, only is more broad in its topic because it talks about ALL animated films, not just traditionally-animated ones). Can anyone tell me why this article is needed as a separate entity from one of those two? If I don't get any good responses, I may think about starting a discussion to merge this article with one of those two (probably the Animation one), but I want to get a feel for why people think it deserves its own name first. Esn 08:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I originally created this page because "animated cartoon" was a redirect that took you to the cartoon article, with just one paragraph about animation. Yes, this article could be merged into either animation or traditional animation, but, OTOH, those are somewhat different subjects. An animated cartoon really is a short, hand-drawn (maybe also using computers) motion picture for the movie, TV or computer screen. Feature animation really doesn't belong here, as the opening paragraph in that section in fact implies, and belongs more naturally in the traditional animation article. The field of animation is so large and multi-faceted that everything cannot be crammed into one article... --Janke | Talk 16:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, you have a point - I think I do see the need for this article now. In that case, though, it should be made abundantly clear that the topic of this article is NOT animation as a whole, but animated cartoons specifically - "short, hand-drawn (maybe also using computers) movies for the cinema, TV or computer screen" (sorry, changed your definition there slightly ;). From looking at the "history" section, you'd think that this was an article about the entire field of animation, and this is made even worse by the fact that many who come across this page may not realize that it is not. I think we should clean up the history section and make it focus on the development of the cartoon specifically, not of animation in general. They are related, but they are certainly not synonymous. Esn 06:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've changed the opening paragraph... Esn 06:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not needed. If anything, it is used to separate "animated cartoons" from "anime". Discerning such a difference is obsolete. KyuuA4 05:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US-Centric?

I'm just wondering - should any attempts be made to make this article less US-centric? Other countries have quite a rich history of animation as well, but if we include all of it it's certainly not going to be as nice and neat as it is now. Oh, and also - what does cartoon mean exactly? I'm assuming that it doesn't include all types of animation, correct? So which ones DOES it include? I may have made a mistake by adding information about types of animation which are not labelled "cartoons" - I'm just not sure. Esn 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • "Cartoon" means that it is hand-drawn, so most 3D stuff, as well as clay, puppet, cut-out, are not animated cartoons. Regarding US-centricity, yes, good examples from all over the world are welcome. I'd hate to see theis article becoming a long, long list. History of animation would be a better place, since it is basically a list, and in fact, there's a lot of non-US stuff there, already. --Janke | Talk 06:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The only art form separated from cartoon is the Japanese type. See Anime. From a logic standpoint, that is not logical. Japanese animation uses the same principles. As things currently stand, there is a clear separation between Japanese animation and all other forms of animation whose definitions are upheld by the fanbases. KyuuA4 06:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, so should there be so much info about 3D stuff in this article, as there currently is? Also, what do you mean when you say that "most" 3D stuff is not considered "cartoonish" - some of it is? Esn 07:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • One more thing: since the article states that the name "cartoon" implies a short film and is thus not applied to feature films, should there be a feature film section at all? This is all a bit confusing, made more so by the fact that I myself never use the word "cartoon" when referring to anything other than the 30-minute cartoon episodes on tv, but use "animated short" or "animated film". How do other people use the word? Esn 08:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited Intro

To reflect that NTSC and PAL shoot at different frame rates.

Reverted, gets too complicated to state all - 24, 25 and 30 fps. "frames" now links to frame (film) . --Janke | Talk 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former Redirect

This page was formerly a redirect to Cartoon. However, that page is more like a disambiguation page for three topics; art, editorial cartoons, and animation. For this reason, I created this page. Some redundancy exists in articles such as animation and traditional animation, but I feel this is the right place for the history and development of the animated cartoon. Please feel free to edit and expand. --Janke | Talk 09:23:33, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

[edit] Replace "Internet animation" with "Animutation"

Internet animation isn't really a genre. Would you really put The Demented Cartoon Movie in the same genre as There she is!!? I put Animutation in as separate step. I'm not claiming that all Internet animations are Animutations. --Billpg 09:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

agreed, "Internet Cartoon" is just a medium. There are quite a few genres that could be put into that section of the article, and im not sure how specific it needs to be. "Zany humor" is slightly more vague than "Animutation". Is Zany Humor a style of animation anyway? the list needs a major overhaul, methinks. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, please expand as you see fit. I originally created the list off-the-cuff, that's why I put a section-stub tag on it. The intention is that the main genres of animation should be listed, but not of course every single little sub-genre. PS: If you find a better name for the zany Clampett/Avery genre of 1940s and 50s cartoons, let's discuss it here! --Janke | Talk 19:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The article seems to be about the art of animation as well as actual cartoons. So i dunno, theres quite a lot that can be encompassed within the article. I'm not entirely sure what the focus is. The list though - should it be styles of animation in cartoons or genres of cartoons (like movie genres)? -- jeffthejiff (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, styles or genres, that's a matter of taste. My intention with the list was also to present a timeline of the artistic development of the animated cartoon, something that is missing in the other wiki artcles about animation. Feel free to change the section header to styles, if you think it's better. This is a fairly new article, so it will certainly develop much further in the future. --Janke | Talk 06:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I dont think its better particularly, i was just wondering where the article is heading. But now that i look at other animation articles, there is quite a bit of stuff missing i think, although i'm not an expert in the field of animation. There is a lot of stuff that could be written here though; might i suggest WP:RFE or something? -- jeffthejiff (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Done - let's see how it develops... --Janke | Talk 19:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
When I have a chance, I can put in something about Rotoscope. I'm thinking it should be in here as a style. --Happylobster 21:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, rotoscoping is more a technique than a style - rotoscoping can be used to create animation in many styles. But if you're thinking about the particular style used in music videos, I've included that in the list. --Janke | Talk 10:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Nah, I'm going beyond A-Ha's Take on Me. Consider the work of Ralph Bakshi. I would agree it's a technique he uses. However, when you see rotoscoping in the original Lord of the Rings cartoon and most of his other movies, it's unmistakably Bakshi. That to me suggests a style. Do you agree? --Happylobster 15:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, rotoscoping can be used to create many different styles, Bakshi's was just one (and not too good, IMHO). But I think it's OK to mention rotoscoping as a technique to implement a style. But lest this list grows too long, I'd not make a separate entry about it. --Janke | Talk 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Point made. I'll probably leave it be. Thanks. --Happylobster 14:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to the notable artists

I added Warner Brother and Mel Blanc to the notable artists. I know Mel Blanc wasn't an animator per se, but he seems quite notable and where would animated cartoons be without his voice? --SavoirFaireIsEverywhere 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I revertyed your additions for the following reasons: Mel Blanc was a voice artist, not an animation artist, WB is a studio, not a producer. (Clampett was one of WB's producers, and he's mentioned...) --Janke | Talk 08:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Multiplane camera?

Why is there no mention of Ub Iwerks' multiplane camera? Or even the Fleicher Bros version (whose name I can't remember). Surely these were as important to animation as the rotoscope.

[edit] First animated movies

On youtube you will find some of the earliest examples of animated movies - if not the first ones. Search for "Stuart Blackton". No big deal, but interresting from a historical point of view.

[edit] Redirected to Animation

There was no information that is or should be offered here that shouldn't actually be in animation, history of animation, or another related article. This articles attempts to define its subject were vague and inaccurate, and its text incorrect and narrowly focused. --FuriousFreddy 08:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You can't just redirect an entire article to another, without moving the relevant information to that article, too. Your opinion of vagueness and inaccuracy are yours, but don't erase a whole article made by dozens of contributors. You can do it after the information has been merged, if it should be merged at all. I don't think it should - this article concerns a specific "sub-species" of general animation, and deserves its own article. Do fix any errors you see, but don't make such a drastic move without discussing it first! So, I've undone your redirect. --Janke | Talk 15:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: BTW, did you check how many pages actually link directly here? Many of them are animation related, so readers already know something about animation - they wish to know more about animated cartoons - besides, there are links from this page to most other animation articles. And finally, remember that wiki guidelines recommend keeping articles small (see WP:article_size), and all the animation info will never fit into one article! --Janke | Talk 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you check how many pages link to animation, animated and animated motion picture, all of which link to animation? The fact that someone writing an article on an animated short (this article even briefly mentions animated feature films) is prone to use any of the above as much as they are to use "animated cartoon" require that all terms point to the same article. This article is awful. The writing is poor, and the formatting is jumbled. Sections of it are very much incorrect, its title is dubious, and it only serves to make Wikipedia less useful than it already is. There is no need to put "all the animation info" into one article, but there should certainly be one decent general overview, similar to film. Just look at the current lead section:
An animated cartoon is a short, hand-drawn (or made with computers to look similar to something hand-drawn) film for the cinema, television or computer screen, featuring some kind of story or plot (even if it is a very short one). This article is not about animated films in general, but only about ones which follow the above definition. Although cartoons can use many different types of animation, they all fall under the traditional animation category.

All of that is incorrect. Cartoon shorts do not have to be or look hand-drawn - short stop-motion and computer animated films are still referred to as cartoons, and to say that they aren't or shouldn't be is incorrect (no one's going to stop referring to Gumby aor George Pal's Puppetoons as cartoons because Wikipedia wants them to). Any time you have to explain what your article is about in your article, you have a problem. And "Although cartoons can use many different types of animation, they all fall under the traditional animation category" is just plain laughable. If your aim is to write an article restricting your subject matter to American traditionally animated cartoons, move the page to an appropriate title. Animation is really no better, but I began trying to rewrite that article and moving bits and pieces from here that did work over there. Either this article needs to be moved to animated film and rewritten, or it needs to be merged with animation, because the overlap of this content with that of the history of animation articles is tremendous (and the narrow focus on American films does not help matters at all). --FuriousFreddy 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Stop motion or puppet animation is not the same as cartoon animation. The reason for the intro of this article is to clarify this misconception. --Janke | Talk 18:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "Cartoon animation" isn't a technical term; it's a colloquialism. Cel animation is a technical term, as is traditional animation. If you show a stop-motion short film to anyone -an animation historian, an animation fan, a child - they will call it a cartoon. We already have an article on traditional animation, and we already have articles on animation history. Lots of them, and they all need work, but not as much as this one. Accordingly, I am opening an RFC on this page. --FuriousFreddy 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I should rephrase my comment above: A stop-motion film, claymation, puppet or whatever, is not an animated cartoon. Colloquialism or not, Wikipedia should use proper terms. If not, people will soon call the marionette show "Thunderbirds" an animated cartoon... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and verifiability concerns still have not been addressed (or even attempted to be addressed. Reopening RFC. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


  • RfC response: based on discussion, it appears to me that Animated cartoon is probably a term too imprecise to ever be a truly cohesive topic here at Wikipedia. The majority of its contents should be merged with cel animation or of the relevant articles, where industry standard terms are being used more precisely and effectively. What this article strives to do is better served by the Animation article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Voting "Keep as is"... I opposed the redirect done on Sept. 2, which basically deleted this entire article. There is room in Wikipedia for this topic, too! Animation is too wide a field to be compressed into just a few articles - the classic "short" cartoon (often made in Hollywood, but not always) is really too important to be lumped in with the more technical aspects of cel animation. --Janke | Talk 21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
All of this content is already covered in better , more precise detail at either animation, traditional animation, and the series of articles on [history of animation in the United States]: Animation in the United States during the silent era, The Golden Age of American animation (which focuses specifically upon the "classic" American cartoon short), Animation in the United States in the television era, and Modern animation in the United States. This article lacks clear focus, has no citations, is not entirely factually accurate, and looks very much to be a self-promotional piece in more than one way. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If by "self-promotional" you refer to the animation I've uploaded, then your're welcome to find some other free-licensed cartoon animation to put here! (I don't think many cartoon (i.e. "hand-drawing") animators are wiki editors... ;-) As you very well know, non-free images will be deleted promptly. As for "not entirely factually accurate", please specify more exacly, so a discussion can be held and edits made. Deleting by redirecting is not the right way, IMO. And some redundancy of information is no problem - WP:NOTPAPER, you know! --Janke | Talk 09:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Redundancy is a problem, however, when it is pure redundancy. There is no information in this article (or any potential information from what I can tell) that wouldn't be better served in a specific article. And the umbrella article for animation is Animation.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. And as an FYI for Janke, we have plenty of screenshots of public domain cartoons that could be used in addition to/instead of your user-created images. While the horse image is great for an article on animation or traditional animation in general, for an article on the history of animated cartoons, you need historical images. (And as an aside, how is a self-rendered version of the "Raid" bug free-use?) --FuriousFreddy (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, although there may be confusion with other animation forms, the editor(s) that generated the information operated under the best of WP:AGF and from my understanding of the topic, attempted to clearly differentiate what is undoubtably a very narrow sub-sect of the form. The underlining concern that all editors would have with the article is that it does not clearly identify sources of information and the lack of inline citations would tend to make this an example of WP:Essay and could lead to questions of verifiablity. Due to the disputed nature of the article, it is contingent on the author/editor to provide the matching citations that would establish the article's authority. I would recommend that peer-reviewed, contemporary industry sources would be of use, but the use of second-person sources that are authoritative are already present, but quotes and actual reference notes should now be used to develop the article further. My first "concrete" suggestion is to remove the spurious "Further Reading" section which implies that the sources are in addition to the reference materials used. If the sources that are provided are the sources that were used in researching the article, then they should appear in the following form (you may have to read the following notes in edit mode): Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] References

[edit] Notes

[edit] Bibliography

  • Barrier, J. Michael. Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-19-503759-6.
  • Bendazzi, Giannalberto. Cartoons: One Hundred Years of Cinema Animation. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-253-20937-4.
  • Maltin, Leonard. Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated Cartoons. New York: Plume, 1980. ISBN 0-45225-993-2.
  • Stabile, Carol and Mark Harrison, eds. Prime Time Animation: Television Animation and American Culture. London: Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0-415-28326-4.
  • Stephenson, Ralph. The Animated Film. London: Tantivity Press, 1973. ISBN 0-49801-202-6.

[edit] External links

This strictly conventional bibliographic record would first establish the "credentials" of the article and answer the questions of verifiability and accuracy posed by other editors. I would be pleased to help you create the framework for referencing and sourcing your information. If you note above, I have re-established your sources into a "References" section, identifying "Notes" (endnotes or footnotes) and a "Bibliography" or bibliographic record of print and non-print (WickWacky world uses "External links" predominantly to identify electronic/Internet sources). To assuage your concerns about an interloper helping, I am a former reference librarian (33+ years) before I turned to the "dark side" and became an author, editor (yes, a real life editor in that other world) and a filmmaker (actor, screenwriter, consultant and even dabbled as a director). If you wish you could contact me for further information. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC).