High School Images by Alyssa

I did the same comparison with high school age cartoons.
I looked at Diara and Total Drama Island

Diara

Total Drama Island

I looked at the girls in both shows:

When going to either punk/not cool girl or Ms. Popular, all are thin
but you can see people who look like this in real life.  

Unlike in Diara, these body shapes are abnormal  and to look like
this would be impossible and unhealthy. What is also interesting is
the 'goth' girl and the popular girl have the exact same body.
Only clothing and style is different.

I found similar themes with the images for boys.

I tried to find images of both the punk-y boy and the 'pretty boy' with his shirt half open

     

Similar extreme body distortion is applied. The boys in Total Drama Island have large pec muscles and emphasized abs. While in Diara, this is not the case.

When looking at images of cartoons I wanted to look at similar age groups of both what age the shows were targeted to and what age the characters in the cartoons were:

I first looked at Doug:

Note how the most skin that is shown in either below the knees or from elbows to hands. The only case different is the green skinned girl in the upper left corner.  

There is also no shape to these characters. There is not womanly figure to the girls and no seen muscles on the boys

I then looked at a more modern cartoon of Kim Possible:

 

There is more shape to Kim, the red head. She is much skinner and has a bear waist. But still not that bad.

It was then I tried to find more images in each show to  see if there was a different.

In boys I compared the main male characters Ron Stoppable and Doug Funnie.

   These boys are pretty similar. Both wear baggy clothes and show realistic body shapes for their age group.    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

In girls, this is not the case.  I compared Kim Possible and Patti Mayonnaise.

Patti (on left) essentially has the body shape of a 2x4. She is still feminine due the shirt but it is in no way pressuring girls to look a certain way.  Kim and her friends, center above, show curves and tiny waist and breast. (I am not sure about the pointed part)  

Even when I found the another image of Patti and The Doug gang, the same things still run true that Doug is not pressuring its audience to look a certain way. 

Race "Place Holders"

It has recently come to my attention that there are no real uses for race in cartoons anymore. In older cartoons such as 90's cartoons, you see there are many different races that are represented with social problems. In older generation cartoons there were times when the races were represented as a bit of a stereotype but still very important to the story. These characters in the older cartoons were being shown what the other races were going through so there would be sympathy shown toward them so they were a lesson to be learned from.

Now the use of raises seems to be to not get sued. If a show was to contain only white people it would be considered racist and therefore taken off the air. Now we have these shows that contain either all "gray" characters that cannot be taken seriously, or you have these shows that are holding racial "place holders". These shows are able to just have the same person do whatever the other people are doing but not really become an individual. There are almost no reasons to have different races of people. This irritated me because I learned so much about class and race from watching what I watched when I was a kid.

Pushing Boundaries

In my previous post, I discussed the various roles that kids' cartoons fill. Unsurprisingly, those cartoons that focus primarily on entertainment tend to be the “edgiest,” and face the most controversy. For this post, I want to examine one cartoon from the 90s that pushed boundaries so far its creator was fired. That cartoon is The Ren and Stimpy Show, created by John Krisfaluci.

 

Ren and Stimpy seems to be a counterpoint to other Nicktoons of its era. Where Rugrats, Doug, and their ilk preached friendship and teamwork, Ren and Stimpy featured insanity, abuse, and in one banned episode, a father figure verbally abusing and terrifying the titular characters. While other cartoons of the time could be gross, Ren and Stimpy was filled with toilet humor. Most notorious for grossness were the paintings that were interspersed into each episode. These were frames that were painted normally rather than cel-shaded, which usually didn't move much and were often extreme close-ups of gross faces. They often accompanied Ren's "freak outs," where he would lose his tenuous grip on sanity. Two examples are given below:

 

The cartoon often mocked the marketing-focused state of children's programming with fake toy commericals, and before or after each episode, Ren and Stimpy themselves would address the audience, reading fake letters from their fans in a satire of kids' fan clubs.

 

I cannot simply show you every questionable moment in Ren and Stimpy, but to give you an idea of how much John K. liked to push the limits of his show, below is a paragraph from Wikipedia listing what didn't make it into the show:

“Some segments of the show were altered to exclude references to religion, politics and alcohol. The episode "Powdered Toast Man" was stripped of references to the Pope and the burning of the United States constitution and bill of rights, while in another episode, the character George Liquor's last name was erased. Several episodes had violent or gruesome scenes shortened or removed, including a sequence involving a severed head, a close-up of Ren's face being grated by a man's stubble, and a scene where Ren receives multiple punches to the stomach from an angry baby.”

Despite this, and despite outrage from parental groups and censors, Ren and Stimpy was a huge hit. Even I watched the show, until the day I repeated a line that so angered my mother she banned it from our TV. When my father went to take a shower, I told him, "Don't forget to wash where the sun don't shine." I thought it meant behind his ears.

 

After two seasons, however, John K. was fired due to failures to meet contractual obligations (he was incapable of producing cartoons on schedule, though he blamed Nickelodeon for constantly giving and then withdrawing permission as to what could be featured in the show). John K. himself blamed the banned episode featured above, Man's Best Friend (full episode here, unfortunately reversed).

 

John K’s vision for the series was instrumental in making sure Ren and Stimpy did not fit the same mold as other cartoons on the network—unlike most cartoon-makers in the 90s, he refused to even pay lip service to the notion of his cartoon being an educational medium. In an interview for David Anthony Kraft’s Comics Interview, Bill Wray, another animator on the show, said the following about the goal of Ren and Stimpy:

 “We don’t want to satisfy parental groups that are solely interested in educating children, because then you’re no longer doing great entertainment, you’re doing education. Kids have a million things today that regulate their lives. What we’re doing is animation and cartoons for the sake of having fun. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong is trying to pretend that fun is educational, like networks do with THE JETSONS. THE JETSONS isn’t education, but the networks say it is in order to fill a quota. And if you were to try and make THE JETSONS educational, then it would be boring.”

The full interview can be found here.

The show continued for another three seasons after John K’s firing, with Billy West taking over the part of Ren (John K had originally been his voice actor). John K's presence removed, the cartoon became tamer, and the characters cuter and more marketable. Compare, from the first season:

to this image, from Season 5:

Ren's voice went from a bad impression of Peter Lorre (as heard in the previous episodes) to a caricature of a Mexican accent.

Ren and Stimpy’s boundary-pushing may have led to its creator’s firing and endless controversy, but like many who cross the line, it left a legacy. SpongeBob SquarePants features similar grotesque faces and extreme close-ups. Courage the Cowardly Dog featured a tamer abusive relationship and mixed media animation. It also pushed the notion of cartoons for adults into the spotlight—by treading into adult territory, it paved the way for shows such as Beavis and Butthead and South Park to be taken seriously by networks. An homage to the series even remains in The Simpsons: Itchy and Scratchy, the fictional super-violent cartoon, is quite obviously a reference to Ren and Stimpy. Additionally, the quality of the animation in the first two seasons, strange art design, music, and strong satire have all received critical praise and are often cited by other animators. To that end, then, The Ren and Stimpy Show had artistic merit. And while John K has since released a volume of Ren and Stimpy intended for adults, I at least personally feel that they are weaker than the first two seasons of the show, where he was at least nominally restricted to kid-friendly content. 

 

While the series was obviously not appropriate for very young children, Ren and Stimpy may have actually been beneficial for older kids, say middle school and above. Its lampooning of children's television and the marketing that goes with it, blind patriotism, and other non-family-friendly messages raise questions in the viewer about what other cartoons are teaching kids, and provide a counterpoint to the otherwise generally saccharine fare of other cartoons. While Ren and Stimpy may not have taught kids to be good citizens, it did seem to promote the idea of questioning what is delivered to you. In an age where standardized tests seem to have resulted in a decline of critical thinking skills, perhaps we need more cartoons like Ren and Stimpy, to jar us out of our comfort zone and remind us that the real world is sometimes unpleasant, often disturbing, and rarely what those in authority say it is.

What Are Cartoons For?

It is important to note that cartoons were never intended to be a medium for children. The cartoons we most often think of, from the Golden Age of Animation (1920s-1950s)--Warner Brothers, Betty Boop, Popeye, etc.--originally ran before feature films, along with newsreels. And watching them, you can see that their content appeals much more to adults than children.

After all, Betty Boop was a lounge singer:

And Bugs Bunny parodied Tarzan movies (made for adults), featuring two gorillas' failed marriage:

During World War II, cartoons were even used as propaganda:

Note the cheerful racism and and homophobia used to mock the Nazis.

This shouldn't be surprising--animation was still a relatively new medium in the first 20th century, and few entertainment mediums start out directed at children. However, in the late 50s and into the 60s, Walt Disney in particular began to move cartoons into a period of family-friendliness. Over the following decades, our modern perspective began to develop: cartoons are meant for children.

I'm not going to debate the validity of this perspective, though I would argue that any artistic style should probably not be limited to consumption by the under-18 crowd. The truth of the matter is that today, cartoons in America are primarily created for and marketed to children. Which begs the question--what, exactly, is their purpose? Are cartoons a medium by which we pass down social norms and traditions to the next generation, to educate them in how to behave in society? Are they a purely educational medium? An entertainment medium? Or are they a mix?

It turns out that no one seems to be able to agree about this. While all cartoons seem to give a cursory nod to the notion of being "educational" for the sake of airtime, cartoons have a wide range of purposes. Shows such as Doug or Hey Arnold!  feature normal kids dealing with on everyday situations—poverty, bullying, friendship, etc. They teach social norms, and while they are of course entertaining, their focus is more on plot than humor. Other cartoons, like Dora the Explorer are purely educational in a more traditional sense. One can't help but notice that these edutainment cartoons tend to be marketed towards much younger children.

On the other end of the spectrum we have cartoons such as Regular Show or Rocko’s Modern Life. They feature gross-out or wacky humor, highly stylized and frequently non-human characters, and little to no educational value, though they may deal with similar themes as the social norms 'toons. Some might argue that these cartoons don't have a point--they are just mindless entertainment. They also tend to be the cartoons that push boundaries the most (see my next post on Ren and Stimpy). Rocko's Modern Life in particular features more innuendo than most adult shows--it seems like the writers and animators were trying to see what they could get away with. However, it's also true that these cartoons are significantly more fun for adults to watch with their kids, considering that they feature more nods to grown-ups than most other shows.

Finally, there are many cartoons that have blended educational or social norm themes with entertainment and (usually) subtle adult humor. Shows like Animaniacs feature songs about world and state capitals along with Looney Tunes-style hijinks. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, meant for young girls, has spawned a following of college-age men called "bronies," due to its ability to blend jokes for adults with extremely blatant messages about the power of friendship. Yet these cartoons may be the most difficult to make, and the first to go awry. While the pure entertainment cartoons make no claims to being moral compasses or educational venues, the mixed cartoons can end up sending questionable messages. For example, if Wakko can teach us about the state capitals, what is he and his siblings teaching us about women in this clip?

Remember Sesame Street when we were kids?  Well it has all changed because when I was a child, the characters used to be cool and fun.  For example, Cookie Monster used to have a pipe and then eat it along with his cookies as a trademark.  But today People think this promotes smoking. How ridiculous! How would kids know what smoking is and why would they even think about it that young.  Burt and Ernie used to live together in separate beds but in the same room and now critics believe that it came off as homosexual.  This is weird how we think today.  How we think we need to protect our kids from every issue that is out there.  What do we have to protect them from?  Why can't they see that we are not screwed up from by watching the show, and do you know why?  It is because kids are too young to think about these things and they do not understand.
 
Remember when big bird was the only one that could see snuffelufugous and know one else could? Was that weird when you were a kid? No of course it wasn't but because critics believe that big bird imagining things was a way that maybe he was high on on srooms. They perfected the show so that everyone could see him to show that big bird wasn't having hallucinations.

In one of the episodes a pretty girl lonely girl Sally found herself befriended by an older male stranger who held her hand and took her home. Granted the man just wanted Sally to meet his wife and and have some milk and cookies but well in this day and age he could have wanted anything. Oscar's depression was untreated. The chronically mood disordered Oscar the grouch. On the first episode, Oscar seems irredeemably miserable hypersensitive, sarcastic.


Just don't bring the children. According to an earnest warning on volumes 1 and 2, “Sesame Street: Old school” is adults only “these early Sesame Street episodes are intended for grown up, and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child.”

Oscar's depression was untreated. The chronically mood disordered Oscar the grouch. On the first episode, Oscar seems irredeemably miserable hypersensitive, sarcastic.

What does cartoon censorship say about what is important today?

Today when one looks at cartoons some people see mindless dribble that causes kids to be quiet for a few hours. Others see childhood memories that bring back a simpler time. I see the shift between a group working world to an individual world.

When looking at cartoons in the 90's when I was growing up I always remembered Hey Arnold and Rug Rats. These cartoons among the majority of others were about a group working together to complete a goal that is better for the entire group. Now we see in the 00's this shift to a more independent goal system for satisfaction. I think this is not showing us how important team work and cooperation is and make the world seem like a place that you can do everything on your own and there is no need for human interaction of any kind. I think this is not the way people should be making shows. The applies to censorship because censorship is a group decision to not show something and when the entire network is not going to show a group environment, they are therefore censoring the children of the day from this type of work. Shows like Total Drama Island do not show a group working atmosphere, it shows a cut throat everyman for himself way of winning.

Thinking about other problems with cartoons now would be what they are trying to portray. When watching cartoons now all we see are these utopias and "perfect lives" such as shows like Sixteen and Total Drama Island. These shows are depicting "children" as these rich kids that don't really have any rules and are just able to do what they want and not pay for it. This is now showing what the main theme of Hey Arnold was. This basic theme was, take what you have, and as a group work together and make the best out of it. I think this style of show teaches so much. This censorship is only showing the good parts of life and are not showing how to deal with difficult situations. I think these shows were taken off the air because it shows a hard type of life that people found offensive to show "poor" people. This however is just censoring children from the real world. I think it would be better to show children these things and talk about it rather than delete it from existence.

My following posts will be of show clips that show both older and newer cartoons that will give examples of what we are not showing anymore because people don't want to see the setting in this area or like how the characters are represented in a real life manner.

Interview with the Animator

Most of our research on the broad topic of censorship in children's programming comes from research. However, we were lucky enough to have access to a professional animator who is in the early stages of creating a kids' cartoon. Evan Detwiler is an animator and character designer for Theory Animation, a new but fast-growing animation studio. He is the creator of Ray and Clovis, Theory's first major project, a show about an immature cat and serious iguana living together, and the hijinks that ensue. He was also the author of a webcomic, Dino-Boy, which ended last June (found here). The interview was conducted over AIM.

Our first question is, did you make a conscious decision to make your characters animals, and do you think that affects how they will be perceived by the audience?

Somewhat. I think you're able to reach a wider audience when using cartoon animals, as opposed to cartoon people. Animals just seem to transcend things like race or religion or gender. You can also get away with more when using animals-- animals don't necessarily need to have jobs or go to school-- you can have them do or be whatever you want. I suppose I wanted my characters to be animals not just to be received positively, but also for flexibility in the writing.

Do you find the cartoon medium to be the best format to relay your ideas to the public? Why?

Best format? I don't know about that. It's certainly the most fun format! I just want to tell stories and make jokes and get people to laugh, and cartoons have been a reliable way to do that for years. I've always had a passion for animation. The most difficult part is making sure each joke "reaches" as many people as possible. No matter what you do, you will always get on somebody's nerves, somehow. It's important to use gags that get a laugh out of as many people as possible-- well, for what I'm doing anyway. I know there are some cartoons that purposefully push lines.

Your cartoons won't be pushing lines, then?

Well, to give you some background information, the studio I work for approached everyone on staff and asked us all to come up with possible ideas for an animated series that we could pitch to networks like Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network-- in other words, kid friendly. We're currently pursuing the idea I presented, Ray and Clovis.

But Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon have run controversial cartoons in the past and the present. Ren and Stimpy, Rocko's Modern Life...Regular Show has had some very odd scenes too that don't seem really kid-friendly. Ray and Clovis isn't following in these footsteps?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not producing Muppet Babies. My way of thinking is, if I think it's funny and not objectionable, give it a shot. If it doesn't fly with the rest of the team, don't use it. Ray and Clovis might have a few "odd scenes" here and there, and it may follow in the footsteps of shows like you mentioned, but I can't push the bar as far as shows like Family Guy or South Park. I would honestly like to follow Pixar's lead-- I think they do a very good job creating content that both kids and adults can watch, enjoy, and not be bored.

So let's talk a little about Ray and Clovis's content, then. What is the setting like? Is it a utopia or reality?

How to best describe Ray and Clovis? Most of the time they're just trying to do something pretty ordinary (seeing a movie, going to a gym, trying to find a job, whatever) and it ultimately leads to something extraordinary happening. Maybe they visit the library? You can be sure one thing will lead to another and they'll be in mortal danger before the episode is over (but of course, they'll always come out on top). I'm not sure what category that falls into...

The fact that you're dealing with non-human subjects probably makes that dynamic harder to see.

Probably.

 What is the purpose of Ray and Clovis? Is it meant to just be entertainment? Or is there an educational aspect to it?

Well it's still very much in the early stages. Right now it's largely just entertainment, with a strong theme of friendship conquering all. I wouldn't mind finding a way to mix in a few pieces of educational material, where possible.

What social norms do you think you will be animating into the cartoon, and why? You mention a sort of power-of-friendship concept, will there be any others?

 It's hard to say this early on, but there seems to be a strong 'older brother, younger brother' dynamic between Ray and Clovis. We often see Ray encouraging Clovis to better himself (stop watching TV and read a book, etc). We also see Ray watching out for Clovis on some level.

Do you feel that kids' cartoons have a responsibility to teach children in some way--how to behave in society, academic skills, etc.--or do you think there is value in entertainment for its own sake?

There is certainly value in entertainment, for its own sake. You can be educational on TV, but if you're not at least somewhat entertaining, I don't think people will watch. I think kids' cartoons have a responsibility, not so much to educate on how to be, but on how not to be. It should be clear when a character does something dangerous, evil, or downright stupid. I think everything else is up to the parents.

Shifting gears slightly, I know thus far you have primarily been animating animals with Theory Animation, but presumably eventually you will have to animate humans. You've also drawn human characters in the past, in your webcomic, Dino-Boy. 

I also animated a human in our short film project, Nuts for Pizza

Do you feel like there are any differences in how men and women are drawn nowadays compared to drawing them in the past?

Yes, somewhat, but I feel it goes beyond just cartoons. Lately I feel like there has been this surge in 'cool young people' on TV. Have you seen the Disney Channel, lately? As far as cartoons go, human characters didn't always have to have that "super cool" aesthetic. Look at old cartoons like Scooby Doo, The Jetsons, or Rocky and Bullwinkle... or even slightly more recent ones like Doug or Rugrats... those characters had their own unique feel to their design. When I see cartoon humans on TV now, they're so frequently sleek and stylish-- granted, not all the time-- but it's gotten to the point where we've replaced cartoons entirely, and just put on shows with live action, sleek stylish teens instead. It's depressing for me to see live action shows on Cartoon Network now. That's only my opinion though, of course.

 You think there's a trend away from cartoony cartoons?

 Not entirely that. I think there's a trend toward putting out what's easy.

 What do you mean by "easy?"

In other words, what can we animate quickly, how can we animate it cheaply, and are we taking too big a risk? I feel like whoever is in charge is thinking those things.

What is a risk, to an animation producer? Or to you, as an animator and character designer? Are they the same thing?

Well, I wasn't referring to the people involved with the actual production...

  

Right, a producer, as in someone who's funding the project. I assume that's what you mean by 

"whoever is in charge."

 I meant, whoever decides what goes on their network may ask whether or not the series will be popular, and is there any way for it to make money. That's the risk I was referring to.

 What would a risk be to you? 

From where I sit, I just want to create something that I feel is a quality product that I enjoy, and others will enjoy. The only risk there is putting a bunch of work into something and having nothing come of it.

 If you are drawing people, what race are you more likely to draw them in? How often do you 

consider or are pressured to draw people of different races? 

The only time I had to come up with cartoon people frequently was for my old webcomic. And to be honest, I think I kept a pretty good balance as far as that went. The comic featured people of different racial backgrounds, both as main characters and side characters. I wouldn't say I felt pressured to do that though-- it was my own decision (considering the comic had a very strong 'progressive' theme to it, to begin with).

 Going back to Ray and Clovis, you said that you vet ideas with the team before they get included. How much creative control do you have? If the group vetoed an idea or issue that you felt was really important to put into the show, could you override that? Who has the final say?

The short answer is, I have the final say. But if the group doesn't like an idea, I wouldn't want to make them work on it. It's also a good way to decide if an idea will work for our audience.

 So primarily censorship happens before the cartoon is even made. Are you ever worried about a final project being censored?

We've never had to work with censors at Theory. We're a long way away from having to worry about that. But when the time comes, I feel like I've taken enough steps to prevent Ray and Clovis from being censored too much.

 If a network was willing to accept the cartoon but wanted you to take out potentially offensive material, would you acquiesce, even if you didn't feel the material was offensive at all?

 Most likely. To expand on that, it would be one thing to tell me to remove content to meet their network's standards. It would be another thing if they took creative control and put content in that I didn't want.

Okay, that's pretty much everything. Thank you very much.  

You're welcome.

 Here is a sample of the different in cartoons then and now. I will be looking into the images we send to kids now. I will be looking at the remakes of cartoons and new cartoons compared to the simple themes of older cartoons. More to come.

Research Questions

Here are our research questions for this project. Please remember when writing a post that it needs to tie into one of these (and the overall theme of censorship, as well).

1. What was the intent or purpose of cartoons of the past? Of the present? How has it changed, and why?
2. What considerations regarding potential censorship and social norms go into creating cartoons today? How much does a potential cartoon-writer self-censor?
3. What can and can't you do in animation today? In the past?
4. How do the makers of cartoons deal with controversy regarding their creations?
5. How do we deal with the offensive material found in cartoons of the past?