Ex Situ: Activate

June 29, 2008

Nowadays, it is certain that the Super Friends would be labeled as an educational/informative show. It’s full of over half the knowing as a typical episode of G.I. Joe: Gravity works like a magnet? Check. Things are made of atoms called “electrons?” Got it. A Native American man pushes the Earth out of orbit in order to fight a giant Viking? I think NOVA had a whole episode devoted to that.

On the other hand, sometimes it’s really hard to write a graceful segue.

In this classic Penny Arcade comic, webcomic auteurs par excellences Gabe and Tycho have written a surprisingly nuanced deconstruction of the entire Wonder Twins canon. I think it might even explain why Bizarro had better grammar than Wonderdog.

Penny Arcade! – Activate >Catena Ex Situ


From the archives: Style Shifts at Kids’ WB

June 25, 2008

Contributed by Panu V.

Some cartoons have gone through a noticeable change in style when entering on their second or later season on TV. By this I don’t mean simple altering of the opening theme or introductions of new characters – there are many examples of a show being turned in a whole new direction, often into what almost seems like a different series. The reasons for this can vary: the producers may want to simply boost the ratings by changing what didn’t seem to them like a good style into something that would attract viewers better, but it also might be the show’s creators placing their characters into new situations/scenarios simply because they want a change of pace from the previous ones and/or they think it would indeed fit better with the show and its characters. It also could be both. Of course, this change is sometimes good, sometimes bad.

One of the best examples I can think of about this are the three WB cartoons produced simultaneously in the mid-90′s: Animaniacs, Pinky and The Brain, and Freakazoid!. Animaniacs, in its first and second seasons (with the 2nd season in fact being “leftover” cartoons from the 1st season), was the only show produced by WB Animation at the time, and pretty much alike to Tiny Toon Adventures, which of course originated from having the same production staff. However, along with its third season came a change. The show basically turned from a slapstick humor series with a few cultural references in each episode into a culture & media satire series with a only bit of slapstick per episode. In detail, while it previously made fun of some older movies and TV series, especially those considered “classics”, it was now completely filled with references to new and latest media happenings. All of these episodes contained at least one parody of some sort, including parodies of the series itself, resulting in quite a lot of metahumor. I think the humor also went into an increasingly darker direction, making several blatant jokes based on death. Seems like the show creators really let their imaginations and wild ideas loose during this time, and quite surely also tried altering the target audience in older direction.

Simultaneously with this third season, WB Animation begun the production of several other cartoons at the same time. These included Pinky and The Brain and Freakazoid!, with the first one leaning almost completely on sophisticated and vocal humor with lots of satire of today’s society, and the second one being more nutty and original in surreal slapstick humor than even Animaniacs on its first seasons. However, after a while of going along with the structure that was successful since its introduction much earlier, Pinky and The Brain‘s style also changed. It appears that instead of being centered on the different plots of two laboratory mice to take over the world, the show in later seasons featured several detailed explanations about their past, their families, feelings and motivations. There now was several cases of self-parodying as in Animaniacs as well. In this change’s case, the authors maybe had run out of original world domination plans, and/or wanted to deepen the characters’ personalities from the flat “genius and insane” scenario.

Now, Freakazoid! may had been canceled after its two seasons without any major changes in it, but it probably launched what could be described as Animaniacs‘ third style change. To put it simply, at the time of Freakazoid!‘s cancellation, Animaniacs gained many “Freakazoidesque” elements that remained for its final seasons, such as those surreal and almost nonexistent plots and single scenes that didn’t make much sense. At this time the series also reverted back into its first seasons’ style for the most part, including the return of animation studios that hadn’t done work for the show since that time.

Another case of wanting a change of pace, and the will to keep the style of Freakazoid! alive, I guess.


Ex Situ: Is WALL-E Environmental or Hypocritical?

June 23, 2008

Devin Faraci from CHUD.COM, who despite being a bit of a grumpster really is one of the best movie journalist/reviewers on the internet, has seen WALL•E before you and me. Lucky guy. However, he took issue with the movie’s strong pro-environmental themes apparently contradicting the fleet of merchandising tie-ins surrounding the movie.

Here’s a piece of the piece to whet your controversial whistle:

When I got to the Four Seasons hotel the next day, the site of the junket for the film, and saw an entire room dedicated to showing off the marketing tie-ins, I lost the sense of irony and began to think what I was seeing was flat out hypocrisy. I wondered if maybe Stanton’s denials about the messages weren’t coming from a marketing point of view but from simple shame.

A minor warning that if you’re trying to stay completely data-free before you see the movie, you might want to wait until after. If you’ve been reading anything else about the movie, there’s probably nothing in there that you don’t already know.

Is WALL•E Environmental or Hypocritical? >Catena Ex Situ


Ex Situ: Why The Simpsons Have Lost Their Way

June 20, 2008

I, like so many other souls, used to be a huge Simpsons fan. Not only did I hate every chimp I saw, but I also intimately knew and treasured what the extra “B” stood for. In the past several years, though, there’s been a lot of wailing of teeth and apologia and controversy about when and even if The Simpsons got bad. Personally, I don’t need to get into all of the details about why I don’t watch The Simpsons any more. Because Cap’n at Blasphemes has done all the work for me.

The good Cap’n has done a good job codifying the primary reasons why the quality of The Simpsons ain’t what it used to be. (Except: I don’t want to get all post hoc ergo propter hoc up in your face, but the The Simpsons didn’t get bad until after Brad Bird left the show. Just sayin’.) Note that the essay was written before the movie came out.

Why The Simpsons Have Lost Their Way >Catena Ex Situ


Cat People

June 17, 2008

[This is the first entry in our new series of literary over-analyzations. Originally published in the December 23, 2002 issue of The New Yorker, "Cat People" by Louis Menand is a brilliant and fascinating historical and over-analyzationical account of Dr. Seuss' immortal The Cat in the Hat. The article appears to have vanished from the online archive of The New Yorker, so I have reproduced it below.]

The Cat in the Hat was a Cold War invention. His value as an analyst of the psychology of his time, the late nineteen-fifties, is readily appreciated: transgression and hypocrisy are the principal themes of his little story. But he also stands in an intimate and paradoxical relation to national-security policy. He was both its creature and its nemesis—the unraveller of the very culture that produced him and that made him a star. This is less surprising than it may seem. He was, after all, a cat.

Every reader of “The Cat in the Hat” will feel that the story revolves around a piece of withheld information: what private demons or desires compelled this mother to leave two young children at home all day, with the front door unlocked, under the supervision of a fish? Terrible as the cat is, the woman is lucky that her children do not fall prey to some more insidious intruder. The mother’s abandonment is the psychic wound for which the antics of the cat make so useless a palliative. The children hate the cat. They take no joy in his stupid pet tricks, and they resent his attempt to distract them from what they really want to be doing, which is staring out the window for a sign of their mother’s return. Next to that consummation, a cake on a rake is a pretty feeble entertainment.

This is the fish’s continually iterated point, and the fish is not wrong. The cat’s pursuit of its peculiar idea of fun only cranks up the children’s anxiety. It raises our anxiety level as well, since it keeps us from doing what we really want to be doing, which is accompanying the mother on her murderous or erotic errand. Possibly the mother has engaged the cat herself, in order to throw the burden of suspicion onto the children. “What did you do?” she asks them when she returns home, knowing that the children cannot put the same question to her without disclosing their own violation of domestic taboos. They are each other’s alibi. When you cheat, you lie. Read the rest of this entry »


It is fun to have fun, but you have to know how.

June 17, 2008

No one can accuse the editors of The Journal of Cartoon Over-analyzations of not thinking outside the box ex arcae: so, facing a dwindling supply of fresh animation over-analyzations (and unwilling to use the ones we found in De Vermis Mysteriis) we have decided to open the playing field a bit, as it were. While our raison d’être is animation, we are going to start publishing occasional interesting and relevant articles pertaining to appropriate literature (a nice specimen will be forthcoming). We believe we will be the first publication in history to ever present even a single instance of literary over-analyzation.

We may also consider expanding our realm to include the potentially fertile ground of videogames (we’re looking in your direction, Final Fantasy, and we know what you’ve been up to behind the wood shed with Valve and Tim Schafer). But have no fears- J. Cart. Overanal. will always be your reliable distributor of fine, hand-crafted cartoon over-analyzations.


Ex Situ: On the Couch with Beavis and Butthead

June 14, 2008

We previously published A Freudian Analysis of Beavis and Butthead, but limiting one strictly to Freud nowadays is like limiting one strictly to gauche. That’s why Jeff Schwartz has written a psychoanalytic analysis of Beavis and Butthead, although he inexplicably does “not believe the psychoanalysis of fictional characters is useful.” The only rational explanation of this opinion is that his essay was written before the existence of The Journal of Cartoon Over-analyzations. Below, there is a representative excerpt of the essay:

The threat of castration, represented by Woman’s lack, is essential to subject formation, and Beavis is clearly outside of this system. Not only does his reflection tell him Bjork has a “schlong,” but when he and Butthead watch another video, which features a (supposedly) nude woman in a bathtub, Butthead expresses the hope that the woman will stand up, revealing her body to them. Beavis thinks that she will not, speculating that “she’s embarrassed because she has a stiffie.” Butthead attempts to explain that women cannot get erections, but the existence of humans without penises is unimaginable to Beavis.

On the Couch with Beavis and Butthead >Catena Ex Situ


From the archives: The Great Smurf Height Debate

June 11, 2008

With the recent celebrated announcement of a The Smurfs movie in the works, we thought it would be a good time to revisit one of the most heated over-analyzation debates from the old archives. Now, some snarky sites like Derober like to use ironic scorn tactics to deride the presumably family-friendly entertainment event, without the appropriate gravitas obviously required. Here at J. Cart. Overanal., however, we think such a motion picture will be fantastic grist for our mind-mills. So, we now proudly present The Great Smurf Height Debate. Most of the arguments below were written before Y2K, back when computers ran on coke-fired Stirling engines (processing speeds in excess of 2.2 kilobits/pound!) and well before Napster bankrupted spectacularly after investing too heavily in The South Sea Company. Since then, great strides have been made in Smurf Height Science, with the current prevailing theory being that a Smurf’s height and momentum cannot both be precisely measured simultaneously, given by the expression ΔpΔH=h/2πε, where h is, of course, Planck’s Constant, and ε is, of course, the Snorkittivity of Free Space.

  • How tall are Smurfs really? I mean, they live in mushrooms, so how big can they be? Most people I ask think they are over a foot tall. But I think they must be less than two inches. Sure, the smurfs look pretty large compared to Gargamel, but you have to remember the perspective of the camera is often from the Smurf’s point of view, and therefore sizes are disorted. Furthermore, Gargamel is the only human I can recall seeing so we have nothing to compare his size with. Perhaps Gargamel is just a little-wee man. As a final thought, if the smurfs were over a foot tall, their mushroom houses would have to be at least the size of a Le car or maybe a player piano.
    - Contributed by Tyler C.
  • As a response to the article about the height of a Smurf, I would like to mention that on The Smurfs’ Christmas Special (with the song “Goodness Makes the Badness Go Away”), there were several other humans to compare to Gargamel’s height. I would say, because the average Middle-Ages male was about 5’6″ (app.), this means that Gargamel was a stooping 5′ (app.). My guess, then, is that Smurfs are about 4-5 inches tall, and therefore have big mushroom houses. This is further supported by the fact that the Smurfs were an alchemist race (who knows what Papa Smurf was really making?), and probably need a lot of mushroom in their “spells.” However, 1 foot tall mushrooms have been known to exist (just look at a fallen tree, and you just might see one). Again, the Smurfs are in a fantastic world, and for all we know, they might be bigger than us (and all the humans that have appeared are giants!). Will we ever truly know?
    - Contributed by Stephen G.
  • Talking about the Smurfs’ size-I recall a few episodes where OK, I haven’t watched many cartoons for a long time, but reading all these comments on them is bringing back my old observations. In regards to the Smurf issue, it’s always seemed interesting to me that Gargamel’s cat was named Azrael, which is the name of the Angel of Death. Also, everyone’sAzrael would chase the Smurfs for some reason, and he was quite a bit larger than them. I think they’re about mouse-size. People are talking about Gargamel’s size, and traditionally bad characters tend to be misshapen in some way,and I think he is very short because that would fit in with the personality stereotype they are trying to produce (wily, crafty, sneaky, also he is hunched over all the time). And to add to the mushroom symbolism in The Smurfs, Papa Smurf seems to represent the Amanita muscaria mushroom, the red capped mushroom so often portrayed in “innocent fairytales” or any illustration using a mushroom at all. He even wears a red cap. This would add to his sort of father figure/shaman/leader of the tribe image. Does anyone remember those vampire Smurfs? I think they were “gnats”, with the g pronounced (guhnats). They turned purple and when they bit another smurf, they would turn them into a vampire, too. Although, they didn’t actually drink blood. I’d like to hear someone’s opinion on this.
    -Contributed by George H.
  • I remember seeing The Smurfs when I grew up, and I remember hearing in an early opening that the Smurfs were “three apples tall”. Many years later, I saw a Smurf T-shirt showing one of the little blue creatures exactly as tall as three apples next to him labelled “I Measure Up.” Since an apple is about 3 or 4 inches tall, I think 9 inches to a foot would be a good measure for a Smurf’s height.
    -Contributed by Darrel J.
  • Just a minor note, the Smurfs were created by the Germans. They are definitly supposed to be ‘three apples high’. They are supposedly created when depressed people (‘blue’ people) go sit in the Black Forest. Forest fairies feel sorry for the ‘blue’ people and change them into tiny sprites. The only trace of their depression is their blue skin.
    - Contributed by Althea6302
  • The Smurfs were NOT created by the Germans. The Smurfs were created by a man named Peyo who was born in Belgium.
    - Contributed by KyleWestern
  • If you watch the episode where Gargamel makes a giant, you will see that smurfs make their houses, not grow them like regular mushrooms. This shows that the mushroom houses can be any size so they have no effect on the Smurf’s size. Also, apples only reach 4 inches when planters use fertilizer and such. Naturally apples are much smaller, and therefore I think Smurfs would only be 7-8 inches tall.
    - Contributed by siletren
  • Remember the old commercials for The Smurfs said they were 3 apples high? Put 3 apples on top of one another. These Smurfs were huge! Think about the ratio here. Imagine the size of the mushrooms these things live in. Gargamel must have been blind not to find them. In the opening credits the smurfs run underneath Azrael’s legs. Given the “3 apples high” ratio this makes Azrael the size of a mountain lion, and thusly makes Gargamel out to be roughly 20 feet high.
    - Contributed by Dante W.
  • Whatever the t-shirts showed notwithstanding, I think we’re all missing the point about what “three apples high” means. I think they were some magic apples in the forest, and the Smurfs ate them, and well, it’s like someone saying that they’re “six cups drunk.”
    - Contributed by Michael W.

Mini-Analyzations

June 8, 2008

  • Inspector Gadget is the epitome of the 80′s in one cartoon. You have a police department that isn’t corrupted in the media yet, you have references to old 70′s tv shows (this message will self-destruct), you have the fascination with computers (Penny’s laptop that’s thicker than today’s printers) and robotic stuff (the wonderful Inspector himself), and the fear of a huge, crazy, foreign power (MAD-obviously he’s supposed to represent Russia — look at all of the “agents of MAD” — they’re Russian spies in cartoon format). It’s the 80′s. Not to mention the music.
    -Contributed by Bryn D.
  • If you will notice in the Disney movie DuckTales: Secret of the Lost Lamp, the animation quality is fantastic at the beginning, but quickly degrades into merely tolerable. Then, at the very end of the movie, the animation quality is quickly back to its original level. Presumably this was an attempt to cut costs and production time while trying to prevent the audience from realizing it.
    -Contributed by The Editor
  • Ever notice that in G.I. Joe, the shots from Cobra’s lasers are always blue, and the Joes’ are always red? Even if one of the Joes picks up a Cobra laser, the color is still red. Could these colors hold some inner meaning?
    -Contributed by Paul J.
  • The main characters on Ed, Edd n Eddy on Cartoon Network could represent the ID, Ego, and Superego. Ed is a free spirit who always wants to have fun. Edd “Double-D” is more reserved and nervous and makes the perfect super-ego. Finally, Eddy is the ego, which balances out the other other two.
    -Contributed by SDOG1028

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine


From the archives: A Response to Sexual Ambiguity in The Brave Little Toaster

June 6, 2008

This article was originally written as a response to Sexual Ambiguity in The Brave Little Toaster. Alas, the name of the original author has been lost to the mists of time. And my poor organizational skills of ten years ago. Also: we apologize for the lack of updates this week. We take our update schedule very seriously.

I hope you were referring to The Brave Little Toaster (a 1987 Disney-affiliated cartoon movie) and not its parody, “The Brave Little Trailer” (a 1994 ten minute short on Animaniacs). The latter I know for sure starred a male cartoon character because at the end you see the Trailer as a grandparent with a white beard and the Pooh-bear voice of cartoon vocal-master Jim Cummings. But at any rate the first film does fail to meet your criteria for deducing the gender on cartoons for a number of reasons.

First off, you’re talking about appliances here. They have no clothes either way. In fact, going over the movie several more times I found no instance where the animators hinted of clothing on any of those characters; possibly to keep them subliminally apart from the human characters. And supporting my theory. (Yes there was that Hawaiian projection scene during that song but I’m talking about hints of clothing that was actually fused onto the characters kind of like Cogsworth and Mrs. Potts in Beauty and the Beast.)

Then you’d probably like to discuss color coding. Alas, it holds all too true for the stereotypically (hot pink) female examples, but remember- out of a million billion cartoons, I’m only evaluating the Toaster. Subliminally, I didn’t notice gender because the Toaster has chrome silver and black (those aren’t even really colors) which are exactly what all classic toasters are like. Hence, this character has passed the color coding test by avoiding it altogether.

Let’s see, the Toaster is seen dutifully and enthusiastically tidying up the cottage and minutes later is replacing burnt fuses and hot-wiring a car battery for a chair. Two opposing stereotypes=nothing.

The eye-detail doesn’t lead you much in any direction here. The Toaster has got the dinner plates thing but that’s because, being a toaster, it’s whole face is also it’s body (it’s sort of a verbal to visual pun). Absent are the eyelashes and that ever-alluring white glare found endlessly in Japanimation. To top it off, the Toaster has dark brown irises which not only transcends gender-specifications but ethnicity as well.

In dealing with the voice-issue, that one is totally arbitrary. In my case, I sit next to this student in my Algebra 2 class I would’ve sworn, for the rest of my like, was a full-fledged tomboy had I not heard someone speak his name.

Moving onto emotional status, examples grow increasingly murkier (as I would expect). The Toaster does briefly display what could be conceived as maternal instincts toward Blankie halfway into the movie- though by the end doesn’t mind sitting flat on him like a frat boy on a beanbag chair. Personally, I think that electric blanket is gay for several obscure reasons as well as those flagrant one (a scene where Curby “unloads” his bag of dirt, the Toaster wants Blankie not to gawk- my take on it is the Toaster also has a form of “unloading” like with breadcrumbs on the real appliance and since Blankie has none, he isn’t allowed to intrude this sacred act- it’s almost like a third gender! But now I’m really going off).

How about suggestive hints? If you want to think dirty you could say the Toaster has those slots on its head suggesting female genitalia (and the bread to toast process as pregnancy) but you will also notice the Toaster is the one with the inserting mechanism for those baked goods and, most obviously, it has a nice long power cord sticking out. Do you suppose that represents male genitalia? But rather than go off on a tangent rant of why this cartoon is suggesting of a hermaphrodite, it would be far better to just say “Hey, it’s toaster that happens to talk, okay?”

There was one scene that really, really had my gears turning and that was the otherwise meaningless encounter the Toaster has with a flower in a secluded, almost romantic setting. Well, my thoughts (as I’m writing this) are that the flower softly throwing itself at the Toaster symbolizes someone giving away their virginity- often associated with girls. But, then the flower seems to go into despair and wilt when it is told it was looking at a reflection (the Toaster clearly doesn’t want to get involved in anything here). Does this mean the flower was basically trapped in this romantic setting all alone and believed it found true love in the form of a reflection… or just a companion at all? Comments are welcome- either way, it still keeps the intrigue of my claim alive and well.

I was so convinced of my theory that I decided to view that sequel The Brave Little Toaster Goes to Mars. I shuddered when I heard it existed and I shuddered more at each passing minute of seeing it- this is the marriage of mediocrity and bribery at its worst, folks. But in the end, I got just what I wanted- more proof the Toaster has no gender. There is yet again a scene where they were supposed to refer to it by third person (by some gigantic refrigerator?) but it could have very well also been referring to the Radio or Lampey. I know it gets rather cumbersome to dissect a movie so thoroughly but to me, it’s increasingly obvious that the animators took great lengths to avoid the issue (and possibly the children’s book this was all based on). The simple fact of the issue is they refuse to give the audience any definite truth on the Toaster. However another totally different possibility is they’re letting you chose the specific gender of this utterly neutral character with an utterly flawless design. I choose neither side for all those reasons stated above. Of course, you can still choose male… if you want to believe that.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 199 other followers