Cartoons and the people who make them.

[on:]

Why is it that one cartoon created by a cartoonist who's most famous for it, whenever he/she creates another one it's always for some reason in a way a flop?

Like take Family Guy.  That show's a big hit, but American Dad is already getting bad reviews!  Also, same goes for Beavis and Butthead, they were a big hit, but King of the Hill was a hit for a while, now nobody seems to care for it, anymore.  Plus, the same with The Simpsons and Futurama. 

Do people really think that another cartoon created by the same cartoonist who's famous for it (i.e. Simpsons and Matt Groening) really believe that the new one that comes is going to be exactly like the first one?
I don't get it.  Why can't both cartoons from the same creator be hits?

[Reply #1 on:]

American Dad got bad reviews because it's shitty  and King of the Hill has lasted 4 years longer than Beavis & Butthead and is still going strong.

[Reply #2 on:]

Perhaps Tiny Toon and Looney Tunes?

Not all other cartoons created by the same author ended up unsuccessful. If I am not mistaken the superhero series are created by the same person, the ones that came out later are successful too, e.g., Superman, Batman, Spiderman, hulk? I saw an interview on my digital channel about that.

Unless Anime is not considered as a cartoon (I noticed some people don’t considered it to be a cartoon for some reason) but to me it's a cartoon just in Japanese style. Anyway there has been quite a few of them created by the same author then another follows and also becomes a hit.

[Reply #3 on:]

Tiny Toons owned you.

[Reply #4 on:]

Many times the first cartoon is unsuccessful, and the second one is a huge hit. While it's dying off a little now, King of the Hill eventually got way bigger than Beavis and Bitthead ever were. In my grade 6 class(back in 96-97), moronic(in a good way) "huh huh" laughs were replaced by "Get me a sandwhich, woman!" followed by a playful pat on the butt. Sexual harassment at its best.

[Reply #5 on:]

 

Originally posted by Nixorbo
:
Tiny Toons owned you.

What?! Dude, I hope you're kidding.

[Reply #6 on:]

Listen to the guy, he speaks the truth.

[Reply #7 on:]

Pinky and the Brain > Animaniacs > Gargoyles > Tiny Toons > Duck Tales > every other cartoon from my childhood.

[Reply #8 on:]

 

Originally posted by Nixorbo:
Pinky and the Brain > Animaniacs > Gargoyles > Tiny Toons > Duck Tales > every other cartoon from my childhood.

I miss trying to take over the world every night.

Thimble Theatre > Popeye
Thimble Theatre was a daily newspaper strip featuring the adventures of Hamm Gravey, Castor Oyl, and Castor's sister Olive FOR TWELVE YEARS before Popeye entered the picture. The rest as the say, is history.

Betty Boop > Popeye (Fleischer animation)

[Reply #9 on:]

 

Originally posted by Nixorbo:
Tiny Toons owned you.

I agree.

Along with the other examples Nix made below.

EDIT: Or above. Damn days need more hours so I can sleep.

[Reply #10 on:]

Wasnt tiny toons a Steven Spielberg production, whereas Chuck Jones created the Loony Tunes?

[Reply #11 on:]

Yes. But it was good.

[Reply #12 on:]

 

Originally posted by Grim:
Wasnt tiny toons a Steven Spielberg production, whereas Chuck Jones created the Loony Tunes?

You're giving Chuck Jones a bit too much credit there (although he did come up with Pepe Le Pew, Road Runner, and Wile E. Coyote).  No one person created all of the Looney Tunes characters.

Still, you make a good point.  The people who made Looney Tunes didn't make Tiny Toons, so that's not really an example of what this thread is about.

[Reply #13 on:]

 

Originally posted by KurtPikachu2001:
Why is it that one cartoon created by a cartoonist who's most famous for it, whenever he/she creates another one it's always for some reason in a way a flop?

Its like any other "2". People as a whole are stupid and they don't like seeing things that are different from what they have already grown to love. 2 movies are always known to be crap compared to the first, I guess 'people' think this must apply to cartoons. Personally I think its wrong but its not done by personal opinion.

[Reply #14 on:]

How about Flintstones vs. Jetsons then? I did a search. They are both created by Hanna-Barbera, and according to the poll of the website Flintstones is more popular than Jetsons.  Not so sure about a flop though for the Jetsons...


 http://www.kidzworld.com/site/p2230.htm

Of course the results in the website could be biased due simple reason such as not all people who watch those cartoons have access to the internet.

[Reply #15 on:]

 

Originally posted by Nixorbo:
Pinky and the Brain > Animaniacs > Gargoyles > Tiny Toons > Duck Tales > every other cartoon from my childhood.

Pinky and the Brain were great, but for some reason Chicken Boo was the segment of the Animaniacs show I always found funniest.

[Reply #16 on:]

   

Not so sure about a flop though for the Jetsons...

Oddly enough, it was.  It actually originally only lasted one season (24 episodes.  I just checked) and wasn't really considered a success evidentally.  But, at some point they started syndicating them and over time it just started to get popular after all, so they made a couple extra seasons for syndication in the 80's.

What exactly is it with sci-fi shows doing badly initially and then gaining fanbases after cancellation, anyway?

But anyway.....there isn't really an overall trend with cartoon failures.  Sometimes shows work and sometimes they don't, and even good creators can make a big mistake, or just not get the tone quite right, or even just have their vision be completely raped by committee/business thinking.  Generally I think you'd have to go down show by show, and in doing so I doubt you'd find a serious trend, even just factoring in recent shows.  "American Dad"'s bad reviews are easily explained by its sucking.  "King of the Hill", though starting to die, is in its eighth season I believe, which is much farther then even most successful shows go really.  Its only just now that its starting to fail, and a lot of that is (suprise) mishandling on the part of Fox.  Futurama, though it struggled, was really still more successful then a lot of people give it credit for, considering it lasted five years, which is almost an eternity by network tv standards.  (and as for The Simpsons, it would be hard for anything to match the massive success and impact The Simpsons had, if one must compare the two shows.  TS pretty much revolutionized tv)  With some of the failures, I think it comes down to those involved misinterpereting who their audience is, or somehow not connecting with the audience in the same way, or just plain having their creation hijacked by studio thinking.

[Reply #17 on:]

 

Originally posted by DotheBartman:
What exactly is it with sci-fi shows doing badly initially and then gaining fanbases after cancellation, anyway?

A lot of times, the original airings of some shows get their time slots shifted around so much that fans who really dig the shows either can't find it or can't watch it for whatever reason because of the new time slot.
Things tend to get more settled into regular time slots in syndication, allowing fans to know when their show is on, and allowing new fans to come onboard because of the stability.
Or something like that.


------------------
"we gladly feast on those who would subdue us"

The Captain's Gallery