Modern American Animation

This article describes the history of animation in the United States of America since the late 80's until the early twenty-first century. This period is often called the renaissance of American animation, during which many large American entertainment companies reform and reinvigorate its animation department after the decline suffered in the 60, 70 and 80.

From 1988 to the present

Disney's return

In the mid 80's, the American animation industry fell into disgrace. Toy commercials masquerading as entertainment programs cartoons dominated the evening and the morning of Saturday, and the only experiment was carried out by independent developers. Even animated films were projected in theaters at times, but the glory of the old days was gone. Even the animation giant Disney, which had fought a corporate acquisition in the 80's, was considering abandoning the production of animated feature films.

Both the enthusiastic audience, critics, and the animators were taken by surprise when the long-awaited renaissance of animation began in the oldest and most conservative corporation, Disney.

Disney had a drastic change in the 80, its new chief Michael Eisner the company relocated to his feet, returning to its roots and revitalizing their studies. With great fanfare, in 1988 the study worked with Steven Spielberg to produce the animated film Who Framed Roger Rabbit, directed by Robert Zemeckis. The film was a success, and gave to the animation industry awaited push for that time. Roger Rabbit not only earned him a pile of money for Disney, but also sparked the popularity of the classic animation that continues to this day. The history of animation suddenly became an object of study (and their fans). Several directors, business legend, such as Chuck Jones and Friz Freleng were suddenly in the spotlight, being acclaimed after decades of being virtually ignored by audiences and industry professionals.

Disney continued the success of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? with "The Little Mermaid", the first of a series of animated films that seemed to recapture the magic of the golden age of Walt Disney himself. The studio invested heavily in new technology of computer animation for such purposes, but could do super-productions like "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin," which attracted audiences that were not seen in decades, and Once provided a visual feast that has not been exceeded since the 40. The peak of the hit Disney was in 1994 when his film "The Lion King" exceeded all expectations of the study to become one of the most successful of all time. Even later Disney films as "Pocahontas," "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "Hercules," "Mulan" and "Tarzan" was blockbusters.

Disney has also made inroads into the neglected area of the animated TV series. With the success of shows like "The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh", "The Adventures of the Gummi Bears Disney" and "Duck adventures", the "new" Disney made his mark in TV pictures. Through association and repetition, Disney can provide high quality animation for TV. A series of large diffusion was conducted in mid-nineties, with some critics designating "Gargoyles" as the Disney animation project for TV's most ambitious and best done artistically. The soundtracks of each of these animated films were an important part of its success, because Disney was including in each of these projects a loud voice from the world of music, such as Elton John (The Lion King), Luis Miguel (The Hunchback of Notre Dame), Ricky Martin (Hercules), Christina Aguilera (Mulan), Celine Dion (Beauty and the Beast), Ricardo Montaner (Aladin), Jon Secada (Pocahontas), among others.

Spielberg and animation

Spielberg and Bluth

While Disney gave new life to animation, Steven Spielberg was making his own way. Animation amateur life, Spielberg was also interested in making high quality animation, and worked with his rival, Don Bluth animation producer to produce "Fievel and the New World." The box office success of this and Bluth's next film, "In The Land", Hollywood made him realize that Disney did not hold a monopoly on animated features. The other Hollywood studios resumed production of its own animated features, but still falling into the trap of trying to imitate Disney's 1997 film Don Bluth, "Anastasia", produced by Fox, is mentioned as the one launched the Fox Animation Studios and Disney's rival, however, these studies failed to succeed after "Anastasia" and closed in 1999. Like most successful productions of Disney, "Anastasia" was attended by Thalia, who played the central theme of the soundtrack in its versions in Spanish, English and Portuguese.

Spielberg and Warner Bros.

Spielberg, meanwhile, switched to TV and worked with animation studio Warner Bros. to produce "The Tiny Toon Adventures," a high quality animated series that paid homage to the great cartoons of Termite Terrace. "The Tiny Toon Adventures" had a good rating thanks to its young viewers, which inspired the Warner Bros to resurrect his dying animation studio and once again a contender in the field of animation. The Tiny Toon Steven Spielberg were continued by presenting "Animaniacs" and "Pinky and the Brain". The latter not only attracted new viewers to Warner Bros., but also captured the attention of viewers adolescents and adults.

Bakshi's return

Ralph Bakshi, director of innovative animated films like "Fritz the Cat" and original "Lord of the Rings", returned to animation after making a brief stop in the mid 80's. In 1985, he teamed up with the young Canadian animator John Kricfalusi and the legendary British band "The Rolling Stones" to make an animated music video for "The Harlem Shuffle", which was completed in early 1986. Although the music video did not talk much, he built a production team "Bakshi Animation" project continued with the short-lived but well received, "The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse." Bakshi & Co, worked on numerous projects at the end of the 80, but the biggest project was "Cool World: a blonde between two worlds", which premiered in 1992. The production got out of hand and ended up being severely criticized and forgotten by almost everyone.

Humans Are Animals But Animals Are Not Human

Introduction:

It seems that there is a lack of understanding and more than a few misconceptions when it comes to the subject of animals. This article will discuss some of these misconceptions and the realizations that we need to make if we are to avoid deaths and animal attacks. The problem seems to lie in our misconceptions that animals are driven by emotions rather than by pure survival instincts. This causes us to attribute an animal attack to the human emotion of anger or revenge. I know that all people do not hold these misconceptions, which would be presumptuous. What I am saying is that a majority of people do, simply based upon the evidence. The evidence I refer to includes television shows on Discovery, Animal Planet, TNT, etc. It also includes the news media, and even Academia. Again, some shows are guiltier than others, but the fallacies range from the small to the absurd.

The main point the reader needs to take from this article is that animals are animals, driven by basic instincts necessary for their survival. They do not feel anger, jealousy, love, or plot revenge. Although some animals may contain the capacity for these emotions, I doubt those senses are as highly developed or reasoned through as ours seem to be. So, when we attempt to attribute human emotions to animal motivations we are making a silly mistake. We need only try to look at the situation from the animal's point of view. This shouldn't be hard, because we have the ability to reason. We need only attempt to return to a state of mind that we haven't had since we rubbed sticks together and drew on cave walls.

The Main Issues:

The tree hugger is as much to blame as the hunter. When a nature lover is attacked brutally by an animal and survives they usually make the statement; "It didn't know what it was doing". This is not true. The animal knew full well what it was doing. They would also make the claim that they should not have put themselves in that situation. That statement actually is true, to an extent. When we venture out into nature we cannot expect that we will not be attacked by a wild animal. What we must expect is that there is a possibility, and we must accept responsibility for this if we are going into the woods anyways.

Animals are finding their natural lands threatened by housing developments, businesses, and other activities that bring human beings into areas where animals used to roam. Their territory is shrinking. So, when we go out into the woods than it is our responsibility. If a person enters the forest for any reason, and is attacked by an animal, whatever the reason; it's their fault. Why? Because they know in the back of their mind that it is a possibility. If you go into the woods with your children and they are attacked, then it is the parent's fault. Why? Because they knew it was a possibility. You have every right to take the risk, but when and if something bad happens, you can't blame the animal.

There are people out there who believe that animals are of no consequence. The only thing that matters in this world is the human race. If an animal is hit by a car, shot, or killed by anything other than natural means; so what. This is a very ignorant viewpoint to have for one reason. We live in a world that is governed by balance. One thing affects another and if one species disappears it will affect other species. Sometimes it can be in a good way for that species and sometimes it can be in a bad way. If all predatory birds were to go extinct than it would be great for rodents. It would not be so good for whatever the rodents feed upon and it most certainly would not be good for us. Granted some species can go extinct without greatly upsetting the balance of things. It's when multiple extinctions occur that a major problem will arise. These individuals that do not hold animals in high regard, when attacked by animals, usually are quick to anger. That animal attacked me and therefore must die! I doubt that they would even consider the possibility that they bore any responsibility whatsoever for entering the woods that day. The bottom line is that if people enter the woods, we must be aware of the dangers. This goes for any natural environment that we consciously enter, knowing full well that we could be attacked by a bear or a shark.

I will never forget an episode of Worlds Most Amazing Video or maybe it was the Most Extreme, where an elephant was rampaging through the streets of Mexico. If I remember correctly, this elephant was performing in a circus, turned on its trainer (killing him), and then began running through the streets. This elephant ended up being shot to death in the street. I had no problem with that, it was clear the animal had to be taken down. What I did have a problem with was the statement made by the bonehead commentator of the show. He stated, "This is a tragic event, but let's not forget why this was necessary." That may not be his statement word for word, but the point is clear. The elephant had to die because it was a rampaging monster! How ignorant is that? In my opinion that was an extremely ignorant statement that had me cursing out loud at my television set. It is true that the elephant did kill his trainer. It is also true that the elephant was out of control. Why are these the only valid points? Did anyone stop to think that the elephant should not have been there in the first place? Elephants do not belong in circuses and they do not belong in zoos. The only purpose a zoo should serve is to rehabilitate injured animals or to shelter animals that are endangered.