This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Top-importance). Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Animation / Cinema Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Film: Filmmaking / American / Animated This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. This article is supported by the Animated films task force. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Macwhiz, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 15, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

If anyone is able to check some of my facts on the "Sick and Experimental" section I'd be thankful. Also let me know what you think of the section title. I'd like to say a little more about how Space Ghost has changed the field, at least on Cartoon Network. I also added a dead link to Internet animation, which were it to get written should go on the main Animation page. Shoehorn 14 Aug 2003

I'd rather not cut the paragraphs on CGI animated special effects and characters in the movies, because they are (IMHO) a very important factor in the popularization of computer animation in the past decade. CGI has increased to the point where it is now an essential part of nearly every Hollywood wanna-be blockbuster film; whereas "realism" in CGI owes a lot to the likes of (ugh) Jar-Jar Binks and Titanic. --Modemac 12:11, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

While I think there is some crossover between the world of digital characters as special effects and animation, the paragraph about Forrest Gump is really just about special effects. And Forrest Gump is not even as interesting or groundbreaking as Woody Allen's Zelig. The second paragraph which paraphrases George Lucas is simply awkward. I made reference to Jar-Jar and Gollum in the previous paragraph, so that is now redundant.

Things I think should be discussed: George Lucas, Titanic

Things I couldn't care less about, with respect to animation: Forrest Gump, the Hulk.

- Shoehorn

Can anybody tell me with a straight face that the opening paragraph of this article is NPOV? --MTR (严加华) 06:41, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Right on. Felicity4711 22:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circa 1994, independent art houses gave the world some gems as well, including Phantom 2040 (imagine Batman: The Animated Series by Peter Chung instead of Bruce Timm), Highlander: The Animated Series, and ReBoot (world's first fully CGI television show).

Also, w/r/t the decline of saturday/sunday morning cartoons, some attention should also be shown to ABC's Saturday Morning Special which included Cadillacs & Dinosaurs.

However, at the moment I can't think of how to be bold and insert this into the article proper, because I think I'd end up just rewriting the whole thing.

The "Return of Disney" section seems extremely biased against late 70's-mid 80's animation. Someone fix this. Ralph Bakshi and Don Bluth != a decrepit state. - Anonymous Coward

The early to mid-eighties were a great time for animation. Thanks to outsourcing to competent Japanese animation studios, animation quality was higher than ever, and after two decades of Hanna-Barbera being the default, this new standard of animation was in particularly sharp relief. However, because the model sheets were designed in America, these cartoons did not suffer from an overtly anime style. Though many of the best cartoons of this period were toy tie-ins, the quality of writing, acting, and overall production was extremely satisfying, enabling the cartoons to speak to older audiences who would never buy the related toys.

The decline began in the late eighties, when it became too expensive to continue using Japanese animation, writing got more kiddified, and a new generation of less seasoned, less resonant voice actors took over. By the early nineties, the only place to find competent American-Japanese animation was in the one-third of the episodes of Tiny Toon Adventures and Batman: The Animated Series that were outsourced to Japan. At the same time, however, model sheets got simpler and simpler, resulting in a style of artwork that only the best Japanese studios could pull off.

Today there are absolutely no well-written, well-animated cartoons on the air. The best cartoons on the air are the Adult Swim types, and they can hardly be said to be well-animated; like their 1960s-1970s ancestors, they make up for cheap animation with other strengths. Even with that, they don’t stick to their own style consistently. Felicity4711 22:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell: the article willfully ignores the success and long-term impact of shows like Transformers, GI Joe, and TMNT. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, that even though those 80's cartoons were extremly commercially successfull, hardly any of them recieved any artistic acclaim in their own time. They were loved by millions upon millions of children (i was certainly one of them) but regarded as utter crap by most adult animation enthusiasts (though ofcourse they have plenty of adult fans today, since many of todays younger adults remember them from their childhood, and has a kind of "nostalgic bias" towards them). I think that what the writers of this article is mostly trying to point out is that it was in the late 80's - early 90's that cartoons once again started to be written and produced in such a way that adults (particularly those specifically interested in animation) cared to watch them and that cartoons were once more looked upon as an art-form worthy of serious attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.172.124 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this really ought to be "Modern animation in the United States"

Should the trend during the last couple of years be mentiond? I'm talking about how American animation now seem to look as unrealistic as possible. Eg. most Nickelodeon cartoons, Kim Possible etc. Muna90 16:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For shame. I come looking to read a thorough article about the ninties and earlier present. What I find is a bias toward "adult animation," and only a select few comedies at that. Even in the saturday cartoon section, there's just a mess, listing of whatever comes to mind.

Seriously, is this an encyclopedia article or a school essay? How about mentioning more than the Simpsons? How about showing how saturday morning cartoons and children's animation EVOLVED? Shows like Batman: the Animated Series, Superman: TAS, Spider-Man, et cetera?

~sigh~ 01:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This article, in my opinion, is absolutely drenched in POV and has an overly-dramatic tone. It sounds like a movie plot rather than an encyclopedia entry. TripOnMyShip (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a good foundation here. Remember, featured articles require "brilliant prose", and while I agree this particular article goes a bit too far at times, sometimes it's easier to dial it back than it is to punch it up. =) Powers ^T 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the article is a giant box that cites some of the issues this article has. Is it really necessary to have "citation needed" every other line? This is ridiculous, it makes the article unreadable. It's nice that you people are so passionate about cartoons, that you'll waste time questioning the validity of every single comment that every single person makes, but it's a bit too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.188.25 (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, I just came to the talk page to write the exactly same thing. An (citation needed) article (citation needed) with (citation needed) that many (citation needed) citation needed is really difficult to read indeed (citation needed). Peter S. (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there to suggest that flash animation is anywhere as big as what animated series' and feature films were and are? --Spikeleefan (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Adult animation article needs to be merged into Modern animation in the United States in the Modern animation in the United States#Animation for adults section or renamed. Adult films, adult shops, adult comics, adult entertainment, adult anything... all carry a pornographic connotation. Therefore the Adult Animation article should be merged (not in its entirety, of course) here. The only other option that comes to mind is renaming the Adult Animation article “Animation for Adults” as it’s called here. That, however, can and will still be misconstrued for pornographic animation and film. I think the best idea would be to go for the prior and merge these articles for the reason above, as well as because I find the list of “adult” animated programmes in the Adult Animation article superfluous. Support or oppose?

The original talk page, which I think was a bit more eloquent, is here: Talk:Adult_animation#Rename_or_Merge_with_Another_Article --BaKa-NEKO (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to merge the articles whatsoever since, please scroll down the article Adult animation, the subject covers films made all over the world throughout film history unlike the current that speaks strictly about animation in the United States from the 80's on. Please remove the tag, the articles have nothing much to do with each other--Termer (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the Adult animation talk page. Please keep the discussion there, because it can get confusing commenting the same thing on two places.--Cattus ^talk 18:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern animation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.savedisney.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most people regard the 90s-2004 as the Renaissance Age of animation, and 2004-now as the Modern Age. 2004 was when shows like Hey Arnold and Samurai Jack ended and Home on the Range flopped causing Disney to abandon 2d animation. I think we should split the article into two: Renaissance age (90s-2004) and Modern age (2004-now).--73.52.114.170 (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Modern animation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.savedisney.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203140624/http://www.disneyanimation.com/aboutus/history.html to http://www.disneyanimation.com/aboutus/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an informational page about modern animation. This is a propaganda page to justify the declining quality of modern animation. Very sad to see on wikipedia - a website that should be about posting true information slowly turning into a propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.50.75 (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]