Western Animation - Discuss American, Canadian, and European cartoons here (or just bitch about wokeshit, I guess)

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
A couple of Tumblr posts from someone who worked on Hoppers:
Zillychu said:
PLEASE go see Hoppers in theaters.
It’s delightful. It’s hilarious, charming, has great messages, and just feels so much like a Pixar Renaissance era film!
It’s also quietly woke in a way that will deeply resonate with older viewers who feel helpless and angry about… everything currently going on with the world. Like I’m obsessed with how they were able to subtly slip in a message that goes very much against the expected and tired “meet your moral opponents in the middle”.
It’s so subtle but not at all missable. And it’s so on the nose you might want to scream when you realize what literally happens in the figurative message.

(TEARS THE DUCT TAPE OFF MY MOUTH)
SPOILERS for Hoppers because you really should just go experience this movie blind for yourself.
You don’t understand. This entire movie’s conflict is about the greed of corrupt officials. How even the most pleasant politicians can and do lie, cheat, and steal. How this doesn’t just affect the initial victims, but primes the playing field to very soon go after you. How we all need to stand up together because that’s the only way we can make things change.
But Hoppers doesn’t stop there. It says hey, don’t forget, politicians are people too! Then doesn’t give you time to put up your finger before saying but that doesn’t change the fact that harmful acts needs to be stopped. It quietly says that more local officials (like mayors) tend to buckle under social pressure the easiest, and can indeed be well-meaning while doing despicable things.
It looks you in the eye and says “Your anger is dangerous, and can get innocent people hurt if you aren’t careful. But your anger is legitimate, and you don’t need to silence it, just wield it carefully.”
It tenderly holds your face and says “You’ve been told to be the bigger person, haven’t you? That fighting back means stooping to their level? That you need to meet truly evil ideals in the middle, even when that means simply giving ground to dictators and fascists?”
Then it leans in and whispers “Screw that.”
Sure, Jerry is mostly off the hook (after having his life threatened, which, I’m just sayiiingg), but he’s not the true villain.
Jerry is a mini boss. A foe that can be reasoned with, to a degree (or at least scared). The official close to home, beholden to his constituents in a far more immediate way than those higher up the ladder. Possibly even human, somewhere in there.
No, the true villain, was Titus.
Not just a nepo baby, but a king.
Someone who the hero (Mabel) tried to talk to. To give him a way out, to appeal to his humanity.
Except… he’s not actually human.
And after Mabel did her best to try and find a reason for Titus’ brutality, the wannabe dictator spat in her face and mocked her kindness. “Did you really think that would work?” He asks. Did you really think you could talk to me civilly and just change my mind? That I wouldn’t already be doing this if I weren’t truly evil? Did you really think this could be solved without force?
And Mabel replies “I really wish it had.”
And then promptly begins the short cascade of events that ends in Titus, the rich king attempting to be dictator, being killed.
Eaten, in fact.
But the writers have made sure not to put a spotlight on this. It’s a rather quick scene framed as a gag. But it’s front and center, it’s in your face, and it lingers for several silent seconds under the guise of comedic timing. Which does in fact work, it was freaking hilarious seeing Chekov’s frog.
Hoppers gently pats your back and sympathizes with your plight. It tells you that you’re not alone, that your anger is justified, and that some people can’t be reasoned with. Mabel did what we all need to do–try our best to talk things out peacefully first. But if that doesn’t work, if it’s so serious that countless lives are on the line…
Well. We’re not saying “kill the villain”, but we very much did kill the villain.
Eat the rich, indeed.

Don't get me started on the found family and the young adult and the young adult + much older adult finding a familial-flavored platonic love! ...not quite father-daughter, but something similar that doesn't need solid definition! Romance was NOWHERE TO BE FOUND, which again – disclaimer – romance is fine; it's just so terribly over saturated, ESPECIALLY for female (or femme) protagonists!! I was biting my nails half the movie, expecting the same exhausting “but evil politicians are people too” nonsense, and it just delivers all of that in the span of a few minutes! Like, I just did a sky dive and the parachute came out while giving me a sick high five!! ̈The political message in Hoppers is unapologetically brutal, but done so in the most non-sanitizing empathetic way! It's just genius!!!

Hoppers sounds good, but I find it way too hypocritical to be like "eat the rich and stand up against evil!" and the story is being told by a 170+ billion dollar company that doesn't pay its staff. I'm really sorry; I really don't see the logic in giving Disney more money to tell us a story they don't believe in.
Zillychu said:
I hear you, I really do, but you do also need to remember a couple things:
  1. The animation team does believe in this. They’re workers, they’re people like you and me. The movie is made with love and passion, and it shows.
  2. It’s also a good, original movie that was told because it had a story the team wanted to tell, rather than the soulless slop pushed by execs we’ve been getting lately.
  3. Telling companies (not just Disney btw) “this is what we like to see” is a worthwhile endeavor imo. It says we like original content made with love, AND we like the messages. Not saying seeing this movie is a form of activism, but that it does send a bit of a nice message in that way too.
  4. You don’t have to see the movie. You do you, my friend. Following what you believe in is important.

I also know who this anon is, so, like, buddy... u don't need to go on anon for this! It's OK; I promise!
 
Last edited:
I already dismissed it when I found out that the director was the same guy behind We Bare Bears, thanks for discouraging me even harder.
Hoppers sounds good, but I find it way too hypocritical to be like "eat the rich and stand up against evil!" and the story is being told by a 170+ billion dollar company that doesn't pay its staff. I'm really sorry; I really don't see the logic in giving Disney more money to tell us a story they don't believe in.
benjammins-comment-above.png
I also know who this anon is, so, like, buddy... u don't need to go on anon for this! It's OK; I promise!
translation: You should've said who you were so I can send my army to dogpile you for daring to disagree with me.
 
Last edited:
Pixar essentially went braindead when they forcibly kicked Lasseter out over allegations no one could back up and replaced him with some chink. Pete Docter is likely just there so he can be the one to call it once the plug's pulled.
 
How is that a problem? I truly, honestly am confused.
When it comes to watching modern Western animation, one of the golden rules I adhere to is this:
1773591687746.png
If it has a beanmouth art style, avoid it like the fucking plague. This rule has served me well thus far, and I have no intention of breaking it now. And before you screech "GRAVITY FALLS!" or "HILDA!" or "KID COSMIC!" at me - those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
 
I was watching some slop video essay on classic Disney villains and I have to ask is Gaston even really a villain?

At the time he went to raid the castle he didn't know the Beast was a dude, from his perspective and with the information he had there was a horrifying monster that was kidnapping people from the village and presumably eating them since they never returned.
I like that Gaston at the park who's an asshole to thots
 
I was watching some slop video essay on classic Disney villains and I have to ask is Gaston even really a villain?

At the time he went to raid the castle he didn't know the Beast was a dude, from his perspective and with the information he had there was a horrifying monster that was kidnapping people from the village and presumably eating them since they never returned.
Was that fro Matt Walsh?
 
On the rest of your post… you are going to b even more vindicated (warning: kinda conspiratorial):
Dear God in heaven, have the nineties finally fully returned? I can't stand that the bleeding heart hippy girl animal activist who can't understand that animals eat each other has returned to children's media.
 
That film was one of my favorites. Never saw the show but I did see the short spin-off film though.
I watched the first Nickelodeon show, and I liked a lot as a kid.

Looking back, I'm surprised how similar one villain was to Dr. Doofenshmirtz, an evil inventor with a teenage child dragged into his schemes.
Then there was the GOAT

And I guess Avatar and Samurai Jack were cool…
I watched Kappa Mikey a few times as a kid, but it never really made much of an impact on me.
Don't forget Code Lyoko.
Not really an Asian show? I still liked it more than I probably should have.
Two of the avatars were themed after a ninja and a geisha respectively, but that was it.
Shit, I forgot how watered-down Nick wound up becoming once Spongebob came into the picture. I had an aunt that had satellite TV with a couple different Nick channels and at least 2 of them was always airing Spongebob.
Remember the episode that was a giant metaphor for how Nickelodeon had turned SpongeBob into their cash cow... and also had a Gene Shalit cameo for some reason?
 
Shit, I forgot how watered-down Nick wound up becoming once Spongebob came into the picture. I had an aunt that had satellite TV with a couple different Nick channels and at least 2 of them was always airing Spongebob.

It's like the studio stopped giving a shit in regards to not only producing but also just airing different shit. I had to go to CN just to get something different and even then they started getting repetitive too with the trio of "AdventureTime/Flapjack/Chowder"
It actually took a bit of time, and SpongeBob was more the scape-goat to the actual reasoning for Nick's downfall. You can legit pinpoint the downfall as beginning in 2006. Why 2006? Because the company swapped presidents, we went from based CHAD Herb Scannell to the killer of Nick, Cyma Zarghami.

Just a reminder, the Sponge came in 1999 under Scannell's leadership. Him, actually being an ambitious leader, used the Sponge for the purpose of being the backbone to the brand, a pillar to build off of, unlike Cyma. Under him, we got Jimmy Neutron, Fairly Odd Parents, Invader Zim, Danny Phantom, MLATR, and Avatar. Even the shows that were good under Cyma such as El Tigre and Making Fiends were holdovers from his presidency.

When Cyma took the reins, she killed everything Scannell built to leave her mark on Nickelodeon. Her biggest policy was the SpongeBob rule, which was a rule that claimed that if your series was not as popular as the Sponge after 1 season, it was terminated. Personally, I think the rule was mostly bullshit, just to kill off Scannell's "in development" projects because plenty of garbage was allowed to stay while breaking that rule. El Tigre and Making Fiends were notably targeted by Nick once she took over, stories of their production make it sound like the productions were smooth and Nick was very encouraging during development, you know, in the Scannell era, but once aired, Nick did everything to fuck them.

Live action was also heavily tampered with to mainly being Dan Schnieder productions. I remember it being rumored that Cyma got the presidency role for her involvement with feet-man and the Pedo crew, would make sense as she oversaw programming with a lot of the off-channels like Teen Nick.


Nickelodeon got really fucked up swapping presidents. Scannell sounded like he was a pretty ambitious man who loved to invest in things. He was particularly in love with Jimmy Neutron, really blew through budgets to get his pet project going strong. If you ever wonder why Jimmy was such a massive character to the point of being the face of the theme park ride, he is why.
He, and his crew, also did a lot of random investing. Invader Zim was a sought-after project after a crewmate read Johnny The Homicidal Maniac - A little strange to have a children's cartoon company go to the creator and ask for a show when his content was...that, but okay. At the time, they wanted an older teen block, so it made sense with that context. Making Fiends similarly was another investment where Nick approached the creator, guess a manager's daughter loved the online series so much Nick decided they would fund it. Then Danny Phantom was of course Nick approaching old Butch and having him just spit-ball shit.
 
Last edited:
Omg.

That sounds like a nightmare. I'm sorry that happened. Hope you kept your preliminary work and notes cuz even if you don't want to make that particular cartoon I think you will come back to it many years later and remember the joy the art brought you over that weird experience.
<3
I did keep everything! I haven't worked on it in years, but it was my baby for a long time, I couldn't just throw it in the trash. I just shelved it and ripped a few ideas out for other things when I needed them. Every now and then I still think about going back and making a more complete series of character sheets, writing bibles, etc, as if I was actually going to pitch it somewhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom