In Defense of Product Placement

Hasbro, owners of the Transformers property that experienced a brief re-flourishing during my freshman year of college, has another show out on the airwaves now. This show is a re-imagining of the My Little Pony Franchise, called My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.

(You can read the creator talking about her intentions with the show here )

You can watch the first episode, if so interested, here

It's completely awesome by the way )

The show is smart, well animated, and has a catchy soundtrack. Best of all, Each pony is completely different, but just as beautiful and just as important. There is no token female. There is no one way to be that is held up to be the ideal. I would even argue that it's stronger and smarter than many nonchildren's shows aimed at women, especially in light of our reality TV show discussion week.

And it wouldn't exist without the preexisting commercially successful toy line. The reason why? Little girls today are more prone to watch Jersey Shore or CSI with their families than animation. With the proliferation of media choices, there world of the Saturday Morning Cartoon has effectively been ripped asunder. Making animation has always been a dangerous bet, costing much more and usually have much less draw then sitcoms or reality shows which the whole family is usually willing to sit down to watch

Need evidence? Consider Disney Channel hardly airs cartoons anymore, and the cartoons they do make are super cheap, vector based comedies recycling the same tired stereotypes and storylines they seem to be plugging into all their new properties these days without even utilizing the foundations of animation. Compare this to the original Disney channel, with Bonkers, Gargoyles, Darkwing Duck, Ducktales, Tailspin, and a plethora of others and you'll see how even it's pioneer studio as abandoned the medium.

The outlook at the film division is even more miserable, outsourcing all their projects to Pixar which doesn't deal with traditional animation but CG (Which is different due to the technical skills required for each kind, PIXAR animation has a lot of design early on and a lot of math play and slider adjusting for most of the production, while traditional animation is almost all design work and illustration. )

It seems the Disney Renaissance is dead in the water and will remain so for a long time. In fact, it has often been suggested their last Disney Princess film was the direct result of merchandising desires. They needed a black princess for their Disney Princess franchise, which continues to earn money long after the films have left theaters or slowed in DVD sales by having a princess each girl could pick as their favorite. They weren't selling enough princess merchandise to black girls, so The Princess and the Frog. (It's still a good film, like all their films, the underlying motivation was not that making

animated art is profitable. Because it is so often not. )

Animation doesn't make money.

So, What advantages do cartoons have over live action?

Why would a studio ever use animation?

One: historically it's cheaper to do convincing stunts. This is why there is never a shortage of action-adventure boys animation, from Jonny Quest to He-Man to The Amazing Spiderman to Ben 10.

Two: It's easier to distort for comedic effect. Whether this be maiming the character or simply pushing an expression to a hilarious extreme, it's often times allows writers to go 110% into a joke. This is why we were refer to over-actors in live action as cartoonish, or caricatures. One good example is the beginning of this spongebob video Watch the range of expressions, the way they're stretched makes the transitions between the emotions is so dramatic that it is much more instantly recognizable than they would have been in a live action adaption. Since every second an audience has to think about a joke is more audience that doesn't laugh at all or ever get it, for comedy instant recognition is important.

Three: It's easier to make action figures that look on-model. Compare this Spectacular Spiderman toy (Based off an animation design that's already simplified and exaggerated) to this Edward from Twilight toy:

Edward doesn't look like Edward at all, but spidey's instantly recognizable.

The problem with this?

1. Girls aren't allowed to be aggressive without being labeled as lesbians or at the very least tom boys, implying they're fighting nature. Girl clothes are even made from lighter colored, cheaper, thinner material that rips easier from physical activity. Even if their parents buy them practical clothes, consumer culture pushes them towards non physical roles and clothes not appropriate for physical interaction. Girls who would otherwise be interested in stunts of physical strength like fighting and sports where special effects would be used in animation are constantly societally pressured to lose that interest.

2. Before Tina Fey, could you name a female comedian? I certainly didn't remember many from the 80s and 90s, but dozens of men. Historically, female comedians have depended on innuendo to make a living (Mae West). Although this trend could be changing, I certainly notice the class clown always a male. Certainly, sitcom wives continue to be the joyless nags they've always been since women got empowered. (This includes not-even real girlfriends such as in the sitcom the Big Bang Theory. The neighbor across the hall only gets jokes in when cutting others down )

3. …..Wait! Wait! Parents DO BUY girl's action figures! Sure, they don't buy them as long as men do since they're oriented towards putting all expendable income into clothes, make up, and training to cook and clean long before men are, but there is that window where it could be very profitable!

Which makes the action figure market the only place where girls animation seems like a plausible idea from a studio's perspective. Boys shows can be made without a preexisting success because there's more a chance of it succeeding for longer.

There's always been a debate about long toy commercials in the form of cartoons. It's an understandable concern. As argued in Branded for Life, children don't have the full capacity we do to distinguish advertising from programming. (Haha, though is there is a difference? *drumroll*) However, because of animations ghettoization and the culture forces at work on women, especially when connected to the media, it doesn't seem like it's possible to invest successful in animation made for women by women. MLP:FiM is only possible because of the toy line.

However, unlike it's predecessor, the creative team behind it is incredibly passionate. To animators, just like film makers, their productions are art. Commissioned art is where many of our legendaries made their greatest works. just like Mozart, just like de Vinci. When there isn't a economy to support an artists work (There's always an economy for porn, for example, but not for girl's cartoons ), people wishing to work in that industry must rely on commission. It is not counter intuitive to the arts. It is not unusual, especially in our media saturated environment. And I argue, if it will allow more shows like MLP:Fim, or even great show aimed at boys such as Spectacular Spiderman or Transformers: Animated, it's a necessary evil to keep the artform alive.