How would a company go about dethroning Fox as the "Go To" channel for adult animation?

you have autism

Nobody wants to try because it's not their forte nowadays. The money for their cable competitors is either in original dramas or sitcoms that you'd never see on the Big Three anyway. That nobody really wants "adult" cartoons that aren't gross-out sitcoms doesn't help either.

Barely

Is it really, though?

They have The Simpsons and a few interchangeable shows coasting on The Simpsons

By making something worth watching

You think anyone's impressed by that, anymore? Futurama's premiere eclipsed them. DBZ's eclipsed them. What makes you think they're anything special, anymore, when they've even admitted they can never keep an audience, even after a sports event?

Wait for one of the Simpsons cast members to die.

You think animation is magically restricted to children, but he's the one with autism.

You will probably need a lot of advertising/shilling to get an audience. Probably try going for the "animated drama" type of thing. Get normalfags hooked on it, like they get hooked on shows like the walking dead and GoT. If you somehow manage that, you can expand into more animation. Starting with more dramas then into other genres. That's when you get something that takes a good chunk of the animated shitcom audience. Fox animation will just slowly die, and you will take its place.

Wasn't there one time Fox tried getting a moe anime on prime time?

You dethrone them by staying out of the business of choosing when your customers can watch your programming, i.e television. A Netflix distribution model would level things out in the industry because there wouldn't be a need for execs to play favourites over certain programming. See Cartoon Network and Teen Titans Go! for an egregious example.

Then, you need to provide incentives for the most creative minds to work for you to create content that's actually good such as maximum creative freedom and high budgets. However, as we've seen before, that mentality only lasts for the first few years of an entertainment business. After that phase, the businesses become complacent from the guarantee of profits as a result of loyal consumerbases. To do away with that, we need to abolish copyright. By doing that, networks will have to be incentivised to not fuck over their creators and treat them with respect. Should a network engage in anticonsumerism or executive meddling, the creators can just go over to any one of their competitors to get a better deal and continue making the works they truly want. Because if you suck and someone can do a better job than you, you're guaranteed to go out of business. Not with the system we have, though. Because the way most entertainment businesses make money isn't by investing effort into the creative process to make quality content, it's by riding off the names of popular ideas and pandering to certain groups. Which is why capeshit and SJW drivel is so prevalent.

Fix those two problems, and we'll finally start having great cartoons again.

Somehow Japan is able to not have the problems of American animation, even though they have copyright too. Must be some kind of dark oriental magic.

That magic is called discipline, integrity, and not having jews.

Also, their animation clocks at almost half of the frames that Western animation usually has.

They have it even worse, just look at shit like one piece or case closed, they both fucking eclipse the simpsons, with the latter being like, 2:1 on the episode count, and they're both nowhere near as old. Alternatively, just imagine if Fox just kept producing new episodes of the simpsons every single week for the past 25 or so years

Go back to reddipol, retard.

I'm not sure if that's true anymore, and you have to also take into account the huge disparities in detail and complexity.

Very, very few shows run as long as One Piece and Conan. There's also Sazae-san, Chibi Maruko-san, Crayon Shin-chan and Doraemon, but I think that's it.

And in the case of Conan it is more that the MURDER OF THE WEEK formula works since it is basically about the creative/weird/retarded murder methods more then the "main plot", basically no one watches Conan for the that, the murder/alibi tricks are the draw, and there are MANY kinds of retarded ones to draw from that pool still.

It is while there are MUH CELEB episodes every once in a while they are still very much in the backseat to the FISHING LINE LOCKED ROOM/TOILET BOILER/AQUARIUM INVISIBILITY stuff, and i can honestly just recall 2 off the bat, one being the one with Two-Mix.

It rotted but even if it has it is nowhere NEAR Simpsons level degradation, since it still has a sliver of the original appeal, Simpsons lack even that.

I cannot stress that the best way to get normalfags attention is to take full advantage of the fact that the medium is animated. What are some things you can't do in live action but can in animation? Maybe you make a Games of Thrones kind of show but drawn in the style of Medieval art? Maybe make it CGI if you really want normalfag dollars.

They can already make GoT and other kinds of fantasy and scifi shows in live action, so why use animation? Audiences are resistant to serious adult animation too, and producers have no experience with it.

A change in American animation would probably have to start with the way Disney and Dreamworks etc. make their movies. They have the best production values, they are the most popular, they are seen as the most respectable and socially acceptable animation, and they don't have the children's cartoons baggage of TV animation.

Game of Thrones should have been an animated series, though.

Have it's own channel

But really why isn't Adult Swim it's own channel by now, that way they could have more shows and run them for longer which is what they want, it would also stop them from being known for canceling people's favorites shows. It would also stops kids from hating on Adult Swim which only hurts their rep, or they could just replace it's spot with Toonami every night which a lot of people would like.

Cartoon Network needs something profitable for its late night time space, the shows probably play better during midnight anyway

Honestly sounds great, because it changes over at freaking eight depending on day, time zone and daylight savings. Kids go the bed at ten where I live. Way too early for freaking family guy to come on of all things.

Family Guy is already kind of a stretch as a network primetime show

>>>/auschwitz/

Its always has been

Or they can move to the internet and be incentivised to produce good content. The television model of distribution has run its coarse. And Cartoon Network is now too complacent and cheap to allow good creators to work with them. Because when you have contempt for the audience combined with a profit model based on selling advertisement space to your sponsors. You're most likely going to neglect the quality of your programming.

market share

That's it, the only reason FOX is the "go to" is because they own the most local networks so even people that don't buy cable can find it on the local air waves

I actually hate that shit tremendously because back when that happened with a lot of networks it killed some cool shows like exosquad

Yes, thank you. Fox is too centralized too give a fuck about the quality of their shows. What we need is to have more networks competing against each other in an environment where the barriers are low. And the perfect place for that is the internet. It's time series got released like video games and movies to minimize executive meddling. Only then can we have great cartoons again.

The owners are all look out for each other, though, so no chance of that happening.

Adult Swim doesn't have enough programming to justify six days a week. They need to bring back Boomerang on the Friday overnight, and play it safe with Tom and Jerry, Looney Tunes, and the first two seasons of Scooby Doo. After midnight, there's room for experimentation, and you could get some people talking if you run the weirder stuff like The Banana Splits, Swat Kats, or Captain Planet.

Toonami needs better shows in general to justify their valuable saturday primetime slot, but they haven't stepped out of the shonen action bubble to any real degree. How many times have they even played something like Eva or Ghost in the Shell? Are they still broadcasting the 19-year-old masters of Cowboy Bebop, or does it look like something better than the DVDs?

Adult Swim themselves needs to get back to experimentation, because that's what led to every one of their best shows like Harvey Birdman, The Boondocks, and The Venture Bros., all of which seem quite off-the-wall on paper. They were heading in that direction with MDE:WP, but I'm sure the hipsters in charge, egged on by Tim Heidecker, got quite butthurt about what happened with the presidential election.

Those started out as a comic strip adaption and a typical Johnny Quest parody respectively

The only reason Fox is still the largest channel for adult animation is because of bars putting on Simpsons/Family guy when there's no sporting events on, and anyone would rather watch a basketball game than yet another episode of American Dad.

A process of normalization would have to take place, which would necessitate the networks producing shows which are risky and deviate from established formulae. Television stations have shown for decades that they're extremely risk-averse, and as the public's options for entertainment have expanded this has only become more true. Cops/Detectives, Lawyers, and Doctors are the three main genres that get used over and over and over again for live action. They're safe in the sense that people generally know what to expect, and the Jews at the networks know they can pull in at least a semi-decent audience.

For animation, right now, the vulgar sitcom format that started with the Simpsons in the 80s is the only non-kid-themed format they're willing to try, for the same reasons that live action is all cops/lawyers/doctors. In order for this to change, the concept of animation being a vehicle only for kiddie shit, South Park or Seth MacFarlane would have to change to include sci-fi, fantasy, drama, war, etc. The networks would inevitably have to produce some projects that don't succeed to warm people up to the concept of animation as a medium in general.

Anime has a gigantic following that didn't exist in the 80s and was barely a blip in the 90s for the simple reason that US studios refuse to give that potential audience anything at all. America could easily capture a good chunk of this huge market if the 70-year old Jews in charge of Disney and DreamWorks were willing to make anything other than PG-rated wacky animal exploits.

Look out for each other? Explain.

A process of normalization would only take place if certain conditions in the entertainment industry were met. Why? Because we have to think like the executives to understand the rationale behind their decisions. When we think of television executives we have this image of a bunch of greedy philistinic kikes who's only goal is to make money, even at the expense of creators and fans. But if that's the case? Why did we have so many great cartoons in the late 90s/early 2000s? Wouldn't their first instinct back then be to fuck over creators? No. Back then, when Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, and Disney were all starting out, they needed to find permanent audiences willing to watch them for years to come, and the best way to do so was to give them content worth watching. So they let the creators be creative and gave them relatively high budgets. It wouldn't have made sense for them to enact anticonsumer policies and get cultural marxists on board. Had they, no one would've watched them.

This is the mentality of almost every film studio, video game publisher, and network. They start off with great content because they need to get people to buy from them, and you can see this in the beginning of even the shittiest studios and publishers. But after seven or more years, complacency sets in as a result of their large permanent consumerbases. Animation has undoubtedly suffered the most.

The quality of cartoons are crippled by the "Just for kids, mentality" and the television as a form of distribution. When you have contempt for the audience, you can get away with producing whatever garbage you want, especially when your means of profit are to sell advertisement space to your sponsors, encouraging more cheap toilet humor-ridden crap. It's like if Hollywood films were produced like Syfy original movies, or if all the shitty gaming publishers made their games like the wannabes on Steam greenlight. The problem with television is that when you have to take into consideration your audiences different preferences, the times they'll be watching their televisions, and picking favourites and leaving all the other shows in the back instead of giving audiences the choice to choose what content they want to watch when they want to watch it. Then that's a crystal clear sign that the medium your working with is too archaic for great content to be made. We might as well reinvent the telegram while we're at it.

One final issue is that of copyright, although it affects animation significantly less compared to video games and movies. Even if we got rid of television as a means of distribution, and the dreaded "Just for kids." Mentality. We'd have the same problems as the video game and film industries. Complacency will still prevail in that environment, because copyright is essentially a monopoly on the expression of an idea. And when you have a monopoly, you no longer have to provide anything of value to your consumers anymore, because you're the only seller they can buy form. Without copyright, executive meddling would be a thing of the past. If they tried to fuck over the creators, they could leave and work with a better network to their liking. And no, I'm not some aspiring bedroom socialist revolutionary. I believe in the efficiency of the free market, and that includes entertainment.

What would an animation industry on the internet look like? 1. it would be way less centralized. New networks would emerge to compete with one another, ergo more experimentation and people without the dreaded "Just for kids." mentality. 2. It wouldn't have the constraints of television, as any content would be released like video games and movies today. 3. No executive meddling, as stated before. 4. No centralized rating system.

If we can fix all these problems, we can start having great cartoons again, and it would be a far better future for animation than any other animation era in history. But it starts with the executives. Whether you like them or not, they have all the power. But in the free market, they'd be equals in power to the creators.

The problem is still that animation is expensive as fuck, flash tweening is so popular because the only other viable option is agonisingly adjusting every single frame, which you need either literal years of work or sweatshops to do. And it's not something you can exactly outsource to monkeys; I think they do it in Korea and Japan but not say, China because they're at a sweet spot where you can get skilled people with a modicum of necessary creativity for cheap. (And even then, the animators often misinterpret their instructions, between the language and culture barriers. Venture Bros had issues when they specifically wanted to insert deliberate animation errors and the animators did the scene correctly)

In comparison, live action is incredibly cheap, and all you need is a camera and editing software, the prices of which have only gone down and the quality's gone up. Video games are different again, but generally can get a lot more hours of entertainment out of less work than animation.

Publishers and studios are perfectly willing to have the budgets of video games and movies go through the roof more and more every year, and yet movies don't look like Syfy crap and games don't look like Steam Greenlight. Most of the time, they're actually well-designed and well voice acted/acted. They only fail narratively, because the writers weren't up to par.

The biggest problem with animation is that it doesn't make money like films and games do. They get it from selling advertisement space. And the problem with that is that it's not an efficient way of making profit. Instead of television or subscriptions, I support a model whereby you pay what you want by paying to watch individual shows on the basis of supporting your favourite content. Do you realize how much money Netflix could've made had they had that model?

Once that's in place, the profit margins will be high and more than enough to cover the costs of animation. And since they'd be selling cartoons like movies and video games, I'm sure sales would be high should the content be more than satisfactory.

You're probably right, but studios have only gotten more desperate and desperation means sinking more money into advertising, reasoning that people will watch anything if it's shoved in their face long enough.

Unrelated note, this feels like great old fashioned filename fodder, but I can't think of one.

I think you're being too cynical. You still have reviewers willing to help consumers decide what they want to spend their time watching.

I doubt advertising would have the same effect it does now if popular ideas weren't monopolized.

It's been pointed out to you many times now that since anime does not have the same problems as American animation it therefore follows that copyright is not the issue. One of the reasons anime doesn't have these problems is because the TV networks don't have the same kind of power they do in America (as far as anime is concerned), and there's no culture of clueless executives or producers pissing in the pool (as far as anime is concerned).

You also say it's a problem that animation is as seen as for kids only, but that's not entirely true. It depends on what is culturally considered appropriate animation for children. Children's animation doesn't have to be like Disney or Hanna-Barbera, as anime aimed at children demonstrates.

As for animation costs, in 2010 the average animation cost for an episode of TV anime was reported to be $53,000 ($36,000 today), from a total episode budget of $145,000 ($100,000). Sure the animators are paid little, but I doubt the Koreans making most American animation are paid much better, and American shows have episode budgets three to four times higher than anime with vastly less detail and complexity in their animation (and everything else). Kyoto Animation, who are famous for their very high quality production work, have average budgets, do almost everything in-house and pay higher than normal salaries. The similarly famous ufotable also does a lot of work in-house, and their budgets are probably average too.

You can make animation expensive if you insist every producer, executive, writer and voice actor has to be paid a king's ransom, while outsourcing the animation so it becomes a more drawn out and inefficient process, but that doesn't mean animation is expensive.

In short, get rid of all the jews.

What I'm hearing is that we need to get rid of all those entitled animators.

There seems to be the expectation that when you're in showbiz you have to make big, ever escalating amounts of money. In the anime industry directors and producers make middle class salaries, and voice actors can make hundreds of thousand a year from all their VA and singing work if they're really successful. Which is good money, but peanuts compared to what they would get in America.

Unless I'm misunderstanding this, then that means there really is no excuse for animation being as shitty as it is today. Or, for them to even outsource the actual animation to Korea.

Though, before we really start something, I think we should also take international and local law into account. AFAIK, Japan and Korea's copyright laws are quite different to those in the U.S.

That seems to be a sizable amount of the problem.

Japan has strict copyright laws and enforcement. Doujin works are an unofficial exception, but they are not relevant for commercial purposes.

Well for the simpsons it has a massive budget that the Voice actors leach off of massively.

Something like 400,000 bucks per episode per voice actor. Because of Union something something.

So in a sense as the voice actors budgets become more and more like a tumor everything else suffers.

Then, what about all those games in the 90's that could be accused of outright plagiarism, or was there a big change made to copyright laws since the turn of the century (And, that's the reason why none of these games will ever be rereleased)?

Depends on what games you're talking about.

Snatcher was the first to come to mind.

This seems to be the only relevant issue Snatcher had:
But this is hardly plagiarism.

The reason Japan's animation industry is doing extremely well compared to Western Animation is because of it's culture. The executives over there have different standards of what animation is supposed to be. Anime mostly hasn't given in to to the constraints of television or the even stricter Japanese copyright laws. But most western executives don't think that way. You see, the problem isn't that there's a lack of creative artists to produce a wide variety of unique original content across multiple genres. It's that the people in charge of the money have a different vision of animation than the artists do. And the only way to change the dreaded, "Just for kids." mantra is to decentralize the market and provide incentives for executives to let good creators create. Because like I said, it's up to them to decide if they want to have great content created. And it seems like the environment of the market today is stacked in their favour.

But just because anime hasn't suffered doesn't mean that other entertainment industries in Japan have avoided succumbing to corporatism. Just look at Konami, Capcom, Square Enix and Nintendo and how they treat their consumers. Their policies and neglect for quality are nearly identical to those of EA, Ubisoft and Activision.

Western Animation is shitty because of the perception of animation the executives have and the environment of the market that's stacked against the unique creators.

In that case, the best solution to this problem is to have creators become big enough that they don't have to comprise on their vision. Which, honestly, is a very simple task (It can be accomplished well before you're 30), but the work required is what turns off a lot of people.

With an overwhelming amount of creators today, they honestly believe that they either have to (A) work their way up the corporate ladder to finally become notable enough to do their own stuff (E.G. Kojima, Tartakovsky, and young Joss Whedon), or (B) do what they can in their spare time and eventually get picked up by a larger company (Though, these guys mostly don't end up going anywhere, and it rarer for it to happen).

They don't think about the possibility of a better option. And, until more creators look for a better solution, animation in the West will still be shitty.

Executives don't determine what anime looks like. Anime studios and production teams are left to their own devices.

Anime totally gave in to the constraints of TV, there was nothing else that could be done when there was so little money and staff, the industry was weak and TV inherently imposes limitations. The way TV anime was made even ended up determining how movies were made. It's actually American shows that have tried to resist TV to this day. Disney cartoons and movies are still the model everyone tries to follow. Anime is seen as cheating and cutting corners. And this is what happens when you spend decades cheating and cutting corners: youtube.com/watch?v=pYJ8Jgt8MwI

Refusing to follow copyright law isn't exactly an option.

Video link for those trying to leave the scourge that is YouTube.

That's bullshit. Anime production has always relied on the investment of companies that might not even deal in animation primarily (look up "production committees"). The rub is that they get to advertise their own wares, which is why Japanese VAs are often celebrities, OPs & EDs feature music from contemporary bands, and most anime in general are either adaptations or franchises onto themselves.

When different companies are contributing money, meddling is a given.

Ugh

I never claimed there wasn't any executive meddling. I said Anime was much better off than Western Animation. Yes executive meddling still happens, but when we balance the power between executives and creators to the point where no party has power to fuck over the other and they both need each other, animation will be nearly free from executive meddling. As creators would have the option to continue working on their cartoons at some other network should their current ones not be to their liking, and thus, executives would be incentivised to give creators the best deal they can or lose them to their competition.

Then why is there so much anti consumerism is the gaming (including Japan )and film industries? But if you want an example related to television, why do so many highly regarded shows get cancelled, have their budgets slashed, or had creative decisions forced on them by executives? Because the executives know they can get away with it. They have the "rights" to the creators works, and they know that they have loyal consumers who will watch their shit regardless of the quality. If there were significant consequences to engaging in anti-consumerism, the networks would never do it. But because of the legal fiction known as Intellectual Property, or should I say, Intellectual Monopoly, they can be guaranteed to get away with whatever heinous shit they can. Just read any negative story about any of the major entertainment companies and you will find consumer dissatisfaction across the board.

The fact that production committees exist does not mean executive meddling exists (at least to any meaningful degree). I have never encountered any evidence of it, and I've read a lot about anime production. Anime is produced very differently than television in America, and by all appearances the production culture has a very different mentality to it. It's not the case that because something works a certain way in America it therefore must be the natural or inevitable way things work.

The author of the original work does have power over the production though, if he/she chooses to excercise it. On the other hand it can also mean cooperation between the author and production team.

Once again not an issue in Japan despite the existence and enforcement of copyright. The networks don't excercise totalitarian control over programming because the industry is structured differently than in America.

You're delusional if you really think this, executives often have the power to and do fuck things in Japan and just as bad as they do in the west.
These days it's not that apparent so much because everyone but the biggest endless Shounen big hits work on a 12~24 episode basis, so most of the meddling ends before the first season start production and it will take someone of the staff to come out and air dirty laundry in public which the Japanese are not much fond of.
Before the 2000's it was far more evident: people would cut budgets on whim and series would be cut short or made to last longer based on executive whims.
Forced sequels happen a lot because backers want money generated by the series - Digimon for example was not to have a sequel to Adventure (while on that, the Dagomon arc of Digimon 2, the one that involved the pink girl's abduction into the dark world, was cut short because the executives thought it was too dark for the series). Dragon Ball GT only happened because of executive whims and because they owned the rights; each Gundam series is Bandai saying "we need to sell more toys" - because the creator (Yoshiyuki Tomino) would just have ended the series with Char's Counterattack in 1989.
Fuck, let's talk Gundam for a second because I'm a degenerate mecha weeb, much the series works on a villain-of-the-week basis because that's what Bandai executives wanted to sell more toys. The executives cut the original series short due to poor ratings and the only reason it has 42 episodes instead of 39 is because they begged the executives and stretched their budged thin to get it wrapped up. Then it got great re-run rating in another time slot and they ordered a new series. A great deal of Yoshiyuki Tomino's grief that gave us Zeta Gundam was the massive depression he got from fighting executives all the way through the series to the point that he abandoned the production of the third sequel because he couldn't stand it anymore. Also, Amuro (the main character) was supposed to be married in the movie he last appeared, but the executives didn't want the series main hero to be married worried that fans (who at the time would be 20-and-something already) wouldn't relate. From a more recent series, one of the villains of Gundam Seed (Dearka) only defected the evil side and joined the heroes because the sales of model kits from the mech he used were lagging behind).
Macross big copyright mess only happened because one of their major backers of the original pulled funds during production. The series was to be shortened to 36 episodes, but another backer joined but on the agreement of owning part of the series. It took almost 30 fucking years for them to solve it in court.
Macross 7 can't practically be released outside of Japan because the record label that produced to music for it refuses to license just the snippets of songs used in the show but requires any licensee to get the rights for Fire Bomber's entire music catalogue. For that matter, neither does Macross Frontier or any of the more recent series.
For a more recent example, Angel Beats was cut from 26 episodes to 13 because executives simply slashed their budget in half for reasons only they know.
Also, moral guardians exist there too, Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo was cut short due to complaints from the Japanese Parent-Teacher Association, and the executives listened.
Gurren Lagann had to re-do parts of episode 6 because it aired on a child-friendly slot and a scene involving boys peeking into the woman's bath was deemed unappropriated by the network.
Manga is not different either, Yuu Watase said her editor thought her readers were fucking morons and forced her to dumb down the story and change things constantly to the point she was dealing with exhaustion and almost failing to meet deadlines (archive.is/nx9uL) as she was basically forced to make a story she didn't wanted.
Bleach's Arrancar Arc was to be way smaller but the characters were so popular that the editors wanted them to have more exposure time and development - adding a few extra years to the run of that manga into what became one of the most tiresome manga runs ever. Shaman King had a rushed ending because the popularity was declining and the editors told the author to wrap up and end it way before the story's final arc - took years of him trying and of fan outrage for the author to get a chance to finish it.
This is only what I can remember from the top of my mind, if I spend time googling I can find many more examples.

>The series was to be shortened to 24 episodes

Fixed. 36 was the final episode count after Big West joined and fucked up the rights to the series for almost three decades.
Polite sage.

Bleach, Naruto, Dragonball , Pokemon , Digimon __, Fairy Tail, etc, etc.

Because they are the ones fucking paying for it in the first place with the expectation they'll get some return for it. If they don't they'll try to salvage it or cut their losses short. Entertainment is an industry - and no industry runs for long when taking losses.
Also, being highly regarded means shit when the interest of creating these series is money in the first place.
A series can be beloved by critics and have very vocal fanbases but small viewership, meanwhile, and producers couldn't give a fuck about if critics hate Honey Boo-Boo, for example, when it's a ratings success.
On top of that ratings success doesn't translate into money (advertisement or in other form) that's also useless. Young Justice is an example as the series depended on a deal with Mattel based on toy sales, and when the toy sales weren't enough, the funds dried up and it had to be cancelled.
In all, if you want full artistic and creative freedom you either fund it yourself or prove yourself to be so good you can't be replaced - otherwise you accept that you're taking other people's money so they have a say on how things get run.

They must be on some sort of drug to keep a show running for that long.

Again, I've seen no evidence of executive meddling in anime. Even talking about "executives" is dubious, because anime isn't controlled by TV networks, there's different companies involved with different levels of investment and different relationships with each other, and "executives" is just really vague (which executives of which company?). The anime market is also a very different place than American TV (or Japanese live action TV).

You're approaching this issue of "executive meddling" from the unrealistic expectation that an anime production should be 100% in the hands of the creators with no external influences whatsoever, and therefore anything that does influence it is "executive meddling." That's not what executive meddling means.

Deciding how long a series should last does not meet the definition of meddling. It's obviously the kind of high level decision that the anime production team couldn't and shouldn't be in control of. Financial issues, licensing issues etc. are also not executive meddling.

And each Gundam series is made by a production team whose goal is to make a good series. Just because there was a bunch of poorly made glorified toy commercials created in America in the 80s (or so I'm told) doesn't mean that any animation with tie-in products must be the same thing. America does not determine how everything in the world works.

That was a different company. Bandai bought the rights to make model kits after the show had ended. Sunrise didn't join Bandai until 1994. The rest of what you claim about Gundam sounds really dubious, and the fact that you got basic information like this wrong doesn't make it sound any more believable. Nor does your constant talk about "the executives."

I'll believe it if I see a reputable source. Rewriting a series on the fly because one model kit isn't selling enough would be completely insane, and the ensuing production trainwreck would cancel out any possible boost in model sales.

Anime production doesn't work like that, and an old ANN news article from before the show started confirms it was intended to be one cour.

I can't find anything to confirm this, and it sounds very implausible.

From what I'm able to gather, that scene was added to the home video version along with some other more risque elements, it didn't even exist in the broadcast version. It's not unusual for video versions to add or change things like that, it happens all the time in late night anime. I can find no evidence that the episode was censored, and a boy trying to peek into the women's bath sounds like the kind of thing that wouldn't raise any eyebrows in Japan even in an early timeslot. Pokemon had a whole episode shitcanned in America because of girls in bikinis and whatnot, but it wasn't an issue in Japan.

Which part? Anime being better off than Western Animation? Perhaps, it's only slightly better. But, I'd still take the shittiest anime over any of the cheap excuses for ad space that gets made today. At least it wouldn't have the marxist overtones, toilet humour or extremely low-quality animation. Or are you referring to the rest of my paragraph where I provide a solution to the problem by accounting for market forces and individual incentives and interests?

Like I said before, if you have the option to continue working on your show elsewhere should your current network not be to your liking, than executive meddling would be strongly discouraged in a free market of entertainment, as any attempt to impose anti-creator policies would only hurt the network's reputation. That's why Cartoon Network, AMC, and Nickelodeon among others have been able to get away with the most heinous shit like screwing over creators and suffer very little repercussions. They have monopolies over popular works, so they have a disproportionate amount of power of creators.

Some people might say the executives will always have power over creators even if we do away with the constricting regulations. I disagree. A business owner needs his employees as much as the employees need the business owner. If either one of them dislikes the arrangement, they can terminate it and take their business elsewhere. In today's entertainment industry however, the odds are always stacked in favour of the executives. Creators can't take their business elsewhere in the sense that they can't work with a different network to continue their shows, shows that some of them have spent years perfecting the ideas for them. They quit their shows or are incentivised to continue working on whatever bullshit they have to contend with from the executives, and the executives get away scott free. They might get bad press or reviews, but in the end, they're guaranteed to have loyal consumers buy from them regardless of the quality simply because they're the only ones legally selling their favourite works. This is always the mentality of businesses with monopolies.

To reiterate, if we had a free market of animation, executive meddling would be mostly non-existent, as creators would be able work to continue their shows with any of their network's competitors should their executives fuck over them. Ergo, incentivising executives to not treat creators with extreme contempt, as evident by the current entertainment industry. Don't have me mistaken. Incentives go both ways. If a creator oversteps his budget demands, than mostly no one would be willing to fund it. However, if online animation networks had a pay what you want model akin to every other form of entertainment media, than it's likely that budgets will surely raise to accommodate the ideas of ambitious creators.

And that is why we need a pay-what-you-want model for cartoons. Not the unlucrative subscription model Netflix uses. But the same one for every other form of artistic work. Video games, music, books, and movies all have a pay-what-you-want model, it's only for series that there is a strange and archaic exception for how they get distributed and profit.

Television is a dying medium and an inefficient means of distribution and profit. I think many people would rather have the choice to watch whatever content they want whenever they want instead of having an entity choose for them by accounting for all the different interests and viewing times of the consumers and playing favourites.

If we had that ideal model, you can damn well bet profit would skyrocket for high-quality works.

You need to understand that the creators are just as integral to making content as the executives are. They're their to create content, and if we had a free market, the executives would think twice about forcing anti creator policies onto them. Yes, it's their money, but it's also the creators ideas and energy that's equally important. It's a combination of those two that are the reason for entertainment being made.

...

They killed off Phil Hartman's characters after he died, so if one of the main cast members die, I seriously doubt they'll continue the show.

It's sad that people on Holla Forums think they have insight on anything ever.

They seriously considered recasting Harry's characters when it looked like he was gonna drop out

Is that why Netflix is 2.37 billion dollars in debt and borrowing money to outgrow their catalog to keep up with consumer demand?

marketwatch.com/story/netflix-investors-should-keep-an-eye-on-its-rising-debt-load-2016-04-19

archive.is/HY367

Funny, I don't hear stories about Ubisoft, Sony Pictures or any other major entertainment company going into debt. Could it be that the kind of model they use is significantly more profitable in a way that doesn't result in them borrowing money?

Also, didn't Capcom give majority of their shares a few years back due to debt?

Anyways, that's bound to happen when Netflix lost nearly 'all of the best shows by '14/'15. Outside of Republic of Doyle, all of the good shit is gone or gimped to a season or less.

I remember Family dog as a SNES games but, Fish Police was an actual show and not a gag?

Based on an older and grittier comic.

Which incidentally got Sam & Max published

THQ went out of business from defaulting on a loan and getting into other failed business ventures, whereas Capcom started to run out of money in its coffers.

My point is, there are better ways of profiting from this industry than subscriptions. If Netflix and other networks played their cards right, they could/could've avoided debt.

And this is why the economy is turning into the .1% draining everyone else's pockets dry.

The problem is every single network thinks they can run their own subscription service, which has like maybe one show worth watching at any time. See the new Star Trek show and how it'll be lucky to survive a season at this rate.

I saw two or three Fish Police issues when I was a kid and loved them. I was so disappointed by the cartoon.

It was produced by HB, no?

They'll soon find out it's unsustainable, if Netflix's growing debt is to go by.

JUST LET IT DIE

At least someone remembers it to commission porn of it.

Isn't Netflix funding a bunch of original shows?

you're not wrong

The costs of those shows exceeds Netflix's revenue. Hence their growing debt. If they switched to Transactional Video On Demand, they wouldn't have to keep borrowing money.

I suppose the idea is they want to emulate the television model, and have the subscription encourage viewers to watch whatever's on and not just what the internet says is good.

It's a losing battle considering how nonsensical the idea is. There's a reason even MMOs are all switching to freemium models, people are only willing to have so many subscriptions and there's already a glut.

Exactly.