"Fox ADHD" Hopes to Win Over Internet Crowd

Starting this July, Fox is launching a new late night animation block called Fox Animation Domination High-Def (ADHD).  Spearheaded by Nick Weidenfeld (formerly a developing executive at [adult swim] on Cartoon Network) the block will feature original programming that seems squarely aimed the young internet crowd.  The only confirmed series so far are an adaptation of 8-year old Malachai Nicolle's web comic Axe Cop, a series from  Dino Stamatopoulos (Moral Orel) called High School USA!, and an unnamed series based on twin comedians Kenny and Keith Lucas.  As part of a soft launch, ADHD has created a tumblr and a YouTube channel featuring some of the upcoming content as well as some original shorts to help drum up interest.  Go ahead and check them out, but be warned that most of it is pretty NSFW.  Also, if you are easily disturbed by bright colors and frantic movement, you should click with caution.

After pouring through everything, I have to say that I'm not a fan.  The animation itself looks like MAD and Robert Smigel's TV Funhouse had a baby that didn't get any of either parent's good genes.  More disconcerting however is that everything about the content smacks of shameless pandering to the internet-going audience.  The YouTube videos are full of 90's references, songs by (presumably) cute girls with ukuleles, and references to Reddit and Slender Man.  Anyone who does not spend at least half of their waking hours online is probably going to be baffled by much of what is being offered here.  Nick Weidenfeld even hosted an AMA ("Ask Me Anything") on Reddit to go right to the source of his audience.

Weidenfeld claims that Fox has given them a long-term deal to allow for growth, but I can't help but question how much faith the network actually has.  They don't exactly have a stellar track record for keeping programs on the air for very long.  Outside of the past-its-prime The Simpsons and the hit-and-miss animation empire of Seth MacFarlane, there aren't any options except for the surprisingly funny Bob's Burgers sandwiched in between.  Plus, with an airtime of  Saturday nights at 11 P.M. it isn't exactly prime TV viewing.  The only real competition ADHD will have is Saturday Night Live and the revived Toonami block on [adult swim] that just runs anime; not exactly ratings contenders.  Plus, unless they're too stoned to drive or operate a computer, is anyone in this demographic actually home on Saturday nights watching TV?

I'm glad to see a network trying to branch out in terms of animated programming, but the whole thing just feels half-baked to me.  ADHD is the MAD TV to [adult swim]'s SNL. It's cruder, employs less skill or wit, is geared towards an immature male audience, and will ultimately end up being compared to the reigning champion to its own detriment.

Why the Emmys Don't Care About Animation

In case you missed it, the 64th Primetime Emmy Awards were Sunday night.  Before I narrowed my focus to animation, I used to really get into the Emmys.  I watch my fair share of TV, so I enjoyed whether or not my personal tastes coincided with the awards. The last few years however, I've started to see that I don't really care anymore.  It's not just because a handful of shows usually end up sweeping the categories (and at least one or two of them are always from either HBO or some BBC production), it's because I realized the state of animation at these awards.

If you watch the ceremony to see which of your favorite animated programs will win awards, don't waste your time.  Animated categories are relegated to the less prestigious Creative Arts Emmys.  Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of hard working technical people who deserve recognition, but animation deserves more respect than to be lumped in with makeup artists and  camera operators.  In case you're curious, Outstanding Animated Program went to The Penguins of Madagascar, Outstanding Short-Format Animated Program went to Regular Show, and Outstanding Voice-Over Performance went to Maurice LaMarche for his work on Futurama.  Aside from the last one there, I'm less than impressed.

Animated programs are a major force on television.  Fox's "Animation Domination" block is a major draw on Sunday nights.  Seth MacFarlane is one of the biggest names in the industry right now, but if he wants to win a televised award, he would have to submit Family Guy into the general Best Comedy category.  It's been done, but the animated contender always gets trounced by the "30 Rock" and "Modern Family" establishment.  The Simpsons has been on for 23 years and has not won any sort of award outside of the standard animated and musical categories.  There have been times where it was literally the best thing on TV, but no properly prestigious awards were given.

My thoughts exactly, Homer.

Just last week I mentioned that veteran voice actor June Foray had finally been awarded an Emmy, but even that was a Daytime Emmy for a part she played on The Garfield Show.  While she certainly deserves the recognition for a lifetime of wonderful performances, I'm flummoxed that it took Garfield to attain it.

The condescending stance of the Academy is maybe best illustrated by an incident that occurred when this year's nominations were announced earlier this summer.  The NBC series Commmunity submitted an episode that had been animated as an old-school 8-bit video game homage for consideration in the various animated categories.  This prompted a protest by 52 writers, directors, and producers of full-time animated programs, including Seth MacFarlane, Matt Groening, and David X. Cohen.  Trey Parker and Matt Stone were conspicuously absent, but given their history of saying "Screw You!" to the Hollywood establishment, it's not surprising.  The response from the Academy effectively said that non-animated shows can submit to the categories because they are treated as a, "special episode," and separate from the rest of the series.  Animated writers, directors, and producers are welcome to submit to other stand-alone categories, but they would have to suffer the slings and arrows of a group that has little regard or respect for animation.

Why does the simple fact that a program is animated mean that it must be subjected to such harsh double standards?  Over time, critics and audiences have consistently shown that animated shows are beloved, so why not give them a square shake?  I think the answer lies with the embedded establishment of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.  Despite the fact that primetime animation has been around since the 60's, it still seems to be regarded as cartoonish kids' stuff and not on the same level as other non-animated programming.  Maybe one or two more new smash-hit shows might change their way of thinking, but if The Simpsons or Family Guy can't do it, then I'm not holding my breath.  At least there are the Annie Awards thrown by ASIFA (Association Internationale du Film d'Animation) to give animated shows and films the recognition they deserve.

"6 Days to Air" Shows How "South Park" Stays Fresh

Just the other day I found 6 Days to Air: The Making of South Park on Netflix and gave it a watch.  I knew that South Park Studios produced episodes in only a week, but I hadn't realized how intense the process actually is until now.  It is truly a wonder to watch.

The documentary primarily follows creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone as they script, record, animate, and air an episode of South Park in only six days.  It is an ambitious schedule that is unlike any other animated show on television right now.  Other shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy take months to create and are shipped overseas to countries like South Korea for the actual animation.  In contrast, everything for South Park is done in house at South Park Studios in Los Angeles.  The result is a form of current events satire that is virtually unheard of in commercial animation.  A news story can break on Tuesday and it can be in the new episode that airs less than 24 hours later.  I'm simply fascinated with that degree of relevance in an industry where staying that up-to-date is virtually impossible.

It also gave insight into the relationship between Parker and Stone.  Often, the image seems to be that Parker is the bigger "face" of the series and does much of the writing and directing.  Stone has often been labeled the "Garfunkel" of the duo, but I don't really see it that way.  For one, the documentary indicates that Matt is much better at the PR side of things and helps prevent Trey from spinning off too far into his own inherent weirdness.  While he does provide many voices for characters, Matt seems to be more in a producer role rather than writer or director, although he is always present in the writers' room to act as a sounding board for jokes.  It's a fascinating dynamic, and one that works and works well.

I also gained a realization as to the evolution both of the show itself and Parker and Stone.  Back when South Park premiered, it was groundbreaking for its content and how far it was willing to push taste and what was acceptable to air on television.  Now, it is the standard by which all other "crude" animated shows are judged.  Even though copious swearing and poop jokes are still its trademark, it remains fresh and willing to go after any topic without fear.  The rabid First Amendment fan in me still squeals with delight to see the juxtaposition of discussing issues related to terrorism and freedom of speech with queefing and world-record setting craps.  Perhaps my favorite moment in the entire 42 minute documentary was Executive Producer Anne Garefino on the phone with Comedy Central Standards & Practices regarding the content of the episode in production, "HumancentiPad":

"We're not going to see feces in the iteration that I've seen so far, but, I don't know what's going to happen at the end yet.  We haven't written the end.  Maybe...yes...maybe we see them being sewn together.  Yeah...thanks...Happy Easter to you too."

Matt and Trey are a fascinating duo to watch.  They've gone from dressing in drag and dropping acid at the Oscars to writing and producing a smash hit Broadway musical, The Book of Mormon, that has received accolade after accolade.  Yet even though they're now in their 40's, they still appear to be the same pair of young guys who just don't give a damn about pissing people off.  Because of their intimate control over the production of South Park, it is hard to imagine the show being able to continue without one or both of them.  I could see Matt Groening or Seth MacFarlane completely taking their hands off of their shows and their legions of writers could keep the machine running (voice acting not withstanding in the case of Mr. MacFarlane), but that's not the case with Matt and Trey.  After seeing the emotion and the turmoil that goes into creating each episode of the show, I kind of worry for their health/sanity and wonder how much longer they can keep up this pace.  I hope it is still for a while, because despite its age, South Park continues to stay fresh and very rarely has it made an episode that is a flat-out disappointment.  After seeing 6 Days to Air, I definitely will keep my mouth shut the next time I feel like being overly critical, if that ever happens.