### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###
Cartoons are entertaining, but why would someone watch them instead of real people on TV?
Well, maybe I know him, but most of the kids don't, and that's why he draws Bugs Bunny, so that all the kids could laught, not just those who know him personally. I know that person. The one that draws the Bunny! If I meet a person as funny as Bugs Bunny, I will stop watching cartoons.Cartoons are entertaining, but why would someone watch them instead of real people on TV? It is simple. Cartoons are 1) way cheaper. A cartoon character can go around the world every episode. The budget for a live action would prevent that. 2) Cartoons can be shown in more styles. While there are obviously live action styles, most are not as diverse as cartoon styles. 3) Cartoons are inherently more imaginative and creative. They do what they do better than live action sometimes (futurama is hilarious) I dare you to show me a reality show as awesome as DBZ. I dare you. Kids love cartoons because they are very creative and imaginative. Real life is not so much fun. Real life is entertaining, I suppose, but why would you live when you can watch cartoons?
Dreams are entertaining, but why would anyone dream when they can eat bacon?
You have framed a question of taste as some kind of mutually exclusive ultimatum.These days i find most family type movies to contain the perfect mix of just enough truth to make it believable and just enough lies to make it corrupt (eg. a perfect love story that just happens to involve the girl having an affair on her husband). Some cartoons for kids are better so i'd rather watch them. right, but my main thought is the effects and the sheer creativity. There's an anime called "Planetes" that's a hard sci-fi. they can do something that no "live" show can do -- have a character float about the cabin for the entire show. To do that for a "live action" show would cost millions. To animate that scene costs no more than drawing the same characters in Central park. That too. But for most movies people seem to expect stars. It might work with unknowns to save money -- voice actors generally work for peanuts compared to the regular TV actors. But one thing that's great about animation is that you can ignore the limitations of the budget and materials at hand. It costs no more to draw a weird bug than a dog. You don't have to worry about "how" to do the effects -- if you can draw it on paper, it exists.
Also, you don't need to pay famous actors millions of dollars. Then again, you don't need famous actors for movies either, there are enough good and not so well known actors who will work for normal salary. I think it's just cultural bias. Animation gives you a lot more freedom.
I like sci-fi, but when you film something like that for TV or a live-action movie, you generally end up with "aliens" that are essentially humans with growths on their forheads. In animation, I could make a bug, a tyranosaur, just about anything I want.
It also allows for better "effects". Once again, the only limit is my mind. The shot costs the same -- it's just ink and cellose.