Top Draw-ers
When creators of some hot shows get together, things get pretty animated.
By Mark Nollinger
In Hollywood, animators have long had the reputation of being shy, quiet folks who are content to let their drawings do the talking. But when TV Guide invited artists Gabor Csupo (Duckman, Rugrats), Ben Edlund (The Tick), John Kricfalusi (the original Ren & Stimpy Show), and Eric Radomski (Spawn and Spicy City) to put down their pencils for a chat about the new breed of animated programs for adults, just the opposite proved to be true. When it comes to the state of the art -- and the business -- these four cartoon makers have plenty to say.
TV Guide: You've all had a hand in producing animation that appeals to adults as well as kids. What's the secret to making cartoons that grown-ups will watch?
Gabor Csupo: The most important thign is the collaboration of a good artist with a good story and character development. We do a lot of work before we even lift up the pencil -- with the stories, the design [total visual look], and the concept. Design is very important, almost more important than the quality of the animation. On top of it all, the package has to be entertaining and moving emotionally.
John Kricfalusi: I just think it comes out of the personalities of the people making them. I don't try to aim at adults or kids. I just make cartoons.
Eric Radomski: I would say, if anything, we're out to please ourselves first.
TVG: But Gabor's studio, for example, produces Duckman and Rugrats. Those are clearly for different audiences.
Csupo: Yeah, Duckman is definitely for adults. But even with a show like Rugrats, we're trying to put in stuff for adults. You just want to do a great show. The most important thing is to make it entertaining and intelligent.
Ben Edlund: There's a whole group of programming that is trying to infuse intelligence through humor, drama, and respect for characters. That is what separates a show that can work for both adults and children form something that works just for children.
TVG: What have been the most influential cartoons of the last 10 years?
Kricfalusi: The Simpsons was definitely responsible for our studio getting Ren & Stimpy on the air; we never would have gotten away with the content if somebody hadn't broken through. But whenever something becomes popular, like The Simpsons, everybody tries to copy it, and it just doesn't work. The Critic bombed twice [both ABC and Fox cancelled the show, which now runs on Comedy Central]. They just tried to copy The Simpsons, but they didn't have [Simpsons creator] Matt Groening. It didn't come from the soul of someone. That's what adults latch onto.
TVG: Has the success of The Simpsons and King of the Hill created more demand for the kinds of sophisticated cartoons you guys do?
Kricfalusi: No. [Everyone laughs.]
TVG: Why not?
Kricfalusi: It just makes more opportunities for network executives to try to manufacture an imitation of what you do. How many times has MTV tried to imitate Beavis and Butt-head and not gotten a hit? They thought that the success of Beavis and Butt-head was really superficial -- "Wiggly lines?" Ok, we'll put a bunch of shows on with wiggly lines." They just don't look deeply into what's making a show a success. Beavis and Butt-head was a success because of the characters. You can relate to them.
TVG: But the networks do occasionally go out on a limb in order to differentiate themselves from their competition.
Radomski: I know that the [decision by] HBO to go into programming adult animation was inspired by the success that HBO has had with programs in that [late-night] time slot -- alternative, twisted, weird documentaries. The most bizarre stuff you'd want to see. It might not appeal to you, but it might appeal to me.
Kricfalusi: Most of the hits so far snuck by without any executives really aware of what was going on. The Simpsons started as 30-second spots on The Tracy Ullman Show. Do you think that if Matt Groening had just made the cartoon and brought it to Fox they would have said, "Yeah, let's make a show out of this that will last 10 years and make $500 million"? No way.
Csupo: The networks have been burned several times. But in my opinion, they are very unqualified to choose the right project. They're not animators. They are looking for formulas. If [executives] green-light something totally wild and risky -- which has a much bigger chance to shoot out from the crowd -- and it doesn't work, they can be fired. And they're very afraid of that situation.
Kricfalusi: But they get fired anyway! [Evryone laughs]
TVG: Well, HBO is certainly trying something novel with Spawn and Spicy City. Eric, can drawing really serve the darker, more dramatic stores you're telling in these cartoons?
Radomski: I think so. My intention is to use animation to create situations that with live action would cost a lot more and probably not look dearly as dramatic. It's something you don't get on television, and that's why I think it will do well. It just has to be honest and human.
TVG: Are there any genres in which animation can't be effective?
Kricfalusi: I don't think it's been tested much. Because people have slotted animation as a thing for little kids, it's never had the the chance to develop and mature. It probably can do anything.
TVG: Can you imagine an animated TV series that is a straight adult drama?
Edlund: It would be very difficult. King of the Hill is the first experiment in an almost straight cartoon --it's very specific and very toned down. I thought it was going to fail because it was so different from that kind of in-your-face cartoon stuff The Simpsons was doing. The fact that it's successful is the doorstep to even less classically cartoony expression in animation.
Kricfalusi: What people are used to when they're watching drama is watching the actors. Acting is very hard to draw. Most cartoons don't do it. They have stock expressions. They don't even look at live action to see how different people move differently. It's very subtle.
TVG: Do you expect this recent trend towards cartoons for adults to continue?
Csupo: I think so, because there are more outlets, including cable, the Internet, digital-satellite TV--everybody's going to be hungry for programming. Hopefully it won't be a catch-22 where satisfying the hunger of the audience is going to be more difficuly every year, and you can't produce good quality stuff because no one wants to pay for it. We'll see. What do you think, John?
Kricfalusi: I think entertainment is all gonna merge with the Internet. That means free distribution. Anybody can get on it and produce things more cheaply. And then each of us is going to have our own show, and we'll be really happy. And the audience will be even happier!
Mark Nollinger is a Los-Angeles based free-lance writer.
Originally published in the July 12-18, 1997 issue of TV Guide.
