KOTH will be fresh years later and animation in general

I think KOTH will be around for a long time just like the Simpsons. I think one of the reasons is that animated series don't have to change.

Being that this is a situation comedy, the situation will very likely remain the same. I am guessing Bobby will not get older and have to deal with high school issues (tonight 'a very special' King of the Hill) For instance, if the Simpsons was a live action show the kids would be eight years older and the situations would have to change. The child actors would get older and uglier and the show would introduce another child usually born when the parents are both 45 or 50 to keep the show 'fresh'. That is the beauty of animation, because as much as we talk about shows or musicians 'evolving' i challenge anyone to name a show or artist that has 'evolved' to do something better than the stuff that made them successful in the beginning.

Just a thought,

Neal

Neal wrote in message ... :I think KOTH will be around for a long time just like the Simpsons. I think :one of the reasons is that animated series don't have to change. : :Being that this is a situation comedy, the situation will very likely remain :the same. I am guessing Bobby will not get older and have to deal with high :school issues (tonight 'a very special' King of the Hill) For instance, if :the Simpsons was a live action show the kids would be eight years older and :the situations would have to change. The child actors would get older and :uglier and the show would introduce another child usually born when the :parents are both 45 or 50 to keep the show 'fresh'. That is the beauty of :animation, because as much as we talk about shows or musicians 'evolving' i :challenge anyone to name a show or artist that has 'evolved' to do something :better than the stuff that made them successful in the beginning.

I don't know. I think people will eventually get tired of the "White Trash" type of atmosphere. Same with Beavis and Butthead's utter stupidness and that other dumb Mike Judge cartoon on MTV. His ideas for cartoon are ones that seem really clever the first time you watch them, then less witty every time after. (like the B Sharps)

But time will be the judge of that (no pun intended)

[arock]

Have you seen Paula Jones? That is white trash. The Hills aren't close.

When I first saw this one, I couldve SWORN it was my inlaws from oklahoma..they even LOOK like them.. -----------------------

In article , "Neal" wrote: (snip)

You may have a good point about shows, although I can subjectively argue that there are some that got better with age. Artists (and I include actors in that group), however, are a different story. Just off the top of my head (you'll probably disagree with some of these, but not all):

1. Ed Asner as Lou Grant (the role evolved from stereotype gruff comic foil to a serious character) 2. Clint Eastwood - started as Rowdy Yates, now he's a damn fine director 3. Jack Nicholson - have you SEEN some of his earlier stuff? 4. Rob Reiner - from Meathead to directing more than a few good films 5. Billy Bob Thornton - look it up 6. Noriyuki "Pat" Morita - After Arnold, there was nothing left to do *but* evolve, which also brings to mind ... 7. Ron Howard - who'd a thunk Opie would be where he is today 8. Richard Farnsworth - his first claim to fame was as a stuntman 9. Alanis Morisette - she started on "You Can't Do That On Television" then became "the Tiffany of Canada," but she's moved on 10. Mark Wahlberg - He was a "singer". Seen "Boogie Nights" yet? 11. John Travolta - Vinnie Barbarino and beyond 12. Tom Hanks - funny on Bosom Buddies, but he got better, dontcha think? 13. Leonard Nimoy - Spock morphs into director 14. Woody Harrelson - stupid bartender cum stupid publisher and Oscar nominee 15. Babyface - started out as a singer. I think he won some awards for songwriting and production since then.

I could do more, but 20 minutes is enough time to spend answering your question, I reckon (see Billy Bob Thornton)

On 5 Nov 1997, wardog wrote:

Personally, I think King of the Hill, like The Simpsons, is and has been doing just fine in its current state. While evolution never hurt anybody (I AM pleased that The Simpsons _grew_ from the marvelous point it had started from), I wouldn't say it's doing badly right now.

Never saw either MTM or Lou Grant, so I can't comment.

He is?

Nope. But he was rather over-the-top in The Shining.

Yes, he is a good director.

Who? Oh, okkay.

Who?

He's easily one of the luckiest kids there are. 1) He starred in two successful, long running series over the course of his teenage and college age years. 2) He didn't get washed up when he became older like so many other "cutesy" Hollywood child stars. 3) He BECAME a successful director! My God.

Hm.

She was barely on YCDTOT more than a year. Aside from that one two year old, but still highly successful, album, she isn't doing much. (For what it's worth, I don't mind Alanis or her singing.)

I thought he was a crack head right now.

Yeah.

I kind of preferred him when he was into comedy, but drama has broguht him more success, so, congrats to him.

To be perfectly honest, Woody Harrelson stinks anywhere else but on Cheers (one of my favorite TV shows ever. Woody Boyd was my favorite character, in fact.) and The People vs. Larry Flynt. However, he got a good start. At least he wasn't an extra in a cheesy Porky's flick.

Ondre

In article , Ondre Lombard wrote:

'evolving' i

something

nominee

Harrelson was particularly scary in "Natural Born Killers".

[Followups...]

In alt.tv.king-of-hill T-Rex <@qmail2.aero.org> wrote: [...]

Yeah, man Itelluwut...quote big ol' post 'n just put one litt ol' line at th' bottom. Dang ol' netiquette, man.

nickb

Jack was over the top in "The Shining" because the role called for it. If that is what you think of as "early" Nicholson check out "Goin South" or "The Iceman Cometh" or "Easy Rider" (his first role) Like many good actors, Mr. Nicholson has been less than great in some roles, not many actors haven't

Clint Eastwood may well be more remembered for his directing than his acting. "Play Misty for Me", "Bronco Billy" and "Unforgiven" are all very weel directed movies.

In article , [email] (B.J. Major) wrote:

Why?

As animated programs go, KOTH is pretty well based in reality.

With Hank's problem ... I don't see that happening.

Dang ol' -N!

noel wrote:

Well, mainly because while it's great to have a show whose characters ARE based in reality, like KOTH, animation is an art and a creative process, and you are supposed to do things with it that would be *impossible* in real life. Otherwise, KOTH could have been made a standard sit-com with real actors.

The original poster of the message I was replying to was comparing Home Improvement with KOTH. Maybe others get the comparison, but to me it makes no sense because I see them as two different things for the reason stated above.

Yes, it is. I just hope they don't feel as if they have to age the characters as the years go on (your mileage may vary....)

Right--I totally forgot about that!!

Any more legal threats or ligitation from FOX lately about your site? Fill us in on what's going on--please!

On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, B.J. Major wrote:

Unfortunately, I (and I would guess several others on this group) got an e-mail from Noel last night saying that he has removed the audio clips from the site. You'll have to look at the site for more.

--Jason

noel@[address] (noel) wrote:

The lawyers at Coca Cola have one of the best legal disclaimers anywhere:

We paid for it, so it's ours: "Coca-Cola," "Coke," "diet Coke," "Coke light," "cherry Coke," "Fanta," "Five Alive," "Fresca," "Mello Yello," "Minute Maid," "Sprite," "diet Sprite," "Surge," and "TAB" are trademarks of The Coca-Cola Company, as well as our contour bottle, the Always icon, the Dynamic Ribbon device (the gray and white twirly thing - yes, it has a name), the design of the COCA-COLA Santa, and the design of the COCA-COLA Polar Bears. It's all copyrighted, too, by The Coca-Cola Company -- 1997. All rights reserved. All materials are provided only for noncommercial personal use. So don't be reproducing any of it -- and for sure, don't be trying to make a buck off it. Keep your arms and legs inside the windows. Mind the gap.

and another many paragraphs of stuff. But basically it's all there. "We paid for it, so it's ours..."

J

Hey, we could turn this into one of those interminable threads! One person says, "There are similarities." The other one says, "But what _I'm_ saying is there are differences." And the first one says, "Ok, but there _are_ similarities." Repeat as needed.

My point, of course, is that Home Improvement and KOTH are not so different as to be mutually exclusive nor so similar as to be identical. So we're really asking, where are the points of similarity and where are the points of difference?

That said, I (the original poster referred to) was actually pointing out a DISsimilarity between the two shows. I was saying that Home Improvement had failed to take us into the High School years because the kids got old and irritating, and lost their ability to act. They don't look so good either. These are exactly the kinds of things that could be controlled in a _cartoon_ character who gets older. The artists can control how he looks. And the person playing Bobby's voice is already a mature adult (in a loose sense of the term) and therefore isn't going to sustain those irritating changes in abilities and tone that puberty brings on.

I agree with your statement, "animation is an art and a creative process, and you are supposed to do things with it that would be *impossible* in real life." (I'd say "can" rather than "supposed to" but that's a minor quibble.) This is exactly my point. KOTH is poised to do successfully what no live actor sitcom has done -- provide us with characters that age right.

Bill Baldwin wrote:

I'm NOT trying to keep up a thread ad nauseam; I was only referring to your post as a point of reference for what I was saying.

You'll have to explain this. Currenlty, both Brad and Randy are in High School (not sure what grade Mark is in). What do you mean that the show has "failed to take us into the High School years"???? I don't believe they've lost their ability to act, either. But puberty does strange things to a person, and the fact they are not cute little kids anymore is hardly their fault.

OK, I can see what you're getting at here.

But I think what has to be clarified here is what is "aging right." Maybe aging right means something different to each of us. There are no such things as perfect teenagers, though!! Personally, I'd never want to relive those years again. I don't think anyone is truly comfortable with themselves at that time of life--physically or otherwise. To pull off such a perfect teenager on an animated sitcom might come off as unrealistic and unbelievable. But I guess we shall see.