dry wit in action

August 17, 2007 9:39 AM

The New Yorker now has animated cartoons. Animating by Ring Tales.
posted by nickyskye (30 comments total)

Christ, what an asshole... animated!

They're just as terrible as the print cartoons. What a surprise.
posted by interrobang at 9:44 AM on August 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

I don't want to see any assholes animated.
posted by dismas at 9:52 AM on August 17, 2007

These are bad.
posted by The Bellman at 9:53 AM on August 17, 2007

I'd say that they're bad, but I really only watched the first one because after I sat through it and hit the back button, IE siezed up and I had to kill it with fire.

So, look: it's bad. Woof.
posted by cortex at 9:58 AM on August 17, 2007

Ooof. The voice work is just....horrible.
posted by iconomy at 10:01 AM on August 17, 2007

I watched two and then couldn't face another repetition of the Ring Tales intro, especially since the cartoons weren't any good. Clever idea, though!
posted by languagehat at 10:02 AM on August 17, 2007

So let me get this straight... Somebody at the New Yorker went to somebody at RingTales and said, look, we have developed this brand identity of totaly not funny cartoons, think you could animate them?
posted by Phantast at 10:16 AM on August 17, 2007

These are just "adaptations" of still single-panel cartoons. What a stupid waste of bandwidth. Are they thinking they will somehow be funnier with voices and motion? Sigh.
posted by rikschell at 10:36 AM on August 17, 2007

Hey, it's the New Yorker's cartoons animated with buggy, browser-crashing Shockwave; think of it as the chocolate and peanut butter of nobody sensible cares about this stuff anymore.
posted by mhoye at 10:45 AM on August 17, 2007

Another vote for Useless.

Those comics barely work when snap them up in one quick eye-bite. Waiting for the punchline only showcases the tedium. Way to go, Ring whatever dudes.
posted by Aquaman at 10:51 AM on August 17, 2007

Here is your bicycle, fish.
posted by everichon at 11:39 AM on August 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

This is a really, really bad idea.
posted by R. Mutt at 11:52 AM on August 17, 2007

Doesn't "animate" mean "bring to life"?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:54 AM on August 17, 2007 [2 favorites]

Meh.

And I even like some NYer cartoons (mainly the ones by BEK)
posted by papercake at 12:00 PM on August 17, 2007

The people old and pretentious enough to force a laugh probably read the print version.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:04 PM on August 17, 2007

Not only does this make me understand why the terrorists hate us, it also explains why they're winning.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:13 PM on August 17, 2007

Every cartoon balked, then started over after about 5 seconds Then the "joke" wasn't worth waiting for. Are there no funny people left in NYC?
posted by Cranberry at 12:39 PM on August 17, 2007

Okay, to start on a positive note:
The animators did a nice job of reproducing the cartoons in color, while remaining faithful to the styles of the cartoonists. I'm glad an independent studio got some work from a big client like the New Yorker, it's a tough business. But single panel cartoons, when they're funny at all, work because a reader has to scan the whole picture first and then the discordancy reveals itself through the details, or the caption. When film conventions, like camera pull-outs or pans get added, there's a narrative expection raised which just falls flat here. In the BEK animation, does the secretary walking away add anything? How does the camera reveal and the cupid acting sell the 7/30 gag? (I think it kills it dead.) It would make more sense to do original short animated gags that work as super-short films, just for the website. Trying to 'repurpose' single panels like this seems like wankery to me.
posted by maryh at 12:46 PM on August 17, 2007

While I find the animated cartoons to be stupid, the original New Yorker cartoons are pretty fucking brilliant.

But the caption contest has got to go.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:54 PM on August 17, 2007

wry shit, inaction
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:03 PM on August 17, 2007

I genuinely like most NYer cartoons, but man... putting them in motion really drains the humor out of them.
posted by brundlefly at 4:01 PM on August 17, 2007

Maybe someday someone will animate the faux 'New Yorker' cartoons.
posted by betweenthebars at 5:01 PM on August 17, 2007

Okay, maybe I'm way off-base here, but this seems like a self-effacing joke to me.
posted by roll truck roll at 5:30 PM on August 17, 2007

I'm glad they didn't touch any Charles Addams cartoons.
posted by Tube at 8:26 PM on August 17, 2007

yikes, the hate runs thick in here. I am going to brave the tide and say that I found them rather amusing. I prefer the static original version in much the way I generally prefer a song over a music video - more left to the imagination. Plus they are so brief. That being said, I thought the animation was pretty good for what they are. They should definitely skip the long intro, which gets old very fast.

Also, in the sidebar, there is also a slide show of recent cartoons, which I enjoyed. At any rate, thanks for the post, nickyskye - I appreciate that you bring us a lot of interesting and thought provoking things!
posted by madamjujujive at 9:06 PM on August 17, 2007

They suck.
posted by hojoki at 8:43 AM on August 18, 2007

No, no, no! Not good.

Good effort, nice try, etc, etc, but not successful.
posted by bullitt 5 at 9:01 AM on August 18, 2007

I thought a couple of them were pretty funny.

Guy applying for job: Uh, the years 1966 through 1995 are blank because I was on tour with the Grateful Dead.

Boss: Sweet.
posted by deacon_blues at 1:46 PM on August 18, 2007

I like most New Yorker cartoons and love a few of them.

I admit, this isn't a good start, but...I say give it a chance.

Maybe they'll evolve.
posted by rougy at 7:37 PM on August 18, 2007

This is an aside, but for those who haven't found it yet, the Perry Bible Fellowship has some damn good stuff.
posted by rougy at 7:42 PM on August 18, 2007