Here's the pitch trailer that Mike Judge and Greg Daniels used to sell the King of the Hill series to Fox. Jaime Weinman has also posted his thoughts on this piece.
I agree. In fact I've never been able to watch this show due to not being able to get past the unappealing visual design. These characters are just static and devoid of life, not to mention just badly drawn to begin with. I pity the animators that have to draw this stuff to make a living.
Interestingly, John K. has just posted some great model sheets from the Golden Age of Animation in his hopes to inspire others to understand the concept of "appeal" in character designs. Seems there are an awful lot of show designers currently who would seem to have no clue about construction, rhythm, expressive body language, or any of the numerous aspects of visual appeal. Judge's "King of the Hill" and his earlier "Beavis and Butthead" are prime examples of what is sadly lacking in cartoons today.
Personally, I think the writing and characterization on the show are quite good, though I do agree that the art is butt (or should that be butt-head?) ugly.
If the designs and animation were as good as the writing, it would be a great show.
I posted it, though, for people to get a sense of what a pitch short might look like. This one is more basic than many I've seen, as it's in black and white with no backgrounds. I guess when you're somebody like Mike Judge with a hit show under your belt, you don't have to take a pitch as far.
Well, I'd rather watch a show that lacked in its design appeal but was funny and smartly written, as I feel King of the Hill is, than to watch the opposite. I've seen so many shows that look pretty good or even great that bored the snot outta me after about two seconds. Or worse, hurt my ears with the constant shouting and babble. Like just about everything currently showing on Cartoon Network and Nickolodean.
Yes, the art is a little more clunky that I'd like, but it's sincere, and the writing is first rate. I'd rather see KOTH than many, MANY better looking shows on television, since I'd rather watch a memorable story and get a bunch of laughs out of my viewing time. And it's subtle, which is something that not many animated programs can boast these days.
If you want to hate something, hate Family Guy and American Dad. Ugly, stupid and clumsy, those are the low water mark for non Adult Swim television animation. If you factor in Adult Swim original programming, you're talking 12 OZ. Mouse and Squidbillies as being the worst threat to animation's longevity on television, no question.
Yes, I can see the similarity to Dave Berg as well, now that you mention it. Interestingly, Berg was always the one MAD artist whose drawing style I never liked either and therefore seldom read his "Lighter Side Of..." pieces. Just goes to show you that attractive art is often the thing that gets the attention first, then the viewer is more likely to appreciate whatever writing talent there may be. "King of the Hill" may very well be smartly written, but I just can't get past the ugly visuals to give it a chance.
I agree that King of the Hill has fantastic writing and makes it worth watching. At first I was put off by the style, but when I actually sat down and decided not to be biggoted against it just based on that, I realized it didn't need fluid, full, expressive animation. It didn't need "old school Disney appeal style" to get the point of the episodes across.
To Tom...there was a funny episode of South Park that explained how Family Guy was written...by a herd of manatees. They would take balls with words written on them and move them to the other side of the tank to form the basics of jokes. It was hysterically accurate as the jokes in Family Guy are very nonsensicle at times and have little to do with the plot. If you haven't seen that episode it's worth watching.
I agree. In fact I've never been able to watch this King Of The Hill TV show due to not being able to get past the unappealing visual design."King of the Hill" may very well be smartly written, but I just can't get past the ugly visuals to give it a chance.
It was mentioned that Mike Judge and Dave Berg was similar and I am glad you mentioned it because it drove me crazy for years ever since I saw Beavis and Butthead who it reminded me of.
Mike Judge was too young to draw for Mad at the time, but now I put two and two together and now I've finally figured out that it was Dave Berg.
Nice video, thanks for sharing. Hey Michael I visit your link and found an amazing site for this show and I also downloaded some other shows. Thanks buddy for sharing this.
I'll never get the appeal of this show. It's just ugly, let alone stupid.
ReplyDeleteI agree. In fact I've never been able to watch this show due to not being able to get past the unappealing visual design. These characters are just static and devoid of life, not to mention just badly drawn to begin with. I pity the animators that have to draw this stuff to make a living.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, John K. has just posted some great model sheets from the Golden Age of Animation in his hopes to inspire others to understand the concept of "appeal" in character designs. Seems there are an awful lot of show designers currently who would seem to have no clue about construction, rhythm, expressive body language, or any of the numerous aspects of visual appeal. Judge's "King of the Hill" and his earlier "Beavis and Butthead" are prime examples of what is sadly lacking in cartoons today.
Personally, I think the writing and characterization on the show are quite good, though I do agree that the art is butt (or should that be butt-head?) ugly.
ReplyDeleteIf the designs and animation were as good as the writing, it would be a great show.
I posted it, though, for people to get a sense of what a pitch short might look like. This one is more basic than many I've seen, as it's in black and white with no backgrounds. I guess when you're somebody like Mike Judge with a hit show under your belt, you don't have to take a pitch as far.
Well, I'd rather watch a show that lacked in its design appeal but was funny and smartly written, as I feel King of the Hill is, than to watch the opposite. I've seen so many shows that look pretty good or even great that bored the snot outta me after about two seconds. Or worse, hurt my ears with the constant shouting and babble. Like just about everything currently showing on Cartoon Network and Nickolodean.
ReplyDelete..d
Yes, the art is a little more clunky that I'd like, but it's sincere, and the writing is first rate. I'd rather see KOTH than many, MANY better looking shows on television, since I'd rather watch a memorable story and get a bunch of laughs out of my viewing time. And it's subtle, which is something that not many animated programs can boast these days.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to hate something, hate Family Guy and American Dad. Ugly, stupid and clumsy, those are the low water mark for non Adult Swim television animation. If you factor in Adult Swim original programming, you're talking 12 OZ. Mouse and Squidbillies as being the worst threat to animation's longevity on television, no question.
I always seemed to me that Judge's style on KOTH basically emulated Mad Magazine artist Dave Berg. Anybody else see that?
ReplyDeleteYes, I can see the similarity to Dave Berg as well, now that you mention it. Interestingly, Berg was always the one MAD artist whose drawing style I never liked either and therefore seldom read his "Lighter Side Of..." pieces. Just goes to show you that attractive art is often the thing that gets the attention first, then the viewer is more likely to appreciate whatever writing talent there may be. "King of the Hill" may very well be smartly written, but I just can't get past the ugly visuals to give it a chance.
ReplyDeleteI agree that King of the Hill has fantastic writing and makes it worth watching.
ReplyDeleteAt first I was put off by the style, but when I actually sat down and decided not to be biggoted against it just based on that, I realized it didn't need fluid, full, expressive animation. It didn't need "old school Disney appeal style" to get the point of the episodes across.
To Tom...there was a funny episode of South Park that explained how Family Guy was written...by a herd of manatees. They would take balls with words written on them and move them to the other side of the tank to form the basics of jokes. It was hysterically accurate as the jokes in Family Guy are very nonsensicle at times and have little to do with the plot. If you haven't seen that episode it's worth watching.
Mike Judge to this day has yet to pay the animation studio Heart of Texas animation for this work...
ReplyDeleteI agree. In fact I've never been able to watch this King Of The Hill TV show due to not being able to get past the unappealing visual design."King of the Hill" may very well be smartly written, but I just can't get past the ugly visuals to give it a chance.
ReplyDeleteIt was mentioned that Mike Judge and Dave Berg was similar and I am glad you mentioned it because it drove me crazy for years ever since I saw Beavis and Butthead who it reminded me of.
ReplyDeleteMike Judge was too young to draw for Mad at the time, but now I put two and two together and now I've finally figured out that it was Dave Berg.
Nice video, thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteHey Michael I visit your link and found an amazing site for this show and I also downloaded some other shows. Thanks buddy for sharing this.
King of the Hill is a superb show which has extremely talented crew. But its really sad that this show has been ended...
ReplyDeleteI think the show is perfect as is - the drawings and animation are fully in character with the feel of the show.
ReplyDeleteThey convey what they need to convey - and that is the key.