I know we can only guess, but how different do you think adult animation would be if The Simpsons never existed?
It would probably suck a lot more.
>>81909496
shows like Venture Bros. and Rick and Morty probably would not exist, even Gravity Falls could be seeing as to mature for a cartoon.
I think that the over sexualized movies like Fritz the Cat and Heavy Metal would dominate the market, because before the Simpsons showing that a smart adult comedy could be made in animation form, people thought that gore and sex = mature
>>81909496
We wouldn't have family guy or king of the hill most likely
>>81909688
Family guy wouldn't exist, there's some positive in the thought
>>81909496
Old guy here. Before Simpsons "adult animation" literally meant "porn". So in other words it'd be like Japan, i.e. "regular cartoons for kids, porn for adults".
>>81909688
>people thought that gore and sex = mature
People still think this, see Sausage Party.
>>81909928
So what you're saying is that because of the early Simpsons, /co/'s wet dream isn't a reality?
>>81909726
Not sure about King of the Hill, given that Mike Judge was doing shorts that could be called "adult animation" around the same time Simpsons came out, and Simpsons wasn't his inspiration for getting into animation. Beavis and Butt-head's existence was also based on one of those shorts from the early '90s, and King of the Hill being a thing probably happened at least in part from that show being a success.
I guess you could say Simpsons made the concept of an animated sitcom seem more appealing in the '90s, but of course that concept existed long before Simpsons too.
However, Greg Daniels may not have ended up working alongside Judge because his own success was connected to Simpsons, but the original idea and the main characters (Hank, his family, the guys) were Judge's creation anyway.
So I think King of the Hill may have existed in kind of a different form without Simpsons (Daniels probably wouldn't have ended up as co-creator), because it doesn't seem like it originally came into being because Judge saw Simpsons and said "hey I'll copy that."
/KOTH alt. history
I still see Simpsons as a general audiences or PG show compared to other adult cartoons.
Without it Beavis & Butthead and South Park would still exist, they set the standard for shock humor shows like Family Guy and Adult Swim.
>>81911152
You gotta understand though that at the time the Simpsons first started, it was hugely controversial. Parents and religious groups were boycotting it for being a bad influence on kids. That's how far we've come since then, since early era Simpsons is pretty damn tame nowadays.
>>81911152
It's kind of a stepping stone show though, wouldn't you say? It'll never touch stuff that South Park covered, sure, but it came out in a time where cartoons were still primarily a commercial for toys medium. Others would then build on what the Simpsons accomplished into their own vision, right?
>>81911152
>>81911360
Simpsons is weird because it is an adult show and people who actually work on it always stress it being an "ADULT SHOW for ADULTS," but kids have always watched it and a lot of the merchandise, even the really early stuff, is obviously directly aimed at children. Especially stuff like the comic book lines etc.
It's like it unofficially tries to straddle the line of both audiences (and actually succeeds pretty well).
>>81911530
I always thought the problem with Simpsons in the early 90s were the Bart t-shirts with lewd phrases on them being worn in schools, not so much the content.
I do think another adult show would have came out without Simpsons, Ren & Stimpy, while it's a cartoon on a kids network was very adult orientated and things like Tiny Toons had some risque gags and things only adults would get.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is also highly influential in breaking the kiddy cartoon mindset.
