Talk:Cartoon Network Studios

I disagree with the wholesale import coupled with name change. Hanna-Barbera represents an era and a legacy that stands by itself. It was an independent company, unlike the current status as a unit of a media conglomerate. There has been a sort of reinvention, and what's going on at Cartoon Network Studios has a much different feel. CNS, I think, is making its own lasting mark on animation, but it will be a story different from the Hanna-Barbera story. They are not two aspects of a unified story. Hence, using the articles Lionel Corporation and Lionel, LLC as a model, I propose leaving Hanna-Barbera as a separate entry covering that era, one that will probably settle into being static and historic, and maintaining Cartoon Network Studios as a dynamic, ongoing article recording the present and future activities of the company. --Gary D 04:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Really? I had never thought of it that way...I simply thought it was a name change. Alright, if you think it's necessary, I can help re-establish the old article, with historical continuation to the new article, and, if necessary, a restoration of the Hanna-Barbera category. - Gilgamesh 04:22, 31 July 2004 (UTC)

Actually, now that I have given more thought, I respectfully disagree. I think Hanna-Barbera evolved more smoothly into Cartoon Network Studios than you realize. I mean, look at SWAT Kats and 2 Stupid Dogs — they were released under the Hanna-Barbera brand, but far more resemble the Cartoon Network Studios brand as we recognize it today. - Gilgamesh 04:27, 31 July 2004 (UTC)

I really do think it is the right thing to do. The transition itself may have been smooth, but the distinction involves a larger timeframe. SK and 2SD are threshold cases, and I agree they are indeed closer in spirit to CNS than to HB, despite the name on the door at the time (they might be mentioned in both articles, under the proposed scheme). The comparison that justifies the distinction is Jonny Quest and Scooby Doo versus The Powerpuff Girls and Dexter's Laboratory--they are not the products of a unified creative source. So let's think about it. Let's ask around WP for a consensus. (BTW, as to the categories, that would depend on the ease and logic of drawing lines of inclusion and exclusion around the various articles.) --Gary D 04:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm really not prepared to draw those lines of transition. Personally I never saw much difference, other than better quality of production materials and new writers injected into the old styles. If one were to put the threshold cartoons under "Cartoon Network Studios", that would be a POV association because they were never published under that name. As I've understood it, Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios are the same company under different names, with the only separating event being the deaths of both William Hanna and Joseph Barbera. Hanna died earlier, and the name change happened only after Barbera died. I think the evolution of styles can be discussed, but in essence it is the same company under inherited management. - Gilgamesh 04:45, 31 July 2004 (UTC)

The example I sometimes use is the color spectrum: if we examine the spectrum between, say, green and blue, there will be a spread of opinion about where green ends and blue begins, and there will be colors square in the middle that will be hard to call definitely green or definitely blue, but of course we would not therefore say that blue and green are the same color. Drawing the line, just about any line, always has an arbitrary feel. Here, the name change makes as much or more sense as any other dividing line. I actually think time will tell that the overarching presence of TimeWarner is what made the difference. Let's see how (or even whether) the WP group reacts to today's change. --Gary D 05:04, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

...the same reason I never want to sit on a jury. :P I don't feel quite responsible enough to draw the line at malachite green, cyan or aquamarine. - Gilgamesh 05:20, 31 July 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Barbera passed away? Isn't he still alive? Wasn't he also somewhat frustrated with how Warner Brothers treated his studio? Then again I'm not an expert. Aoi 08:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Barbera is alive and well. The name-change occured after William Hanna died. --b. Touch 15:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Aoi 07:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hanna_Barbera closing

I was the one to say that Hanna-Barbera sold the studio in 1997 to WB, Hanna and Barbera closed the studio in 1997, it was fact but someone kept erasing the data I wrote down...Edwardadrian

• Because it's not true. Hanna and Barbera sold the studio to Turner Entertainment in 1991. Turner in turn merged with Time Warner in 1997. The Hanna-Barbera name was kept alive as an active part of the Warner Bros. corporate tree until Hanna died in 2001. --b. Touch 18:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed this:

(What's New Scooby-Doo? marks the latest series the franchise had made since premiering in 1969 and continuing with new Saturday morning shows throughout the '70s, the '80s, and the '90s)

it's already mentioned on the Scooby-Doo page, where it belongs. --b. Touch 17:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)