March 2011

Is Luc Besson Stirring Up Some Animated Goodies?

Via: /film and Bleeding Cool

By the looks of the image above, yes he is.

By the looks of things, ‘A Monster in Paris’ may turn out to be an interesting sort of film. I don’t know about you, but the first thing that popped into my head was Gru from Despicable Me. Must be the broad shoulders.

As /film points out, there is still little if any info on the plot so for now, we’re left guessing and it is still early stages as the film isn’t scheduled to be released until late this year (2011) in France with a wider release after that. Hopefully we’ll have the full details soon. I’m curious to see how the differences between American and European CGI films have changed over the years.

Is Luc Besson Stirring Up Some Animated Goodies? Read More »

What If Disney Had Produced Pixar Sequels Instead?

Via: Bob & Rob

The answer may be found over on the blog of Bob & Rob, otherwise known as Bob Hilgenburg and Rob Muir, screenwriting duo.The image above is from their version of Toy Story 3.

They’re recently been posting some of their work from what was known as Circle 7 over on their blog. Don’t know what that is? Never mind, I didn’t either until recently. Basically, Circle 7 was set up by Disney after their relationship with Pixar began to go south with the goal of producing sequels to the five Pixar films released under the original agreement of which Disney owned he rights to. Circle 7 was shuttered when Disney bought Pixar and was quickly swept under the rug as if it had never happened.

It is only now that we are starting to see some fragments of what could have been. While there are only stills and a short animatic-esque sequence to be had, you can piece together the jigsaw puzzle to come up with a rough idea of what things could have looked like.

Having said that, it is impossible to tell how these films would have turned out like. It’s quite possible they could have been good, like the recent Tinkerbell films, or they could have gone the other direction, as in the many, many sequels to Aladdin.

Either way, it seems that Pixar has been handed the reigns for producing the sequels now, as if to give them a sheen of authenticity and pedigree. I remain to be convinced however.

What If Disney Had Produced Pixar Sequels Instead? Read More »

How The Online Video Revolution Could Signal A New Era for Animation

Yesterday, it was announced that YouTube/Google had acquired Next New Networks. While this may not be of huge interest to those of you who tend to skip the business pages, it is nonetheless significant and will likely have some bearing on entertainment for years to come.

The reason is outlined in Fred Seibert (the co-founder of NNN) in his blog post announcing the sale. In it, he draws a lot of similarities between the current state of internet broadcasting and the fledgling cable networks back in the early 80s.

The similarities are, in fact, eerily similar. Back then, no-one really know how to make money, the established players were (extremely) wary of the new medium and the content that’s being offered wasn’t all that great (at least back then it wasn’t).

What does all of this have to do with animation? The answer is plain to see. Without cable, it is highly unlikely (impossible even) that we would have seen the explosion in animation that we saw with the three original Nicktoons, followed by the proliferation of creator-driven shows with (I suppose) a bump in animation at the movies too.

The originial Nicktoons didn’t come around for about 10 years after MTV. The reason for this was basically the lack of cable customers, which has a direct effect on the revenue of a network and as we all know, animation ain’t cheap.

Fast forward to today, and there exists a similar situation. People are embracing the internet but overall penetration is still way below cable, content will be king even more so than in cable and last but not least, even more money will be made by those who get it right.

Next New Networks may not be focused solely on animation (although it does broadcast Channel Frederator) but I think it is extremely likely that within 10 years, we will see a channel devoted solely to animation. Joe Murray is off to a great, early start with KaboingTV, which launches next month.

As the optimistic type, I think animation will continue to be a part of the entertainment landscape long after Comcast has been de-throned.

How The Online Video Revolution Could Signal A New Era for Animation Read More »

Weekly Weblink: The Mega-Awesome Kt Shy

As I’ve mentioned before, I follow a lot of blogs of various kinds, but my favourite ones are undoubtedly the illustration and sktech ones. The reason is simple, they always contain tons of great pictures and the very nature of them means they are updated relatively frequently with fantastic new works.

One of my very favourite illustration/sketch blogs belongs to the one and only Kt Shy the erstwhile alias of Canadian artist, Katie Shanahan on the interwebs. Self-described on twitter as a “storyboard artist by day and comic making nut-bar by night!”. She does have over 2,400 followers for a reason you know!

Besides the hilarious Shrub Monkey’s comic that Katie helps draw, she also posts tons of sketches and illustrations that cover a very broad range of the artistic universe, from anime to day to day life. What sets them apart is the almost manic sense of humour that permeates them all (or, well, most of them anyway).

Kt updates regularly and her posts are always a joy to read (or see). 🙂

PS. hit up the links page of her blog for a list of plenty of other exceptionally talented folks.

 

Weekly Weblink: The Mega-Awesome Kt Shy Read More »

David OReilly’s Freudian Review of Tangled

Disclaimer: I don’t normally post stuff that isn’t suitable for all ages but this is a slight exception. Exercise restraint if you are easily offended!

Yesterday (Thursday), in an amusing hour and a half, David OReilly (the Irish fella that has a wicked sense of humour, and who made these films) watched Tangled. He tweeted his thoughts as follows:

http://twitter.com/davidoreilly/status/43354415456976897

http://twitter.com/davidoreilly/status/43356373060292609

http://twitter.com/davidoreilly/status/43358448968155136

http://twitter.com/davidoreilly/status/43363060357926912

http://twitter.com/davidoreilly/status/43367503044419584

http://twitter.com/davidoreilly/status/43386156641038336

Lastly his recommendation:

http://twitter.com/davidoreilly/status/43388148054626304

David OReilly’s Freudian Review of Tangled Read More »

Is Animation Really Killing the Movie Business?

Exhibit A, this quote from an article by Mark Harris in GQ Magazine (I profusely apologise, I would never consider linking  to, much less blogging about, an article from such a rag unless it is under exceptional  circumstances similar to this one) which came my way via Marco Arment.

As recently as 1993, three kid-oriented genres—animated movies, movies based on comic books, and movies based on children’s books—represented a relatively small percentage of the overall film marketplace; that year they grossed about $400 million combined (thanks mostly to Mrs. Doubtfire) and owned just a single spot in the year’s top ten. In 2010, those same three genres took in more than $3 billion and by December represented eight of the year’s top nine grossers.

Let me posit something: That’s bad. We can all acknowledge that the world of American movies is an infinitely richer place because of Pixar and that the very best comic-book movies, from Iron Man to The Dark Knight, are pretty terrific, but the degree to which children’s genres have colonized the entire movie industry goes beyond overkill. More often than not, these collectively infantilizing movies are breeding an audience—not to mention a generation of future filmmakers and studio executives—who will grow up believing that movies aimed at adults should be considered a peculiar and antique art. Like books. Or plays.

Where to start? If you have read the rest of the article, you will know that is a passionate lament about the slide of the quality of Hollywood films over the last 40 years or so. He talks about the seismic shift towards more family friendly films and how they are strangling the mature films that he decries as a rare find today.

In my (admittedly) hard-headed Irish opinion, it’s a complete load of bullshit that smacks of both desperation and a complete misunderstanding of the facts. He focuses solely on content and uses that as a crutch for why films made for adults are becoming more and more scarce. Harris bemoans the fact that R rated films have to be made on a relatively small budget. He goes so far as to say:

The economic pressures the studios are facing aren’t just an excuse—they’re real. Movie-ticket sales may be reasonably strong, but any number of economic forces are conspiring against the production of adult dramas. They don’t generally have the kind of repeat-viewing appeal that would make them DVD smashes. They often end up with an R rating, which puts a ceiling on their earning capacity and makes a modest budget absolutely essential. Oscar nominations or even wins can no longer be relied upon to goose a quality film’s revenues.

The kicker to the entire article is that it seems like one big advertisement for Hollywood, in particular the large studios.

Studios make movies for people who go to the movies, and the fact is, we don’t go anymore

Duh, no shit sherlock. It costs a fortune to do that and the films are generally not that great. Besides, I can’t watch the film in my underwear or drink beer at the cinema, which I can at home (not that I actually do, but it’s nice to have the option).

Harris completely (and I mean utterly) misses the point, which is that animated films have become successful over the last number of years because they’re great films, and their suitable for all ages too!

He fails to mention the seismic shift in cinema over the last number of years, namely the rise of the internet and the total failure of Hollywood studios to adapt a new business model. They keep spending tons of money suing fans that completely pisses them off and make life difficult for them to enjoy what they love.

Harris’ position is that because animated films are successful at the box office, they will eventually push out “real”  films that are ultimately less profitable to make because they are appropriate for a smaller audience. As any business student can tell you, that’s basic economics. If a film is suitable for a larger audience, it will of course, make more money. That is a simple fact that has been true since the dawn of time. The only difference is now there are many more animated and family-friendly films being made than in the past. A fact that zooms straight over Harris’ head.

Overall, this article was not worth blogging about because I have only served to call attention to it and the nonsense contained within. The only reason I do so is because it is featured in GQ magazine, one that I can only presume people other than myself read and respect. As a result, I cannot allow such readers to believe that what the article says is the truth.

Animation is an artform for filmmaking. It does not purport to usurp the crown of the classic American dramatic film. It is also not guilty of ‘gaming the system’. many have tried that game and failed miserably. Hollywood as an industry is in a time of great upheaval and those who do not adapt are getting left behind. it is these tragglers that Mark Harris is lamenting, because there continues to be plenty of fantastic, dramatic films being made outside the system, and their often much better for it. This includes animation, the supposed slayer of the industry.

So don’t blame animation and children’s films for the demise of Hollywood, it’s their own damned fault.

 

The economic pressures the studios are facing aren’t just an excuse—they’re real. Movie-ticket sales may be reasonably strong, but any number of economic forces are conspiring against the production of adult dramas. They don’t generally have the kind of repeat-viewing appeal that would make them DVD smashes. They often end up with an R rating, which puts a ceiling on their earning capacity and makes a modest budget absolutely essential. Oscar nominations or even wins can no longer be relied upon to goose a quality film’s revenues.

The economic pressures the studios are facing aren’t just an excuse—they’re real. Movie-ticket sales may be reasonably strong, but any number of economic forces are conspiring against the production of adult dramas. They don’t generally have the kind of repeat-viewing appeal that would make them DVD smashes. They often end up with an R rating, which puts a ceiling on their earning capacity and makes a modest budget absolutely essential. Oscar nominations or even wins can no longer be relied upon to goose a quality film’s revenues.

Is Animation Really Killing the Movie Business? Read More »

Why You Should Remember That Cost is Not the Be All And End All in Animation

Via: USAToday

It can play a part, but it as with any movie it does not a winner make.

Take for example the Academy-Award nominated short, Let’s Pollute. Can you guess how mush it took to make it? That’s right, $15,000 or in other words, less than the cost of a new MINI Cooper.

This should be seen as a sign that films do not need to cost the earth and that with careful planning and execution, you can make a really funny film for very little money. It makes me think of the many student films on display at the annual ASIFA-East Festival. I’m sure they were made on a shoe-string but they are often some of the wittiest, humourous and inventive pieces of the evening.

The great thing about the rise of the internet is that distribution costs have now approached zero, so getting an audience for your film costs next to nothing. Now there are folks out there who decry the internet as a terrible place that will steal your first-born before making you money, but I beg to differ.

I have found that people tend to focus on different aspects of animation when it comes to judging quality. Some people look at backgrounds, others look at the direction, still others focus on the writing. I tend to focus on the characters, if they are interesting and complex enough to capture my attention then that is what makes a good film for me. Creating good characters costs next to nothing (in comparison to everything else).

So just keep that in mind when you think that good animation has to cost a lot of money. (It also takes away another excuse you had for not making that independent film!)

Why You Should Remember That Cost is Not the Be All And End All in Animation Read More »

Cool Mosaics That Provide A Different View of Fantasia

Via: Blabbling on Arts And Culture (Stephen Hartley)

By way of Oswald Iten, I’ve come across s series of posts by Stephen Hartley, who has gone and made a series of mosaics of various sequences in Fantasia (one of my favourites is above). I must say they do bring out some of the beauty in the films and provide an opportunity to see how the scenes progress throughout the film.

It’s well worth paying the blog a visit and perusing the series. They are thought-provoking and once again highlight the level of detail that went in the timeless classic that is Fantasia.

Cool Mosaics That Provide A Different View of Fantasia Read More »

How Animators Should Be Managed

Hayao Miyazaki imageVia: Collider.com

According to Hayao Miyazaki:

I am an animator. I feel like I’m the manager of a animation cinema factory. I am not an executive. I’m rather like a foreman, like the boss of a team of craftsmen. That is the spirit of how I work.

And that’s the way it should be. Craftsmen only need a light hand to guide them and someone else taking care of client-relations, budgets and the like. There is no reason to micro-manage someone who knows what they are doing.

If only more studios were run this way, just imagine what things would be like…

How Animators Should Be Managed Read More »