2010

What Does the Google/Verizon Deal Mean for Animators?

There’s been a lot of hoopla on the internet over the last couple of days in regards to the announcement that Google & Verizon have joined together with the aim of constructing a framework that would help legislators create a new set of regulations governing the internet and the content served on it.

Basically up until now, all traffic has been treated as equal no matter what. That means that a text file is given the same priority as a video stream. In years gone past, this was not a problem, mainly because there was more text files than video. However, with the advent of YouTube, Hulue and netflix et al, there is concern that things will not be quite as equal as they were.

The reason? Well, there is a perception out there that the pipe owners (Verizon, Comcast, etc.) will begin accepting payments by content providers (YouTube, Hollywood studios, your local TV station) in return for allowing their content to flow faster through the pipes. The idea being that if you want higher quality entertainment, you will have to pay for it (because  the content providers will only pass the costs onto you).

When you think about it, that is not much different to now. If I want to see Mad Men or whatever the latest hit is, I have to pay for cable. The problem with the idea is that it favours certain players over others. Witness Comcast’s purchase of half of NBC-Universal. Can you take a guess who would get top priority on the Comcast network if bandwidth space became an issue?

That’s not particularly fair. It may hurt the larger players, but it will absolutely crucify individuals. Imagine if you’re an animator/filmmaker, and on your website you have a page with your demo reel on it. How well do you think the video will play unless you cough up a fee to the ISP to ensure that you’re viewers see it at full quality? Are you gonna pay a fee like that? I doubt it. I wouldn’t, and the truth is, I probably wouldn’t sit around to wait for your video to load if you didn’t either. Who loses out? Everyone.

The internet is proof positive that when there is minimal regulation in an area, business thrive. YouTube would not have even got off the drawing board if the founders had to pay a surcharge on the delivery of their videos. Time and time again, we have seen that consumers have realized that the only commodity that the internet costs them is time. Money doesn’t even factor into it ever since AOL went to a flat monthly fee.

Besides, they way things work now is pretty OK. If I want my videos to load faster, I’ll cough up an extra $10 a month to Verizon to bump up the speed cap on my DSL line.

The biggest problem is perhaps the assertion that the “mobile internet” is separate from the fixed one. This is complete nonsense. Granted, there is only a limited amount of the wavelength spectrum available, but that does not mean that mobile users should have to settle for a different standard. Heck, if you wait much longer, Wi-Fi should be near ubiquitous in cities across the country. Why should I pay a data plan to the mobile carrier when I can find an free hotspot?

Again, this only hurts the small folks, i.e. you and me. If it will become hard enough to watch video on the regular internet, how hard do you think it’ll become on the mobile one, which by the way, is just the regular one on a smaller screen?

Animators and studios (big and small alike) need an open internet now more then ever. Why should either the ISPs or Google dictate how they can and cannot run their businesses? Charge them for the connection, charge them for the extra, scarce services that they decide they need, but don’t run rampant over the top of them in the scramble for profits. In the end, everyone gets hurt.

[sigh] You’d expect that a free-market economy like this would operate a little differently wouldn’t you?

What Does the Google/Verizon Deal Mean for Animators? Read More »

"Are adults finally getting the cartoon capers they deserve?"

As I was reading through that excellent resource for animated news that is Line Boil, I came across a link to an article originally published by The Guardian newspaper in the UK, where it asks whether adult animation has finally begun to be accepted as a serious film genre.

It is worth a read, if only to see what the neighbours are up to. For you see, that is the main, I don’t want to say “problem” with the piece. it is quite well written and researched considering the nonsense that some magazines tend to publish. However it is clearly written for the average person who has never really had an interest in animation.

For those of you reading this blog, I would hope that you are aware that adult animation has been around as long as animation itself has. In fact, that’s who the first films were intended for and contrary to what the article says, Walt Disney did not make Snow White specifically for kids, despite the fact that a significant amount of its gross from later runs came from children’s receipts at the box office.

It is fair to say that the mainstream popularity of adult animation has increased in recent years and when I say this I refer to the more western styles; we all know anime has had a large adult following for decades on both sides of the Pacific.

It is encouraging to see this increase which has been sorely needed for a long time. On too often an occasion, adult animation has entered the mainstream consciousness for the wrong reasons, i.e. Fritz the Cat, Beavis & Butthead, South Park, etc.

I suppose the main problem is this stubborn image that persists in places like Hollywood that animation, “real” animation is for kids and kids only. Thankfully, the likes of Pixar have challenged that perception and are still working on it. If one were to read the TAG Guild blog, you will find Steve Hullett constantly admonishing the benefits of animation over live-action as a revenue-generator.

While this image is unlikely to disappear in the foreseeable future, it is encouraging to see signs that people are starting to move beyond it.

"Are adults finally getting the cartoon capers they deserve?" Read More »

The Analogue Nature of Going to the Cinema

Picture from the wonderful blog of Nina Paley

Yesterday while at the cinema, just as Inception was about to begin, I realized that right above me, there was a can of film ready to be unwound before my very eyes. It was then that I realized that the moviegoing experience is still very much an analogue adventure in this digital age.

OK, so the film itself was full of special effects that in no way could have been recreated in the real world, but it’s still kinda funny when you think that they were shown using a method that’s well over 100 years old. I suppose it’s all part of the experience. I find it hard to imagine seeing a film at the cinema where there isn’t a projector whirring away in the booth.

With the rise of digital projectors, this will become a thing of the past, at least in the mainstream. Which I think will be a shame. Fo me, it just won’t be the same, knowing that behind me, there’s just a digital projector streaming content from the internet. Perhaps it is becuase there is no setup involved in the digital age. With film, it has to be loaded, threaded and adjusted so that it appears correctly on the screen. That suggests that watching a film is an event, something to anticipate with excitement and to enjoy immensly.

Technological advances will change this, albeit slowly (digital projection has been talked about for well over a decade). There’s still plenty of time to enjoy the romanticism that goes along with watching a film down at your local picture house.

The Analogue Nature of Going to the Cinema Read More »

The New Yogi Bear Movie

The Washington Post (my favourite US newspaper) has a pretty good list of why we already hate the thing despite it being months from release:

TEN THINGS WE ALREADY HATE ABOUT DECEMBER’S “YOGI BEAR” THE MOVIE:

10. The new, winking double-entendre tagline (above) from veteran “That ’70s Show” writers who have made millions out of crafting winking double-entendre “one-liners.”

9. The continued crass and shameless plunder of the favorite cartoon shows from our childhood so a studio can turn a quick holiday-season buck.

8. The shameless plunder of a favorite cartoon show IN POINTLESS 3-D, so a studio can make 20-percent more quick holiday-season bucks.

7. The slick, soulless CGI “art” that goes with the double-entendre tagline.

6. The once-great Dan Aykroyd stooping to immediately challenge the still-great Bill Murray (“Garfield”) for the title of Cheesiest CGI Cartoon-Film Character to Be Voiced by an Esteemed “SNL” Alumnus.

5. The fact that the always-funny “SNL” host Justin Timberlake will make us enjoy the CGI Boo-Boo character at least a little bit, thereby eroding our self-righteous fit of pique.

4. The worrisome prospect that this could be the best available animated film to take visiting young relatives to during the holiday season.

3. The prospect that the swarming hordes of plastic tie-in toys will feel far less artificial than this film, judging by the trailer (below).

2. The realization that we will ultimately tithe 80 bucks for the film/3D glasses/toys that will line the pockets of the geniuses who wrote that winking double-entendre poster tagline.

1. The inevitable sequel: “Step Up Yogi 3-D: Electric Boo-Boo-ga-loo.”

It can’t be good for a film to generate this much antagonism thise far from its release. Can it really be that bad? Well, it’s hard to tell. All we’ve seen so far have been snippets that don’t really tell the full story. However, they do tell us enough in much the same way that the Tone-Loc tune in the Smurf’s teaser trailer does: it doesn’t raise our hopes much.

 

The New Yogi Bear Movie Read More »

A Crazy Idea: Cartoon Shorts on Mobile Phones

What if there was a service (app, website, etc.) that allowed you to watch some classic animated shorts on your mobile phone?

I think it would be a great idea! Being in and around the 6 minute mark, such shorts would be perfect for watching on a mobile device. Imagine being able to blow off steam from work with some Tom & Jerry on the train home? I’d do it.

OK, granted, you can already do that thanks to the power of YouTube and the like, but you have to search and organize the content yourself. Why not be able to, say, search for all Chuck Jone’s Looney Tunes, or say only ones with Porky Pig?

If there’s one thing these short have shown is that they stand up to repeated viewing, by young and old alike. Why not make them more accessible to everyone so they can enjoy them? It might even help increase their popularity among certain demographics who’ve long forgotten them.

Anyways, just a thought.

A Crazy Idea: Cartoon Shorts on Mobile Phones Read More »

Quick Note: Two Guys Named Joe by John Canemaker

Yes, we have indeed arrived at the launch of yet another of John Canemaker’s excellent tomes. This one centres on two extremes of the Disney animation universe, Joe Grant and Joe Ranft. Two fellows who are surprisingly similar despite their differences (mainly their age).

Both Michael Sporn and Mark Mayerson have posted details of the book, as have Cartoon Brew who posted a brief interview with Mr. Canemaker. Suffice to say, I did not need them to tell me to be excited about this book.

It centers on two animators who worked at Disney over different periods and gives an account of their experiences, noth good and bad. While I have not yet read the book, those who have espouse that it is yet another book that is required reading for anyone with a remote interest in animation.

John Canemaker is one of those people who are unique for a very good reason: they are emphatic about their chosen subject and put supreme effort into everything they do. he has written numerous books on animation history before and there is no reason to doubt that this will be any different.

The book launches today (August 3rd) and can be had over on Amazon.com for a tidy discount. I’ll publish a full review in due course.

 

Quick Note: Two Guys Named Joe by John Canemaker Read More »

Anomaly Appraisal: Toy Story 3, The Bittersweet Finale

 

You know, I’d planned to write an epic, three-part review of the entire trilogy, but the more I reflect on it, it becomes clear that it would not be practical. Comparing a movie made 15 years ago with one from today is kinda cruel in more ways than one, not least on the quality of the animation.

No, this is a straight-up, honest account of how I hated about 95% of Toy Story 3 and how it all worked out in the end, sort of. If you want an animator’s perspective, I highly recommend reading Michael Sporn’s thoughts on the film. I agree with most of his points, which is why I’m linking to it.

Starting with the animation, it is superb. The fact that just the textures on the characters can be seen is proof how far CGI has come in 15 years. The levels of detail that can be created nowadays makes the original film more akin to a student thesis! It is the little things like these details that has set Pixar apart from other studios, they really do take the time to focus on things that affect the movie in ways that may not easily be perceived at first glance.

As for the directing, I would say that Wall-E is easily superior in that it was more in tune with the character. In TS3, the opening sequence is over-dramatic despite its content. Plenty of shots in the films seemed to be set up as if trying to prove something. None detract from the viewing experience, but they are grossly over-wrought in the context of what Toy Story is. That being said, there are no real pointless shots in the film, save for maybe Mrs. Potato Head’s eye.

This films is perhaps one of the most realistic that Pixar has released. Compared even to UP, the level of detail is stunning, from the largest detail (entire rooms) to the smallest (Ken’s wardrobe). One can’t help but feel that the charm of the original and sequel has been lost in the meantime. Compared to The Incredibles, which seemed realistic despite trying not to be, TS3 seems unrealistic because it tries to be too much like the real world and in the process overreaches its goal. Again, it ain’t the end of the world, but it may be connected to my thoughts further down.

The story itself was OK. It was certainly of a much higher standard than what Hollywood is known to put out. It is clearly the completion of the toy’s time with Andy. He’s grown up and heading to college, the toys are neglected in their chest, although they do acknowledge that Andy could have binned them many years ago and did not. The writing as usual was absolutely superb with jokes-a-plenty for adults and kids. The theatrics of Buzz Lightyear manages to steal the show were certainly enjoyed by the audience.

Do I agree with all aspects of the plot? Well, not quite. The villain lacks motivation. Sure he has some, the flashback sequence certainly indicates that but what ran through my mind while watching it was that Jessie went through much worse and was not nearly as resentful. Lots-O-Huggin Bear is also the first villain in the series to get his cumuppance. Why is that? Sure, Al got his in TS2, but he clearly was not a toy, even Stinky Pete got sent off to live with a little girl, not, well, I won’t spoil the surprise.

The characters in the film are the same we know and love. They are all here, but as we’ve seen before, they change subtly between films. In other words, Woody from Toy Story is still the same Woody in Toy Story 3, but he is ever so different. Perhaps in this movie, it is the situations that he is in differentiate him from the first two films. I couldn’t help but feel that the presence of an evil segment of toys soured things for everyone. One could argue that the first two films were too devoid of such characters, but here, I felt they went a wee bit over the top (secret, late-night gambling session anyone?).

Sigh, I guess my issue is that Toy Story is not near as innocent as Toy Story, or even Toy Story 2. Whereas the latter contained only a few grandstanding scenes, this latest film is pretty much one big sign begging for the audiences sympathy. It plays on our fondness for the characters, who don’t feel they need to prove anything any more. There is no soft treading, characters are shown as-is, no justification given. The simplicity of the first two films is also missing. In the first, Woody and Buzz get lost and need to find Andy, in the second, Woody gets stolen and his friends try to get him back. In this film, the whole gang gets tossed about all over the place and we’ve no idea what it supposed to happen to them by the end of the film, their ultimate goal does not become obvious until the very end.

Which leads me to another sticking point. The toys themselves. Did you notice that in the first film, they were extremely careful not to let anything they do make things appear out of place? That meant they tiptoed around and were careful to be just as they were left. In Toy Story 2, the rules were loosened a bit and the toys began to interact with their surroundings, especially Woody, who moved around frequently. This does not include the scene where the toys cross the road, that is simply the what happens when they do move about.

However, in this film, all of that is lost as the toys haphazardly move around as they please, moving things about and turning things upside down. can they really be considered toys any more if they are altering their environment in a way that would clearly be noticeable by a human? Methinks not. It is as if the humans in this film are oblivious to what’s going on right under their nose. That seems a bit of a stretch and somewhat spoiled the film for me. The first film made me believe that my toys were doing stuff when my back was turned. Toy Story 3 makes me wonder if they were doing anything at all.

Perhaps I am too harsh on Toy Story 3, it is after all (hopefully) the conclusion to the story that the writers intended. In that respect, it does commendably. How it gets there is a different matter entirely, but that should not putting you off seeing one of the year’s best films thus far.

Anomaly Appraisal: Toy Story 3, The Bittersweet Finale Read More »

Anomaly Approved: Ben Camberos

I follow a heck of a lot of blogs (c. 300 at present) and a heck of a lot of those blogs are artists, illustrators or animators. The vst majority of said blogs put out exceptionally good work. The rest also put out exceptionally good work, if only they would update more often! Ben, on the other hand, posts fairly regularly over on his blog.

Ben happens to be one of my favourites, mainly because his creations are totally consistent in their quality. He posts a wide variety of stuff, from sketches, works in progress, completed works and the odd photo or two thrown in for good measure.

His style is pretty unique, relying on strong lines, bright colours and physical features that I guess form a trademark of sorts of his work. He sure does make plenty of pin-ups though, and damned good ones at that. Some are perhaps slightly risque, but that should not detract you from checking out his gallery. His composure is superb and it is clear that he puts plenty of effort and attention into his work. Overall, he compares quite favourably to Messrs. Glines and Timm in terms of quality.

Besides those, ben also indulges his geeky side with plenty of action heroes, comic characters and anime(?) which add a good dose of variety to his work. It is clear to see that his experience serves him well in that regard.

Camberos keeps good company as the links part of his excellent website will attest to, with not one, but two artists already Anomaly Approved.

I would highly recommend checking out his website and blog. He is also currently taking commissions, which means that you too, could own your very own piece of Ben Camberos artwork.

Anomaly Approved: Ben Camberos Read More »

Quick Note: The Music in Ren and Stimpy

In the case of Futurama, the only thing that differes between the original episodes and the ones after the resurrection is the music. It is widely known that the full orchestra used in the latter has been replaced by synthesized instruments. This is not a serious flaw in any way, it just smacks of a blatantly lower budget for the series.

Anyway, the wee point I would like to make today is that John K. used a fairly large library of old music that he used in Ren & Stimpy. There are two reasons for this, firstly, John’s love of old music/culture (note the stylized designs and fictitious commericals for powdered toast) and secondly it was a huge cost-saver.

The use of such music does not in any way detract from an otherwise superb show, but it is clear that the two go hand in hand. Listening to the music on its own pulls you back in time to an age of big bands, Hollywood in its prime, the wonder that is outer space and of course, the hustle and bustle of city life.

I’m not exactly sure what proportion of a shows budget goes towards music (if anybody knows, please enlighten me in the comments) and I’m pretty sure it varies from show to show and network to network. However, Ren & Stimpy continue to stand alone in their use of old music. I think it any show (or film for that matter) set back in the day should use old music. But perhaps a more elaborate analysis is needed, which will have to be another day.

Quick Note: The Music in Ren and Stimpy Read More »

How I Fell Head Over Heels for Scott Pilgrim.

Yes, as the headline clearly states, I really like the creation of one Bryan Lee O’Malley. How did this come to be? The only comics I had read on a regular basis before were the Uncle Scrooge comics I read as a kid (an after all those years, it was still a big thrill to see Don Rosa at a comic convention last year). Being not your average comic book fan but at the same time engaging with comic book fans on an almost daily basis, i could not help but be aware the the 6th and final volume of the Scott Pilgrim series was coming out.

A few people who are known to me were already fans and they were trumpeting the fact that this awesome series would be coming to an end with this volume. However, I brushed off such claims as the hypnotic cries of the brainwashed. Why would I ever be interested in a comic book that looks like it could have come from Japan (seriously though, I have nothing against manga, I just don’t happen to read it myself).

Perhaps fate was working late one night, but long story short, the girlfriend got a 40% off coupon for Borders. So I says to myself, what they heck, let’s mosey on down to the one around the corner and see if this comic is even barely worthy of the hype. I figured I would read a few pages and if it intrigued me, then it might be worth spending the few bob.

A somewhat larger chunk of change later and I finished the final volume, at work, on a Wednesday morning with the bosses permission I might add. How did things manage to do a complete flip in between? Is the series really that good, or did I simply manage to find a comic that appealed to me? Perhaps a bit of both, so it makes sense to elaborate more on the many strengths that attracted me to the series.

Let’s start with the entire plot itself. If you wanted to date a really cute girl and you had to defeat seven of her evil ex-boyfriends, wouldn’t you have an interesting story to tell? I’ll admit, it took till the end of the first volume for me to appreciate the scale of the entire story-arc. it was only in later volumes did I appreciate the complexity of it as well.

The plot however, is only one aspect. The way that O’Malley (ah, a good old Irish name if ever there was one) tells the story is even more important. If you look past all the video game and pop-culture references (and there are many), there is plenty of genuine humour extracted from the characters themselves. The series therefore doesn’t really rely on any crutches for comedic relief. Now granted, there is plenty of self-reverential jokes and indeed more than a few instances where the fourth wall is broken and that causes no problems at all. In fact it makes the comic less serious in and of itself. It is after all, not meant to be taken as seriously as say, Batman or most other ‘traditional’ comics.

The drawing style, simple as it is, does work towards the comics benefit. Some may find it too simple. but I tend to think that combined with O’Malley’s style of layout, it works quite well. The last thing we need is for a full page-panel to be over-bearing in its detail. The character design is almost too simple. I will admit, it took me a while to be able to readily distinguish everyone, but once I became familiar with everyone, that ceased to be a problem.

The characters themselves are what sealed the deal for me on the series. I tend to favour strong, complex characters that, while flawed in one way or another, are still complete overall. Of course, Scott Pilgrim represents one of the most complex characters in the series, who is developing all the way up until the final volume. In contrast, Ramona is already developed, it is the layers of her character that are peeled away as the series progresses that take her from being the most intriguing to being the deepest character of them all.

The wider cast are all unique. It’s also fun to see how they all mesh together or on occasion, clash spectacularly. I thoroughly enjoyed seeing how they interact with each other outside of Scott or Ramona. Of all the outside characters, perhaps my favourite is Kim Pine. Not really sure why, she just seems the most down to earth of the lot, despite her constant bickering with Scott.

A good story is nothing without a requisite villain and in that, we have not one, but seven! I’m not going to go into too much detail, but suffice to say, they are a eclectic bunch, and add their own flavour to each one of the volumes. The head honcho is of course, Gideon, a sinister fellow if ever there was one. sadly, I can’t say much about him without ruining the ending.

Which leads us to Scott and Ramona. Both are characters with very complex pasts. Both have said histories revealed throughout the series, although in Ramona’s case, it is revealed a stage at a time, whereas the reader is left to piece Scott’s together until the end when everything is wrapped up. This makes the two of them immensely fascinating characters. Scott, the loveable eejit, Ramona the downright mysterious American girl.

So why the heck should I care whether they get together? I’ll be damned if I don’t have my own relationship to take care of first. That, I’m afraid is a tricky one to answer, because that is the key to the entire series’ success. Just why has everyone (including Hollywood) taken an interest in this pair? Perhaps it is ingrained deep in the human psyche to find that lifelong mate. The fear of loneliness if one doesn’t. We don’t want to see Scott end up alone, (it’s made quite clear in volume 1 that even after a year, he still has not gotten over the fact that Envy Adams dumped him). He is us, and by us, I mean me, as I read the comic. I sure as hell want to see him succeed, because I know that if I were in a similar situation, I’d be fighting my ass off too (and you wondered why they were called the Fighting Irish) if there was even the slimest of chances that I could get the girl of my dreams.

In the end though, the characters made all the difference for me. Sure I loved the humour (both gratuitous and non-gratuitous), but I fell in love with everyone in the series, and I guess that is why I like it so much.

Bryan Lee O’Malley deserves a hearty slap on the back for creating such an awesome series of books. Will the eejits in Hollywood screw it up? The folks at the Comic-Con say no. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. In the meantime, I will be reading the series again from start to finish because there is so much take in, one reading does not do it justice.

Scott Pilgrim is the first comic series that I have collected, period. If that does not speak volumes about it’s quality, I don’t know what does, because I can be a very discerning person when it comes to the entertainment I love.

How I Fell Head Over Heels for Scott Pilgrim. Read More »