Today’s character of discussion is one that should be immediately familiar to almost anyone who watches cartoons.
Spike the Bulldog first appeared in the 1941 short, Dog Trouble, where he gave both Tom and Jerry a hard time. While that was his first appearance, it wasn’t until 1944’s The Bodyguard did we hear him speak.
Spike represents the stereotypical bulldog, immensely strong, undeniably tough and with an extremely sour humour to boot. Throughout his appearances, Tom is constantly getting on his nerves while Jerry often wins his protection.
With the introduction of his son, Tyke, things take another turn as the plot often revolves around Tom and Jerry interrupting Spike and Tyke, for which Tom is almost always on the receiving end of Spike’s foot.
Spike is essentially the voice of reason within the series. He attempts, sometimes pleading for, a degree of sanity from the other two. While he is not Tom’s foil to the degree that Jerry is, he is not averse to resorting to Tom’s methods when necessary.
Spike is very obviously the next logical step in the progression of cartoon animals, as witnessed and explained by Poochie the Dog in the Simpsons episode, Itchy, Scratchy and Poochie. Together, the trio of Tom, Jerry and Spike form a trio that effectively cancel each other out but at the same time, are always playing catchup to each other.
As far as bulldogs go, does Spike represent the epitome of the species?
Of course not! Bulldogs are well known for their mild temperament.
Coming once again from the Art of Animation tumblelog, here’s a few more lovely looking Kim Possible expression sheets. It’s these kind of sheets that always intrigue me. Animators excel at displaying emotions purely through visuals. Oh sure the voice actor has a large part to play as well, but sheets like these only confirm that animators are essentially actors, no different from their live-action brethren; portraying emotions and actions in ways that evoke feelings within the audience.
Note: I simply use this to illustrate a typical animation-related internship. I do not mean to imply that Blue Sky enagages in dubious behaviour when it comes to their interns.
Interships have become prevalent throughout many industries, not just animation. On the surface, they offer benefits that parties on both sides can stand to gain from. The intern obviously gets observational experience to put on their resume, and the company gains time as the interns perform non-project-related tasks that would otherwise consume paid employees’ time.
That is in the ideal world, however and there are plenty of stories of interns who were coerced into working long hours, performing actual work and and often for extended periods of time (many months or more).
This post isn’t so much about abuses within intern programmes, rather it is an analysis of how the prevalence of interns within the industry could potentially hurt it in the long run.
The problem is that interns, whether they do productive work or not, contort the economic realities of the industry. If an intern is strictly an intern and simply makes tea or shuffles paper about, then their impact is limited to slivers of time that the company could only reap benefits from in the very long term, read: a year or longer.
Interns involved in production, on the other hand, can dramatically distort costs because as anyone whose taken a managerial accounting class will tell you, what counts as a ‘cost’ is entirely up to management.
Take for instance an animator’s base salary. It’s paid (traditionally) on a per foot basis, i.e. the more animation produced in a given timeframe the more the animator gets paid. Now, when you look at how much it ‘cost’ to produce that animation, most people would factor in the animator’s salary and any materials used. What a lot of people neglect to consider is overhead; things like building rent, heating/cooling, electricity, etc. that were all used in production but can not be directly applied to a particular production.
Where interns distort this when they work on a production is that they create the actual work, but they only account for the costs associated with the overhead and any materials used, they don’t get paid so that cost is not accrued by the studio.
Why does this matter?
Salaries are often the largest single cost category for employers.
If a production uses even two interns on the production, the cost of said production will be proportionately lower than if two animators were hired. Now you might say that this is an isolated case, and so what if it is. However, what if it’s extended to the entire industry? If every studio decided to hire even one or two employees less than necessary per production it doesn’t take a genius to conclude that we’re talking about a lot of people.
“But certain areas wouldn’t be viably able to produce animation without interns”
This may be true, but again, interns distort costs so much, that that is precisely why certain regions cannot produce animation, or rather, cannot appear to produce animation in a profitable manner.
When it comes to the cost of production, the use of interns will naturally result in a lower overall cost, but the problem is that the difference isn’t “saved” as studios might have you believe. Their fixed costs will remain the same whether they hire the additional persons or not because they have to be paid even if no animation is produced at all! The cost to employ an animator is considered a flexible cost that is applied to the production and would (and should) be ultimately paid for by the client.
The ultimate result of utilising interns for production is that the supply/demand nature of the job market is also distorted. Anyone willing to perform work for free will displace someone who will only work for compensation. This drives the mean salary of animators lower as they are forced to work for less than they would otherwise have. The difference is, again, not “saved” by anyone, it ends up in the economy somehow, the problem is that, ethically, it is sufficiently suspect.
So the crux of the problem is that either the job market is too willing to accept unpaid labour or that the various clients out there are unwilling to pay the amount that they should for a given production.
My suspicion is that it’s a mixture of both, a vicious cycle if you will. With people willing to work for free, studios and networks can use the resulting lower costs to argue that such and such a production is only viable if interns are used. This is patently false. The cost should be what it ought to be and the client could either take it or leave it. Extracting free labour benefits them in the short term, but harrangs the overall economy and industry in the long term.
I saw this today and can’t help but be amazed. A ~26 year old movie managed to shatter the tweet per second record during a broadcast in Japan. Now you could say that it’s in its natural environment, but one can’t help but wonder how such an old movie managed to garner so much attention. If anything it’s proof that good films can generate discussion man years after their initial release.
Australian animator Tara Fox was kind enough to send in her latest music video for the band Sons of Rico. Its an ode to her favourite video game, Lemmings.
This morning while perusing my feeds, I stumbled across a post on the Topic Simple blog entitled “Top 5 Myths About Animation“. It’s a nice post that’s short and simple and focuses on the process of animation more than anything else and is well worth reading.
However, animation is so much more than just the actual nuts and bolts. It’s a wonderful technique that creates fantastic moving art for all to see. So here are 5 more myths about animation that go above and beyond the five in Topic Simple’s post.
1. Animation is a genre
Plenty of awards, stores and lists make animation out to be a genre. If this were true, then every animated film would be the same, which blatantly isn’t the case. There are all kinds of animated films, from musicals to horror and everything in between. Animation is far from a genre, but is sadly often treated as one.
2. Animation is just for kids
This myth may have held more ground in perhaps the 1930s, but not any more. There have been times when adult-friendly animation has been scarce, but it has always existed, ever since The Flintstones first popped up on TV. Today, there’s a wide range of animation that’s geared solely towards adults, and it’s all broadcast friendly too!
3. Hand-drawn animation is dead
Toy Story (and Pixar in general) are normally noted as being the film (and studio) that wrote the death warrant for traditional, hand-drawn animation. Again, this is far from the truth. Yes, Disney shuttered their unit, only to open it up again. CGI has been a hit with audiences, but it remains to see how long its legs are. Traditional animation has evolved to take advantage of technological progress with the likes of Toon Boom, etc. providing plenty of software that can be utilised to enhance hand-drawn animation. Don’t bury this technique just yet, it’ll be around for a long time to come.
4. Only the big studios make animation that’s worth watching
In fairness, the big studios do have an advantage in terms of scale and budgets, but that doesn’t mean that anyone with a great idea is relegated to the rubbish heap. Great animation has always been made on a shoestring budget, from the early TV stuff put out by Hanna-Barbera to Sita Sings the Blues by Nina Paley. Meanwhile blockbusters with massive budgets like Sinbad the Sailor crash and burn. Cost and quality are not as joined at the hip as this myth would have you believe.
5. Animation is not a viable career choice
This myth is one of the more prevalent ones among those not in the know, i.e. not working in the industry. A career in animation is just as viable as any other. Oh sure, it has its pitfalls just like any other, but at least artistic skill is easily carried an highly transferable, unlike say, civil engineering; which is more secure, but whose technical skills aren’t very transferable at all.
Animation is a fine career choice, provided one is willing to work hard to achieve success, just the same as one would want to be in any career.
You may have already seen these floating about the internet recently. Created by (I presume) whoever runs the Petite Tiaras tumblelog, they’re quite an interesting collection.
Are the magazine a good fit for the characters though? This 3-part weekly series of posts aims to find out.
America’s cultural barometer, putting fashion in the context of the larger world we live in- how we dress, live, socialize; what we eat, listen to, watch; who leads and inspires us.
From its beginnings to today, three central principles have set Vogue apart: a commitment to visual genius, investment in storytelling that puts women at the center of the culture, and a selective, optimistic editorial eye.
Vogue’s story is the story of women, of culture, of what is worth knowing and seeing, of individuality and grace, and of the steady power of earned influence. For millions of women each month, Vogue is the eye of the culture, inspiring and challenging them to see things differently, in both themselves and the world.
So does Snow White fit into that kind of magazine? Perhaps not. She is not really a cultural figure per se and her story is far from the usual high-society gossip that one would expect from the pages of Vogue. The cover itself is good, but it does completely neglect any aspect of the fashion scene for which Vogue is [in]famous for.
Overall: B-
Cinderella in ELLE
Surprising enough because she’s facing away from the reader, Cinderella is the cover girl for ELLE magazine, whose mission is:
…to influence women’s whole lives, helping them to be chic, smart, and modern. With intelligent, in-depth writing and a razor-sharp curation of fashion that is at once aspirational and accessible, ELLE’s readers and users are building not just personal style, but personal power.
Cinderella does fit this, for the most part. The stories touch on aspects of fashion with a strong emphasis on the women behind them. Cinderella herself is an aspirational story, as she overcomes the difficulties of being imprisoned in her own house to marrying the prince.
Overall: A-
Tinkerbell in InStyle
Tinkerbell is one of the most well-known Disney characters and has endured and progressed far beyond the original Peter Pan movie. Featuring on InStyle magazine, which according to the official description has:
…emerged as the world’s premier media brand in celebrity, style, fashion, beauty and beyond. InStyle takes a uniquely fun and inviting attitude towards celebrity style in all its forms including its flagship magazine which reaches an audience of 9.6 million readers each month.
Tinkerbell is most certainly a celebrity in this day and age; being a merchandising powerhouse for Disney and a star in her own movies. InStyle is a good fit for her. She’s a fun character with a positive attitude and it is fair to say that she’s more than just a little bit sassy. This magazine cover is fairly accurate, with a “53 Great Outfit Ideas” article, a few personal articles and even a recipe guide to round it out.
Overall: A
More to come next week in part 2, including Aerial, Princess Aurora and Belle
