October 2012

3 Reasons The South Park Copyright Infringement Claim is Ludicris

Animation /

Via: The A.V. Club

Yup, that venerable organ of parody and disrespect, South Park, has gone too far! They’ve been sued for copyright infringement [TMZ, apologies, apologies] for the episode “Imaginationland”. There is, however, a distinct whif of BS about the whole thing. Here’s X reasons why.

The Character That’s “Infringing”

Yup, the character that’s infringing, is, uh, the Lollipop King. And how is he “infringing”, well apparently he looks the same as the character in the video below called the Lollipop Forrest [sic] and the fact that in South Park he’s being throttled by a Stormtrooper makes him guilty

The Nature of the “Infringement”

Hmm, where to start. Infringement in copyright terms is a complex beast. There are tests to determine whether something is actually infringing. In this case, I find it hard to believe that the Lollipop King is guilty of that. For starters he’s multi-coloured and wears a crown. The characters in the video are mono-colored and don’t wear crowns. Moving on, South Park is animated, the Lollipop Forrest [sic] is live-action. That rises the bar in terms of proving infringement but even then, the character isn’t the same for chrissakes!

The Time Factor

Ah yes, perhaps the greatest thing that this lawsuit is done is revealing that South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have access to a time machine. No, I’m deadly serious about this. Imaginationland was broadcast in 2007 but the Lollipop Forrest [sic] appears to be from 2011 (presuming that creator Xavier Wardlaw uploaded it shortly after creating it). Being the engineer that I am, I’m fairly confident that Parker and Stone (if they did infringe) saw that last year and then travelled back to 2007 so they could rip it off a whole 4 years before the fact.

Personally, I’m decidedly curious to see what the court says about this and whether a precedent is created whereby you can recursively infringe on something by going back in time and creating it first.

Conclusion

This is one of those “there has to be a moral” stories and it is. I don’t begrudge Xavier Wardlaw for creating what he did, every creative thing deserves props for being made. However, there’s something about American that seams to whisper in everybody’s ear “sue, sue, sue” every time they feel even a tad slighted. C’mon folks, common sense can do wonders, and in this case, can save you some money too.

And now for the funniest part, watch the start of this making of video and see if you can spot the (even more blatant) copyright infringement going on. Bonus points for the characters names!

 

 

3 Reasons The South Park Copyright Infringement Claim is Ludicris Read More »

Some Reasonable DIscussions About Animation at the A.V. Club

Animation /

Last week the A.V. Club ran a top 50 films of the 90s series of posts that criminally neglected animation until it got to number 3. Even then they went with Toy Story 2, an admittedly good film that was cranked out with numerous injuries to the production team but which ultimately relied on far too much of the original to be eligible for any top film list in my book.

Nonetheless, after the list was concluded, the favourites emerged and among them was the film that many consider the pinnacle of pre-2000 feature animation, Brad Bird’s The Iron Giant. That thankfully set off a discussion in the comments that included some fairly insightful discussion about 90s animation. You can read the original thread by clicking here.

What made the discussion stand out for me was that there were plenty of animated films that had been left off the main list but that were substantial and superb films on their own. Think Beauty and the Beast, Porco Rosso, Pom Poko, Princess Mononoke. And they’re only the very best, pretty much anything Disney turned out during that decade was good, and there are plenty more films like Ghost in the Shell that could be eligible too.

So what do you think? Is the Iron Giant the best animated film of the 90s or do you agree with the A.V. Club and canvas for Toy Story 2?

Some Reasonable DIscussions About Animation at the A.V. Club Read More »

FOX and Universal Sued Over Simpsons Theme Park Ride

Animation, The Simpsons /

Via: The Simpsons Wikia

 

I’ll admit that legal matters tend to make my ears prick up for reasons that are still not entirely clear but I couldn’t help but be slightly amused when I read this story. A few years ago, both FOX and Universal were full on beating the drum about the opening of a Simpsons themed ride at one of the latter’s theme parks. Fast forward to 2012 and both are being sued over the same ride, but from a rather amusing source; a musician’s union.

Why even blog about this? Well a case like this would barely register on most people’s radar but is just another sign that you can never take anything in entertainment for granted.

Now on the surface, this is simply interesting from the point of view that it’s the musicians as opposed to anyone else trying to make a grab for some dough however thanks to the Simpsons’ music editor Chris Ledesma and his blog explaining everything in plain English, I know that even the music in the entertainment industry is far from simple.

Yup, thanks to Chris’ Music Editing 101 series and in particular his posts on music clearing and re-use, I (and now you) know that acquiring music for an animated TV show is a far from straightforward procedure. There are all sorts of clearances, rights and so forth to request, acquire and process before anything can make it to air. After that you can’t simply use a piece of music you already have; there are all kinds of rules about that.

It’s all dreadfully complicated and perhaps proof that no-one in Hollywood really trusts each other, but it does make for entertaining reading when the musician’s union goes after the hand that feeds them when it comes to a roller coaster.

The crux of the issue is that FOX apparently used music from the series in the ride but that violates a clause in the current contract that was signed in 2010. Seeing as how the ride was already in operation before that, I can’t see how it can be infringing. That said, I also can’t see how it took 2 years to get around to filing a lawsuit but then again I’m an engineer and prone to crippling logicality and common sense.

So consider this yet another aspect to modern animation production that could come back to bite you in the end, and remember, you don’t have to have roller coaster to get sued.

FOX and Universal Sued Over Simpsons Theme Park Ride Read More »

These Polar Bears Don’t Like Coca-Cola

Animation /

The Coca-Cola polar bears commercials are a staple of every winter in the western world and have become iconic in their own way despite not being the best animation out there. Nevertheless, the video below take a look at what the bears might really be like if they drank Coke all the time.

 Coming by way of Creative Review, the video is naturally pushing an agenda but its nonetheless amusing to see a concept being extrapolated beyond its marketing potential.

 

 

 

These Polar Bears Don’t Like Coca-Cola Read More »

Why Make A Show That Makes People A Little Uncomfortable

Animation, Cartoon Network /

The MIPCOM conference is currently under way in France and it attracts people from all over the world looking to buy and sell TV shows. Naturally, the large US networks are represented and indeed undertake keynote addresses to help sell their wares and to hint at where the networks themselves are going.

Cartoon Network plays a part and Turner Animation president and COO Stuart Snyder had this to say about the stuff that the network looks for:

As for how to stay ahead of kids’ interests and keep them tuned to his cabler, the Cartoon Network, Snyder said it’s all about finding unique voices, from wherever. “We look at projects and pitches that make us a little uncomfortable,’ he explained. “If one does, we think we’ve got something.”

Now I will admit that finding ‘unique voices’ is absolutely what a network should be looking for, and fair play to Snyder for bucking the trend and blazing a trail for themselves with the likes of Adventure Time and Regular Show. But to find them from “wherever”? Surely they should be looking in defined places, no?

Simply picking content from random places doesn’t seem like a particularly sustainable method of discovery. Annoying Orange is a prime example of this approach and it is, sadly, destined to be a fad; a show very much of its time. Comparatively, Adventure Time was a short in the finest Fred “throw a bunch to the wall and see what sticks” Seibert tradition and it’s done massively well and looks set to become a true classic.

At the same time, there’s a distinct lack of explanation as to what constitutes “uncomfortable”. Does it mean hard to watch, makes the viewer feel down/dejected or is it that they won’t admit to liking it. Or is it the fact that Synder and his team is uncomfortable about the need to move away from the ‘safety zone’ that all corporations love because it brings them reliable revenue?

My hunch says the last one. Only by taking risks can Cartoon Network hope to stay ahead of the pack (for now) and if a concept makes executives a little uncomfortable, then it surely must be right.

Any thoughts? Add them in the comments below!

Why Make A Show That Makes People A Little Uncomfortable Read More »

Blue Sky And Peanuts: It’s Not the End of the World

Animation, FOX /

Via: Peanutsblog

The news broke earlier on today that FOX subsidiary Blue Sky is tackling Charles Schultz’s classic Peanuts strip in an all-new feature film. The alarm hence raised, many proclaimed the end of a classic property, the smearing of Schultz’s memory and the surety with which the eventual film will suck. The A.V. Club weighed in by pointing out the hilarity of the press release in declaring a feature film possible at this point in time thanks to the current state of technology.

But enough about the armchair commentators, what does the deal really signify?

For starters, Schultz’s estate is not short of cash. Peanuts characters (particularly Snoopy) continue to abound in merchandise and the various books continue to sell. The seasonal specials are a staple of American television and air religiously on an annual basis.

The few features that were made by Bill Melendez back in the day are less well known today (although they’re still readily accessible in my mind, as my 4th of July post exemplifies) so what it comes down to is the Schultz estate’s desire to implant the Peanuts legacy into a new generation of youngsters for whom the beloved characters do no not hold the same level of nostalgia that they do for older folks.

Now the estate has some control over the look and nature of any theatrical project but their choice of Blue Sky is an interesting one. The details remain secret, but FOX may have been willing to pay the highest royalties or percentage of profits. On the other hand, now that FOX has a distribution deal with DreamWorks, it has to find a suitable use for Blue Sky outside of the Ice Age franchise.

I am skeptical that we will see a 3-D CGI version of the Peanuts characters. By all accounts we should have seen them already seeing as plenty of other classic characters have already undergone the transformation (Rocky & Bullwinkle and Scooby Doo spring to mind). Might Blue Sky surprise us with a CGI-assisted 2-D version? Disney’s Paperman short suggests that the technology exists in some form.

So let’s not count the chickens before their hatched. The film is not due for a couple of years yet so we’ll just have to hold our breath until the first glimpses emerge. What is known though, is that the Schultz estate has a proven track record of asserting the necessary control over Peanuts-related projects to ensure they maintain a suitably high standard.

Now, for your viewing pleasure, check out the groovy title sequence from the 1972 feature, Snoopy Come Home:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BiFHWn-uwE

 

Blue Sky And Peanuts: It’s Not the End of the World Read More »

10 More Important Moments in Animation History

8 Comments / Animation /

Over on Neatorma today, it a list of ten landmark moment in animation history. I can’t disagree with any of them, but I could not help but wonder whether there were more that are just as significant but not mentioned in the list. As it turns out, there is. Here are 10 more important moments in animation history

Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs

As far as landmark moments go, this is the biggie. Not only was it the first feature length animated film, it also had numerous technical achievements, became the highest grossing film up until that point and legitimized animation as a serious form of entertainment and art. Suffice to say, it is still a magnificent film almost 80 years later and the fact that it is should be proof enough that it was a significant moment in animation history.

Hanna-Barbera Move To TV

The venerable MGM duo of William Hanna and Joe Barbera suddenly found themselves out on the ear in the early 1950s and through near desperation were forced to consider TV as a potential outlet for their creativity. Overcoming many obstacles including severe time and budget constraints, they managed to create a successful studio that made animation efficiently enough for the small screen. Needless to say that animated TV landscape could be very different today if Hanna-Barbera had not succeeded or even tried. True, UPA may have been the first, but H-B made it their bread and butter and made a rather decent living from it for many decades. (Obligatory link to Yowp, your definitive online repository for early Hanna-Barbera information)

ACT

As much of an influence as Hanna-Barbera had on televised animation, Massachusetts housewife Peggy Charren had an even greater one. Under the guise of the Action for Children’s Television organisation, she successfully eliminated many of the staple concepts of animated TV shows; namely cartoon violence and slapstick. In conjunction with downsized budgets in the 1970s, animated TV fare changed from the likes of Johnny Quest to the likes of Scooby Doo. Such changes were not necessarily the worst that the technique endured in that decade, but they did create a malaise in animated TV for much of the 70s and 80s that is still etched in many memories.

TRON

TRON was Disney’s first attempt at a full CGI-rendered feature film. Although it wasn’t as critically acclaimed as Star Wars, it did usher in the modern era of CGI animation that unfortunately remained dormant within Hollywood for over a decade. It also proved to Disney that computers could play a role in animation production, and through a long and complicated road, would eventually lead to CAPS, Disney’s computerized colouring system.

Cable TV

As mentioned above, ACT had a rather negative impact on TV animation. Thankfully, cable TV had just the opposite effect. Although both the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon were created in the early 1980s, it was not until the very early 90s that the power of the platform was realised. The original Nicktoons (Doug, Rugrats and Ren & Stimpy) were a blast of fresh air in the otherwise staid and predictable world of kids cartoons. Being creator-driven, they emphasised content and characters over brands and toys. Being so much funnier than the competition meant that Nickelodeon ran laps around competing broadcast networks and sold many millions of pieces of merchandise as a result. Although the concept has been in danger at times, the quality that creator-driven shows provide continues to set the bar for animated kids shows. Just look at the current crop (Adventure Time, Gravity Falls and SpongeBob) and how well they are doing.

The Simpsons

Yes, The Flintstones may have been the first, but The Simpsons took it all the way to eleven. Still limping along after 24 years, this show utterly changed the face of both animated television and television itself. Showing up the banality of contemporary shows, the Simpsons set the comedic and quality bar so high, it cannot reach it itself any more. Not only that, the Simpsons dragged animation back into the mainstream consciousness of the world and led directly to many imitators, stablemates (Futurama, Family Guy, King of the Hill) and erstwhile ‘mature’ shows (Adult Swim, Archer, etc.) Although it doesn’t shine nearly as bright as it used to, the Simpsons has and will be noted in the history books as the defining moment of televised animation around the world.

Beauty and the Beast Gets Nominated for Best Picture

Oh sure, animation had been showered with Academy Awards before (Snow White being the prime example) and a category for shorts had been in existence for many years. However animated films as genuine, dramatic entertainment was still shunned by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences until Beauty and the Beast managed to get nominated for Best Picture. It sadly lost, but the effect was immense. Suddenly theatrical animation was no longer the sole preserve of those too young to drive, it could be enjoyed by adults just as easily. The nomination ultimately led to the creation of a category solely devoted to animated features whose effect on animation’s stature remains debatable.

Toy Story

The first wholly 3-D CGI animated film is entirely worthy of mention and has been ever since it came out in 1995. Much more than that though, Toy Story also ushered in a strikingly new form of animated film that shared much more in common with live-action films than animated ones up to that point. There were no musical numbers, a distinct lack of magic, cute sidekicks and a basis on existing stories. Yup, Toy Story was all-new, adult-friendly and a damned good film to boot. It’s influence has been cast over CGI films for well over 15 years and looks set to continue for the foreseeable future too.

YouTube

Why does YouTube merit a mention here? The answer is simple. Until it was launched, if you wanted to see an animated short, you had to either: A) be near a big city where a screening might be held, B) work at a studio or C) make it yourself. The advent of YouTube meant than anyone anywhere could create, upload and watch animated shorts. Combined with the dramatic drop in the cost of computer power and you have an explosion of animated content (both good and bad) that has had an unfettering effect on how the public views the technique. What are the ultimate results of this explosion? It’s still too early to tell, but it is certain that they will make large waves in the 10 years or so to come.

Avatar

Defining moments can be both good and bad and James Cameron’s Avatar merits a mention because it was, in all reality, an animated film albeit with human-powered movements. It completely blurred the line between what was animation, motion-capture and VFX and has set a defining moment for all three. Again, it is too early to tell what the ultimate effects will be, but even now, it is accepted that the bar has been raised. Now we just have to see what happens next.

10 More Important Moments in Animation History Read More »

Yet Another Open Movie: Tears of Steel

Animation /

The Blender Institute is currently on a bit of a mission to push the limits of what the software is capable of and is using the open source nature of the software as a model for these test films.

The latest release is the 12-minute short, Tears of Steel which seamlessly blends live-action with Blender-animated VFX. The notion that VFX and animation are relatives is not a new one, but Tears of Steel only blurs the line between them even further.

Enjoy!

 

 

Yet Another Open Movie: Tears of Steel Read More »

How To Stop The Digital Domain Failure From Happening Again

1 Comment / Animation /

See the update/clarification at the end

The Problem

It’s almost a month since the word broke loose on an otherwise unusual Friday morning that Digital Domain was in very serious trouble indeed. Oh sure there were the warning signs of rough seas ahead, but on the whole, it appeared that the studio was simply in the middle of the kind of cash flow crisis that plagues any business. However the problems were a good bit more severe than even an emergency loan could fix.

Yup, cash flow was a big part of the problem, and a big part of the problem’s problem was the production of animated feature film, The Legend of Tembo. Now many questions can be raised as to how this production was the main part of the problem, but the gist of it is, animated features are still phenomenally expensive to plan, produce, distribute and maintain.

In Digital Domain’s case, Tembo sucked up capital, but it was still only in pre-production; hoovering up funds with nothing to show for it at all. In other words, Tembo was a dollar-shaped black hole. Now this isn’t to pan the production or anything like that. It’s the nature of the business; you have to saddle the costs before you get anything back, something that’s especially so for your first feature. All this combined with a drop in DD’s VFX business halted any incoming monies that were used to service the loan that was financing Tembo. Without either, the company collapsed.

The Solution

The solution to the problem of reducing the risks associated with such projects, funny enough as it seems, is to make cheaper films. Now cheaper in the context of DD’s problem means much cheaper than even they were attempting to do. Tembo was not an expensive film but by all accounts had already swallowed millions and was still in pre-production. Disney and DreamWorks on the other hand spend many hundreds of millions on their films (Toy Story 3 was apparently the most expensive to date at around $350 million).

The problem is that pouring many millions into an animated feature is a poor way to go about it. Features are naturally more expensive than TV episodes, but there is also a much larger risk involved. Studios can normally suffer one or two flops unless, of course, said flop was your first production. They’ve also been moving ever more towards films that are safe; sequels, series and the like in order to hedge those risks.

What the solution calls for is for cheaper features, or rather, features that don’t cost nearly as much money.

Proof? The Secret of Kells cost all of about €6 million (~$9 million at the time). A Monster in Paris was budgeted at around €22.8 million. Think about those numbers; the latter was produced for just over what Disney spends on pre-production alone. The former was made for about the same amount that they spend in coffee (OK, not really, but you get my point).

What I’m getting at is that there is a widening gap, a hole if you will, in the market for the budget feature to exploit. If you can knock out films for, say, under $20 million make and at least your money back, you’re doing pretty well, aren’t you?

Coupled with the new digital economic model and I’m afraid the days of the massively budgeted feature are rapidly drawing to a close. Snow White heralded a good 80 or so years of it, but in the near future such lavishly expensive productions will become even rarer than they already are. Alas Digital Domain discovered that too late.

Clarification: After a twitter conversation with Digital Domain founder Scott Ross, I need to clear up a few things:

  • The collapse of DD was about more than just the Legend of Tembo’s production and included many other factors that together contributed to the company’s collapse. I didn’t mean to imply that the film was sucking all of DD’s money, except that as the company’s first feature, it was absolutely using funds that would not see a return for some time and thus wasn’t doing DD any immediate favours.
  • My solution calls for cheaper features but I forgot to clarify that they are only one part of an overall realignment of how features are made. At present, they swallow up capital and labour for many years, thus contributing to their enormous cost. Cheaper features are more likely to take longer to make, but the payoff is that the resources used are spread out so that it is not necessary to devote an entire department of employees to a production. In conjunction with lower project costs, studios also need to take into account marketing, distribution and home media costs as well. A cheap film will likely have a lower marketing budget but that does not preclude a low gross. Great films will always be seen as word of mouth spreads. How to Train Your Dragon is proof that the concept is not as dead as many advertisers will have you believe. With home media, it is a similar situation. Cheaper films cannot afford the large marketing to support a widespread release, but the shift to digital media will reduce the need for such large expenditures and level the playing field.
  • My two examples of The Secret of Kells and A Monster in Paris were chosen form personal experience and knowledge. Both were from small studios and had vastly lower budgets. However despite neither being a box office success, their requisite studios survived thanks to the project’s low cost and the fact that they were not complete losses. A more realistic example would be Hoodwinked. A film but whose ~$8 million cost was earned back many times before culminating in a total gross of $110 million. Such films are proof that cheap films can succeed.
  • The overarching point of the post was to point out that expensive features can beget financial failures and that cheaper features can eliminate some of the bigger risks to a studio’s business.

If anyone needs any further clarifications, please post them in the comments below.

Thanks,

Charles

How To Stop The Digital Domain Failure From Happening Again Read More »