Sunday is off-topic day; a chance to post something fun instead of the usual serious discussion and commentary.
Today it’s time to turn our attention to two things Brianne Drouhard related: the premiere of Amethyst: Princess of Gemworld yesterday and a follow-up of sorts to another of her projects.
Amethyst: Princess of Gemworld
I haven’t watched Cartoon Networks itself in a long time (too much Johnny Test to be honest) but it the network is on a bit of a roll lately thanks to some seriously good shows. Although there are the big heavy hitters in Adventure Time and Regular Show, it’s nice to see that the devotion to quality is being spent on smaller projects too.
The DC Nation shows are one of them, but even more so than that are the shorts. Between Teen Titans Go! and Super Best Friends Forever there has been plenty of chatter on the internet about them and how awesome they are.
Now to add to those two comes a third, Amethyst: Princess of Gemworld that was helmed into existence by Brianne Drouhard (a.k.a. Potato Farm Girl) and who had its first outting just yesterday. Here’s the official trailer for the short:
The full short is very cool, even if a lot is being squeezed into the 1 minute and 15 seconds. The animation looks great and although protagonist Amy doesn’t say very much, you get a good feel for what kind of character is through what she does say as well as her actions. To top it off, there are subtle nods to various shojo anime (Sailor Moon being the most obvious) but nothing that overpowers the source material or the characters.
So Disney has announced that in an unprecedented move for the studio, the digital copy for a first-time release for home viewers will be available as a digital download prior to the release on physical media. While that, in theory, sounds good, here’s a look at why this development with the Wreck-It-Ralph digital copy is, quite simply, flawed.
First Though, What They’ve Got Right
Hollywood studios as a group have had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that consumers like to watch their content at home. They disliked the video recorder until the realised it could make them more money than theatrical releases and they always tended to have a suspicious view of television until, again, they realised it would help them rake it in. (The fact that the various television divisions of studio’s parent companies help prop up the film studios is a topic for another time.)
Now it would seem that the internet is next on their agenda. Having seen what happened to the music industry in the wake of Napster, Hollywood studios are keen to avoid the more blatant actions that hastened the record companies’ downfall. In that vein, they’ve been much more open to the idea of allowing viewers to legally download or stream content.
Both Amazon and Netflix (among others) have offered suitable outlets for a number of years (the former favouring purchases while the latter favouring all-you-can-eat streaming.) The studios have also made their own inroads into the industry with features being an integral part of Hulu and by forming a consortium (minus Disney) to design and manage their UltraViolet streaming service.
All the services above offer similar content although Netflix is known to lag on the new releases.
So What Have They Got Wrong?
By the looks of things, the studios have done decently well for themselves, right? Weeeeell, the truth isn’t quite as straight forward. Yes, the partnerships with Amazon and Netflix have certainly worked, but only for older content as mentioned above. New content is hamstrung by the various broadcast deals the studios have with networks. While that will soon change (with DreamWorks in 2014 and Disney in 2016), it’s still a bit of a ways off from today. Also factoring into the equation is the fact that there have been problems with Amazon blocking access to content for reasons that would not be immediately apparent to the consumer.
In conjunction with Amazon and Netflix, the studio’s Ultra Violet service has been plagued with problems of the technical kind that have hindered consumer’s ability to easily watch their content.
And Ralph Figures Into All of This Where?
Where the Wreck-It-Ralph digital copy features in all of this is the very fact that it is simply the latest chapter in the ongoing saga that is Hollywood’s relationship with the internet. Now that should be a cause for celebration; being a sign that even Disney is willing to admit that consumers want to stream and download content as soon as its first released.
However, as most of you will know, Ralph has been available in plenty of places online since its cinematic days so those who the digital release is likely targeting have probably already been able to see it in their own homes.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that the digital copy is for only the film itself. For all the extra features and commentaries, the discs will still be a necessary purchase. So why the heck would you cough up for the digital copy if you have to cough up again to get the extras? I wouldn’t and I’d bet you wouldn’t either. Sticking out a few more weeks doesn’t seem to bad when you’ll save maybe $20.
Which leads us to the last issue: the cost. The Reddit discussion for today’s news very much centered on how much this digital download will cost. Disney hasn’t released any details but an educated guess puts it at around $15.
The discs have been announced as starting at $31.99 for every version under the sun with all the extras included, plus the digital download as well.
So why, in the name of all that is sane and just, would you pay half the price of the physical pack when you’re getting waaaaay less than half the value? The quick and dirty answer is that you wouldn’t. You simply hold your breathe for a few more weeks and be a much happier consumer. In any case, we all know those recommended retail prices are overblown anyway, so expect Amazon to have a decent discount that further erodes the difference.
How To Get It Right With The Wreck-It-Ralph Digital Copy
How could Disney get it right? Well for one, they could have had the digital copy available now (January 2013). They could do a better job of strong-arming the cinema chains into narrowing the release window between theatrical and home media releases. And they could offer the extras with the download rather than just the film itself.
Are Disney misguided with this announcement? How would you better handle it? Leave a comment below!
Nina Paley has blazed a bit of a trail in the animation world over the past few years with her near single-handedly produced feature film, Sita Sings the Blues. In a blog post today, she laments the various restrictions of Adobe Flash and the lack of any truly viable alternatives and wonders aloud whether or not a Kickstarter project could create an open source 2D animation software alternative.
Why Open Source Is Needed
Interestingly enough, it was Nina’s numerous struggles to get the film not made, but released (thanks to musical rights) that has placed her at the center of the nexus between animation and free and open source software. Her blog post highlights the fact that she runs an outdated version of Flash on a necessarily outdated machine; the result of not being able to run the software on a newer operating system, in this case Mac OSX.
As most graphics folks are aware of, many software companies (and both Apple and Adobe in particular) love to use technology and lock-in to force everyone to upgrade their software. (In the engineering world Autodesk earns many expletives for doing the same with AutoCAD). The gist is that newer versions use new filetypes that are not compatible with older versions. the result is that you either upgrade or get left behind.
Nina’s case is one that echos with many independent animators and small studios insofar that constant upgrading is not always viable or affordable. In such cases, the old version has to suffice until something absolutely has to be done.
Such a situation is far from ideal and wastes resources needlessly. Adobe charges thousands of dollars for the suites of programs that are utilised to create animation and from the sounds of things, every version of Flash gets worse and worse. (Heck, even I hate the Flash player that crashes my Firefox and all it’s doing is reading files; I can’t imagine what it’s like to make them.)
Why Open Source is the Solution
Amusingly enough, open source animation software is not completely unheard of and does in fact, play a large and vital role in many animation productions from the independent short all the way up to Hollywood blockbusters (check out Disney’s open source site for proof). Programs like Blender help create 3-D animation and have also become invaluable in graphic FX.
However all that work is 3D, not the more traditional 2D that has been around for more than a century. In the case of the latter, there are some alternatives but nothing coming close to encompassing all the features and capabilities that Flash offers. Nina discusses Synfig but notes her difficulty in getting around the user interface; a key hurdle for something that requires lots of user input.
What open source offers as an alternative is all the same benefits that the open source 3D programs do:
Drastically lower purchase costs
Interchangeable/compatible industry standards
Backwards compatibility
Cross-platform support (that’s Mac, Windows and Linux-friendly versions)
A non-mandatory upgrade path (upgrade if and when you want to!)
Time alone has not made this elusive software come into being. Could money? How much would I have to raise to commission an excellent programmer or two to give me what I want? Should I try a Kickstarter? A project like this should have a million dollars; I would aim for one tenth of that. Would even $100,000 be possible?
The result would be excellent Free vector animation software for everyone in the world.
I tend to agree that open source software often contends with the issue of time. The projects are, after all, mostly done by volunteers in their spare time and God knows there’s never enough of that around. In Nina’s suggestion, a Kickstarter project would essentially fund a full time programmer or two to develop a user interface for Synfig that’s more user-friendly.
That’s a great way to get things going and offering people the opportunity to contribute with something they may have (money) in exchange for something they may not have (time/skills).
Would it benefit everyone? Absolutely! A program that could create 2D animation that doesn’t cost the earth would offer tremendous benefits to every animator and studio alike. Money saved from buying software can be spent on other things (like animators!) and could make areas where animation is currently quite expensive to produce (think North America) more appealing to producers.
At the end of the day, a freely available, open source 2D program would open up doors for literally thousands of people who currently can’t get on the animation ladder thanks to the price of admission that Adobe and others charge. We should encourage this as a means of furthering the technique within the media landscape.
Is this a project you could get on board with or even use? Let us know in the comments!
It’s a legitimate (if troll-worthy) question and one that was prompted by a joke tweet from Mike Bastoli stating that Cars 3 had already been announced. Although that tweet was quickly disproved (but not before this blogger jumped the gun in retweeting it), it did give pause for thought; just how long will it be until Cars 3 is announced?
The Facts
The original Cars cost $120 million and raked in about $462 million. Its sequel cost $200 million and brought in about $560 million. These nice grosses aside, it’s reckoned that the franshise as a whole has been worth an estimated $5 billion to Disney.
These we pretty much already know, and a corporation like Disney is highly unlikely to ignore them, especially that last one. Naturally, it has, since the original film came out, gone ahead and created an entire marketing-driven ecosystem for the franchise. There are TV shows, video games and toys that all drive the revenue machine. However, there is also something fairly unique within the Pixar cannon, a spin-off, Planes, that’s destined for cinemas this year.
Overall, Cars remains a remarkably profitable franchise for anyone involved. All the more reason to keep it going as long as possible, right?
Signs Pointing To Yes
Given all the above, a new film is a very likely probability. Assuming demand for merchandise remains at least constant, a new theatrical outing of some kind will be necessary to grow sales in a stock market-meaningful way. Witness all that Toy Story 3 did for that series of films and their related characters and merchandise. Yes, it was billed as a ‘different’ sequel that quasi-completed the tale of Andy and Woody, etc. but it was still a sequel and it still made a ton of money (while leaving the door open for further adventures that have, until now, been of the short variety).
Other indicators that favour more McQueen adventures include the currently-in-production Monsters University and the sequel to Finding Nemo, which although not officially announced has been noted as being worked on by Andrew Stanton; surprising given how early in the process it remains.
Signs Pointing to No
The signs pointing away from a third film are few and far between. Yes, Cars 2 was only the second Pixar sequel to be made, but it was also far from the last. However, at this point only Toy Story has made it into trilogy territory and that was with an attempt at creative wholeness that Cars simply doesn’t have. (Be honest, the world and his dog knew Cars 2 was blatantly commercial in aspirations.) The odds of Cars being given a third, and expensive outing ‘just because’ aren’t overly strong.
Pixar’s slate is also quite full for the next few years with a few original projects slotted in between the sequels. Also working against Cars is the possibility that other Pixar films might be in line for the sequel treatment. Potential suitors include A Bug’s Life, Brave and The Incredibles. (Although this blogger sincerely hopes that one for the latter never sees the light of day.)
The last factor that suggests a ‘no’ is that the franchise is well established at this stage with the toys being a permanent fixture in stores, TV shows on the TV (in reruns), a spin-off in theatrical feature Planes and, the holy grail, areas devoted to the property in the Disney theme parks. With all that in mind, Disney strictly speaking should not need to “jolt” the franchise for a long time to come. A look at how many Disney films from Walt’s time continue to sell is an indication of this.
The Final Answer
Ultimately, without an in-depth look at the financials, it is very hard to say that we will or won’t see another Cars feature film. the head says no but the brain says yes, and on that note, given that it was about 5 years between the originals, I think we can see it being announced within the next 24 months with a release towards the latter end of the decade.
