Charles Kenny

Being tall, Irish and a civil engineer by trade, Charles stands out in the animation crowd, hence his position as the Animation Anomaly.

Working From Home or In A Studio: Which is Better?

4 Comments / Uncategorized /

Being in the civil engineering profession, I am blessed/cursed in that I generally must conduct my affairs in the office. Our use of CAD software, large files and the overall collaborative nature of the work often necessitates working closely with co-workers. There is, however, the rare opportunity for working outside the office, such as a visit to a project, or making a delivery/pickup of plans. There is also the rare-as-hens-teeth days when I am able to telecommute.

Now granted, I only live 10 minutes from the office (5 if I hit every traffic light just right and ignore the speed limit on the Beltway) so its not that big of a deal for me to travel to work every day. Last week (and by extension, this week) have been one of those high-pressure, “I need it yesterday” kind of fortnights, and as a result, I had to do some work on Saturday morning.

Through the magic of Netflix Citrix, I was able to do everything from my computer at home. I could have stayed in my pyjamas but I opted for the more mature choice of tracksuit bottoms.

Long story short, the whole experience got me wondering as to which is better: working at home or in an office environment. For studios (and companies in general) there are certainly many advantages to having employees work off-premises. Money can be saved from rent, equipment, electric, heat (if a smaller office is used), coffee, etc. For the employee, there is the option of working in your pyjamas, getting a cup of tea whenever you feel like it, and (if it is available) of working hours that suit them.

Freelancers have known about the many benefits for years now. In fact, a large minority of artists whose blogs I follow tend to be freelancers who work at home, and they all enjoy it!

That is not to say that working from home is for everyone, it does come with its own set of disadvantages after all. For example, in the modern digital age, if your computer decides it just can’t take it any more and gives up when the deadline is tomorrow, you have to be your own IT department or its your neck on the chopping block.

A studio offers the social atmosphere that makes an office and enjoyable place to work. There is the comradery, collaborative element and the ability to collectively inspire each other. At the same time, there is also office politics to consider and if your boss is a bit of an eejit, being as far away from them as possible is preferable. Yes, sadly there are people out there who have absolutely no business being in management and yet they do exist.

At the end of the day, it will come down to personal taste as much as the willingness of the project manager to let you work remotely. For some projects (such as The Secret of Kells) it worked wonders as everyone was talented and experienced enough to simply get on with the job with the direction given from Ireland.

With the increase in internet speeds and the proliferation of cloud computing and so forth, it is more likely that companies (especially smaller outfits) will seek to lower overhead costs by allowing employees to work at home, thus shifting heating, electric and plant costs to them. Ideally, everyone should be given a choice as to which they prefer.

So, the real answer is: neither. Both systems play to equal strengths and weaknesses and both have their champions. Personally, I like the interaction with co-workers. Your mileage may vary.

Working From Home or In A Studio: Which is Better? Read More »

Why Laugh Tracks Are Unnecessary in Cartoons

1 Comment / Animation, TV /

Via: Connexions

So last night I sat down to listen to a CD called Bugs Bunny at the Symphony. Which, as you might expect contains various orchestral music from Bugs’ Looney Tunes shorts in much the same style as Bugs Bunny on Broadway. All I can say is that it’s great to hear the scores being played by an orchestra, especially with all the modern digital mastering an all that.

As I was listening to the music (which I was also simultaneously playing in my head), everything started to fall apart when I realised there was a laugh track included. Now, its my understanding that the CD is supposed to be a live recording of Bugs Bunny on Broadway and as a result, audience reactions are included because, well, the audience reacts to the shorts as you would expect them to. What bothers me is that, well, its a CD! I can’t see anything and its really difficult to laugh when your only cue is the music.

I recommend you check out the CD if you like the music of the old shorts (and who doesn’t), which is nothing short of sheer brilliance.

But enough of that, today’s topic is about laugh tracks and why cartoons in general don’t need them. two things first though: being European and therefore cultured (I kid, I kid) I must say that the whole idea of a laugh track is rather ugly. I once watched Everybody Loves Raymond and I could’ve sworn the laugh track came from a different show as I didn’t hear a single joke the entire episode.

Secondly, there is the good kind of laugh track, which is one where the reactions are those of a real audience who is watching the show. As far as I know, this type is rare in the US but is commonly used by the BBC for their sitcoms. It’s a much superior version in my mind and produces much more realistic results.

So why is it that you don’t really see cartoons with a laugh track (any more)? Well for one, cartoons are inherently more visual than live-action shows. Sure, there are some wordy puns and one-liners, but for the most part, we get a laugh from seeing characters get hit over the head. That signal replaces the need for an audio prompt.

Cartoons, especially those aimed at a younger audience, employ this to great effect and have done so for many years. Although the humour in those does tend to be a little bit more direct so that even kids can understand what’s going on.

Shows for older folks have also escaped mainly as a result of creator’s insistence (The Simpsons) or just because it was felt to be unnecessary. Live-action shows include a laugh track because they were (originally) broadcast live in front of a studio audience. Animation has never had that luxury (as pointed out to Homer, live cartoons place a terrible strain on the animator’s wrists).

My theory that because we know animation cannot be conducted “live” we therefore don’t expect to have a studio audience participating in the broadcast. An exception was The Cleveland Show’s recent “live” broadcast, although in that instance, it is clear that the show’s setting has been changed in order to be reminiscent of the old prime-time shows of yore.

The Flintstones is a lone exception as it does contain a laugh track (although from my own viewing experience, only some episodes/seasons do). I’m sure the reason it is included is so that the show felt more in-line with the live-action shows it attempted to copy and back in the 60s, that meant including a laugh track. As you may have noticed, this makes the show seem somewhat more dated than it should be.

I like to believe that the main reason cartoons and animation don’t usually have laugh tracks is that they contain a higher standard of comedy than their live-action counterparts. The lead-in time for animation means that everything must be planned out in advance, writing an animated show requires a different set of skills, the ability to drop an anvil on a charcter and have him walk away and the ability to design your show to fit your needs al combine to collectively result in an altogether different and higher brand of comedy. One that can safely and reliably dispense with the need to tell its audience when they heard a joke.

Why Laugh Tracks Are Unnecessary in Cartoons Read More »

What Makes Film Festivals Cool

2 Comments / Animation /

Via: Azrael’s Merryland

This coming Wednesday sees the start of arguably the most important festivals for animation lovers in North America. Every year, Chris Robinson and Co. put together the Ottawa International Animation Festival and if you’ve ever read The Animation Pimp (either online or by the book) you’ll have an idea of how much effort goes into making everything run like clockwork.

There are tons of reasons why festivals such as Ottawa are such fun to attend. For starters, you are exposed to lots of new and interesting films that you’ll probably never see down in your local cinema. If you’re artistically inclined, that may pay off handsomely in the form of inspiration. If you can’t draw a straight line, well, you saw some really neat films that will hopefully inspire you in other ways.

Besides the actual content, festivals offer a rare opportunity for animation professionals to socialise. Now I am aware that animators do socialise outside of festivals (for some reason I always seem to meet them at a pub) but never en masse. While this can certainly have its disadvantages, it is safe to say that the ability to meet a wide range of friends, both old and new, far outweigh the brevity of the event.

Meeting fellow animators is enjoyable in itself and I’d be lying if I said that it was all purely for fun. The animation industry (especially outside of Burbank) is heavily reliant on word of mouth. In other words, its more who you know than what you know. Although this may seem frustrating at times, its only as difficult as you make it for yourself. Festivals are a great opportunity to go out and meet some other professionals. Heck, its the same for any industry, plumbers seem to have conventions all the time. Why? So they can build relationships in an industry where a lot of guys work independently.

Larger festivals such as Ottawa (and Annecy in France) may also have a studio presence. This development in recent years is beneficial to both camps. Animators want a job and studios want to find good talent. Putting the two in the same place is a match made in heaven. However, you should not discount smaller ones, such as the ASIFA-East festival simply because a major studio is not present.

So far, I’ve never heard anyone say they went to a festival and had a horrible time. They’ve often been tired, hungover, sick or incapacitated in some way, but they have never said they regretted going. Plenty of people (myself included) regret not going for all the reasons above and more.

If you don’t attend, you can make up all the excuses you want, but at the end of the day, the buck stops with you. Festivals are guaranteed to bring rewards and can often accelerate your progression up the career ladder, if you play your cards right. With that in mind, you don’t have much to lose now, do you?

What Makes Film Festivals Cool Read More »

Is It Really the End of Creator-Driven Cartoon Shows?

Animation, Cartoon Brew, TV /

Via: The Terror Drome

Amid over at Cartoon Brew has written an excellent and well thought out editorial on the decline of creator-driven shows. He pretty much hits the nail of the head when he says that the glory days are over, with the current crop of shows on The Hub as well as the upcoming Nickelodeon show based on the Sketchers shoe line ushering in a new era of corporate assembly line properties. While I believe that this is certainly true, there are a few important things to consider that I suppose are too long for a regular old comment.

Firstly, The Hub is a brand new channel, competing in a market where the competition is fierce (albeit friendly enough for the live-action shows). The Cartoon Network has struggled as of late, relying instead on a desperate (?) push into live-action shows that is highly unlikely to edge them into the number two spot.

In the face of all this, The Hub is attempting to establish itself as yet another competitor. Based on the old ratings for Discovery Kids, it has a hell of a hill to climb if it is to reach any kind of meaningful market share. With that in mind, the overarching influence of its toyetic line of shows should not be overestimated.

Secondly, although the new shows in question are established, they have been somewhat irrelevant for at least the last decade or so. As a result, they way as well be starting from scratch in terms of audience.

Will kids even care what these shows provide? My guess is probably not. Anyone who grew up on 80s cartoon fare seems to have a rose-tinted view of them nowadays, but when you actually sit down and watch the likes of the Snorks, He-Man, etc, etc. and compare them to what we have now, they can’t hold a candle to the likes of SpongeBob Squarepants.

Which brings me to another point. The yellow sponge has been so successful for two reasons: the show is creator-driven and Nickelodeon was very careful and clever in how they marketed the show (including cashing in with a theatrical film at the peak of popularity). These two things acted as a kind of synergy and together have ensured that the show has stayed in the minds of the public for over a decade. Nickelodeon is surely aware of this and their continued production of creator-driven shows (such as T.U.F.F. Puppy and Fanbuy & ChumChum) should serve as a reminder that such shows are still being made.

I do not see all of this as an end of the creator-driven era however. Talented animators will continue to emerge from schools and obscurity. Creator-driven content wil continue to be made either for TV or otherwise. Amid is right in pointing out that there will continue to be fragmentation of the viewership as a result of the internet. This does not, however, preclude that people will stop wanting to watch animated TV shows.

Someone will come along and figure out how to make money doing it. I can understand the natural anxiety about the disappearance of traditionally animated shows in favour of flash, but I think that is being overly pessimistic. Hollywood didn’t disappear as a result of television (although it took them a heck of a long time to figure out why people actually go to the cinema) and television is unlikely to disappear as a result of the internet, at least in the short term.

Amid’s article is refreshingly honest in its sincerity and the comments on the post are surprisingly full of hope for the future. Far from the end, I believe we are entering a new and exciting chapter in the story of short-form animated entertainment. The beginning way be tough, but we will all warm to they story once we’ve all settled into it.

Is It Really the End of Creator-Driven Cartoon Shows? Read More »

Anomaly Appraisal: The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History

1 Comment / Animation, Book, FOX, The Simpsons /

Via: Uncrate

This book was launched around this time last year (wow, time flies eh?) and at the time was the result of a considerable amount of press exposure for the simple reason that nobody from FOX or The Simpsons themselves would comment on it. Of course the logical excuse offered up was that an ‘official’ history will come along at some point which will naturally contain all the official stories and anecdotes.

This book however, is the unofficial version, replete with warts-and-all tales from inside and outside the show. For a loyal stonecutter’s take on the book, I suggest hitting up the Dead Homer’s Society for their review, which is refreshingly realistic in its synopsis.

John Ortved should be commended for putting together a tome that combines more first hand accounts of the show than any I care to remember. In contrast to Planet Simpson, which I posted about last week, which was a much more existentialist view of the series and its characters, this book looks past all that for what was going on behind the TV screen.

The book very much follows the shows own timeline, from pre-conception to the present time (well, 2009) so sa you can expect, the climactic, exciting stuff is in the middle, not the end. Ortved lays out in some detail the conflicts and fall-outs that have been the reality behind the greatest TV show ever made. Although he rightfully points out money and egos as being the main ingredients, he does present the facts in a reasonably fair and balance way. In other words, he doesn’t take sides in the war.

I loved reading first-hand accounts from people involved in the show, from writers, to the voice-actors all the way up to Rupert Murdoch himself. Although I found the transcript form of the book weary at first, it became a much easier read in the end (more on that later). The sheer number of stories (both humourous and otherwise) from these folks are gold to a Simpsons fan such as myself.

The book is excellent overall but there are just one or two areas where I was disappointed. Firstly, Ortved’s own writing is quite lacking in the fact-checking department. The biggest one I found was getting Binky and Bongo from Life in Hell mixed up.

Besides the factual errors, the book seems to have this dark overtone. In more than one occasion I found footnotes that were gratuitously politicised. Personally I don’t really care, but please, I’m reading a book about a funny show, there’s no need to bring up your own politcal leanings for the sake of it.

Lastly, there is the discussion about certain folks on the show. While I have mentioned above that Ortved stays pretty impartial to the infighting, there is a substantial imbalance in how he meters out praise and scorn. For example, David Silverman gets one mention whereas Al Jean is single-handedly ridiculed for allowing the show to decline over the last decade. Maybe he is and maybe he isn’t, but I firmly believe that you should meter out praise much more than criticism.

Overall, this is a must-read for any Simpsons fan. It helps set the frame of the Simpsons as an institution of American culture and helped me to see the show in a new, more compassionate light.

Anomaly Appraisal: The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History Read More »

Quick Note: Mr. Warburton Recommends Directing Animation by David B. Levy

Animation, Book /

Apologies for the short post today but that’s because you’ll want to head on over to the weblog of Mr. Warburton (Genius) to hear him sing the praises of David’s new book all about directing animation. In typical Warburtonese you can read how awesome the book is and why you should buy it (as if you needed any reasons to buy it).

Look out for a full review here in the near future.

Quick Note: Mr. Warburton Recommends Directing Animation by David B. Levy Read More »

Why You Should Listen to This Podcast With Voice-Actor Scott McNeil

Animation, TV /

Via: Wikipedia

First of all, who is Scott McNeill? Well, if you think he looks Australian, then you are correct, he was born there, much the same as my good chum Mr. Elliot Cowan. Certain folks out there will be familiar with his work in Tranformers (as Bumblebee) whereas others may know him from the literally hundreds of anime shows that he has done over the years. I discovered him through his work as the paranoid emo alien Stork on the Nerd Corps. series, Storm Hawks.

Scott’s an incredibly talented, genuinely funny guy who is a real character in his own right. He’s a veteran of the industry and has this podcast is chock full of insightful., witty anecdotes from his time in the Vancouver scene. He also makes some excellent, decent points on the use of celebrity voice actors and he throws in a few horror stories for good measure.

The podcast contains plenty of discussion about the nature of the animation industry in Vancouver and how it differs from that of it’s California neighbour. Scott also has plenty of tales of how he managed to get his break in the industry and how he manages to keep a full schedule in an industry where unemployment lurks after every project.

It’s also great to hear from such a down-to-earth character talk candidly about life in an industry where some of the heaviest hitters rarely seem to get a similar chance for discussion.

The podcast was originally part of the A3U (Ages 3 and Up) series that has sadly vanished from the interwebs hence the lack of a link back to the source. It’s just over an hour long but I can guarantee you there is hardly a boring minute in the entire thing.

Click here to download the mp3 instead.

Why You Should Listen to This Podcast With Voice-Actor Scott McNeil Read More »

Felix The Cat: One of My All-Time Favourite Characters

1 Comment / Animation /

Via: Comicrazys

We all know who Felix the Cat is. We should also know that he was one of the first really big cartoon stars and although his popularity is not near the levels it was in those heady days, he remains an extremely popular character around the world.

My first exposure to Felix came from a video cassette (remember those?) that was a compilation of shorts from the Sullivan era up to 1936’s “Bold King Cole”. The one I found most fascinating was the lone Sullivan short, “Astronomeows”. Even then I figured out that if a cartoon was in black and white it must be really old! I laugh at the thought of it now: the transfer was horrendously poor. Instead of everything being black and white, it was red and white, the sound was similarly atrocious and despite its warbling I doubt it was completely original.

What is there to like about Felix? Well, it depends on where you look. The later, RKO shorts feature a much more genial Felix whereas the early stuff has a much harder, more realistic character for a protagonist. I admit I need to see more of those shorts as I am not too familiar with them and subsequently the real reason why Felix was so popular at the beginning.

Felix is much more plucky than the likes of Mickey Mouse. He carries a certain amount of grit and I suppose that makes him just a wee bit more realistic. It helps that he has constantly retained his signature look of a big round head, huge eyes, point ears and a completely black body, unlike Mr. Mouse, who has been substantially changed over the years, especially after the Second World War.

The Sullivan shorts retain a certain amount of charm. It’s funny to think that audiences were, at one time, in awe of a character who could take his tail and use it as a baseball bat. Maybe folks were more easily entertained back then. Today, it takes a team of mathematics majors to make us laugh.

By all rights, Felix could have died a long, long time ago. The fact that he was one of the first cartoon superstars meant he had to jump over the hurdles of sound and colour followed by television. When you look at the numbers of cartoons (and studios) that didn’t make it past even one, that’s an astonishing achievement.

Although Felix may have disappeared from the mainstream public’s consciousness quite a while ago, he remains popular through his merchandise and comics and among animation historians and fans. He does have an official website and although the news articles aren’t dated the fact that they contain MySpace links should be a good indication of how old they are.

You are much more likely to find contemporary Felix discussion in the blogosphere. Storyboard expert Sherm Cohen regularly posts about Felix (especially his comics) over on his Cartoon Snap blog (a worthy read for much more than just the Felix stuff). Comiccrazys is another site that posts even older stuff, all the way back to Otto Messmers original Felix comics.

A quick read of Wikipedia reveals that Mr. John Canemaker wrote a book (Felix: The Twisted Tale of the World’s Most Famous Cat) that I will now need to procure in some way. Knowing John’s writing skills, it is safe to say that even though the book is 19 years old, it is still a must read.

Felix continues to enjoy the quiet life, which he richly deserves after his very long time in the spotlight. His longevity is only part of the reason why he’s one of my favourites, he’s a also a complete character a trait shared by all the greats 🙂

Felix The Cat: One of My All-Time Favourite Characters Read More »

Crying at Animated Films

2 Comments / Animation, Film /

By way of Animated Views I came across this Time article which discussed the tear factor of animated films, in particular Toy Story 3. The reason the article was written in the first place was the rather astonishing number of reports that came out after Toy Story 3 was released in which adults openly admitted crying during the film.

There is next to no reason why adults shouldn’t be afraid to display their emotiond during an animated film. The Time piece focuses on the fact that adults were crying at a children’s film. So what? Are they supposed to hide their feelings or are they supposed to be able to realise that what is on screen isn’t real? Poppycock! Just because a film is aimed at kids does not in any way prohibit adults from enjoying the full range of emotions that a kid does.

So the film ‘looks’ different, that is a pathetic excuse to pre-suppose that it is somehow unworthy of adult emotions. An animated film is still a film. it has a plot, characters, setting and climactic conclusion no different from any other movie you see out there. In fact, I’d go on to say that an animated film is more deserving of adult emotions for the simple reason that adults, while more mature and experienced when it comes to films, tend to suppress displaying such emotions, especially in public. On a related note, the fact that the animator’s hard work can be related to by both adults and kids alike is a sure sign of their skill.

I freely admit that I welled up during Toy Story 3 but not during the incinerator scene. instead what got me was the one where Andy was standing in an empty bedroom as he leaves for college. It brought back a simlar memory for me when I had all my stuff packed for my move to the States. In my case it wsn’t anything to do with the plot or the characters, it was simply the thought of my mother having an empty room in the house that did me in.

it’s fair to say that animation excels at stirring emtions in the audience. The artform’s longevity means that films such as Dumbo continue to extract responses from the viewer despite the fact that live-action films of the same era do not have near the same impact as they did when released.

it would be nice to think that Toy Story 3 has set some sort of a precedent in the area of adult emotion. Perhaps we will see more animated films that dare to branch out from the safety of the kiddie genre.

Crying at Animated Films Read More »

There’s Much More to Animated TV Than The Big Guns

Animation, TV /

The Octonauts (Chorion & Brown Bag Films) via: The BBC

As a subscriber to Animation Magazine, I read a fair amount of news and reviews from the realm of animation. In the course of the 12 months of the year, I receive two issues that I particularly enjoy. The first is the one before the Academy Awards brimming with ads “for your consideration”, which I duly consider just not in the capacity the studios are thinking. The second is the one directly before/after the MIPTV conference in France where hundreds of TV shows are bought and sold to networks all around the world.

What stands out for me is that the issue is a reminder that there are many, many studios and production companies around the world involved in animation. Sometimes we, here in the US (myself included) see to concentrate only on the big three (Nickelodeon, Disney and Cartoon Network) when it comes to animated TV shows.

The latest issue is packed with ads from companies all over the world, with an increasing number coming from the likes of South Korea, China and India. Many more come from the UK, Ireland (I saw Brown Bag Films mentioned) and France. Some of the studios are part of a production team with another company or rights holder whereas others are pushing their own wares in the hope of getting picked up.

The mix is still skewed towards creator-driven stuff, but this being a commercial market, there are plenty of toy-based shows as well. Of course, this segment of the animation industry has been the same for years as independent players are more likely to rely on merchandising to recoup their costs.

As I scan over many of the ads, there are often more than I few that I wouldn’t mind seeing, or at least having a more detailed look at. Many show promise, but there are only a few that will make it through to production and/or broadcast.

I don’t really have much of a point for this post, except that the multitude of ads placed by companies from around the world are a sure reminder that animation on a worldwide scale is still extremely healthy. There is a plentiful supply of shows and the people to sell them, always an encouraging sign. 🙂

There’s Much More to Animated TV Than The Big Guns Read More »

Why Do They Turn Movies Into TV Shows and Not The Other Way Around?

3 Comments / Animation, Film, TV /

I originally wasn’t going to pass much comment on the practice, at least not now, but recent days have brought multiple stories to my attention that deal with the subject. Namely the fact that FOX has picked up the Napoleon Dynamite series I mentioned a while back and Cartoon Network (?) has picked up the How to Train Your Dragon series that has been mooted since the film became a hit.

For the record, I’m not a huge fan of the practice. If done right, it has the potential to be great, however as we all know, films are made on a different level than TV shows and it’s extremely rare to find commonality between the two.

It seems that people are willing to put up huge sums for a feature film but can be notoriously tight when it comes to TV. The reasons may extend all the way back to when William Hanna and Joe Barbera were forced to cut every conceivable corner in order to get their animation on the tube. Things are much better nowadays but on a per minute basis, features far outstrip shows in terms of cost.

Disney is perhaps the finest artisan of the craft as they have turned their feature films into series fairly frequently in the past. The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Hercules and Lilo and Stitch are just a few off the top of my head.

All of these TV shows had the original film to give them a legup when it came to their TV debut and I suppose that’s the core of the issue. While you need a huge amount of publicity to get a feature film launched, it generally only faces direct competition from other films. TV shows on the other hand, must compete with all the other TV shows on all the other channels out there for attention. Granted, things are slightly simpler for children’s programming, but it seems that the chance of hitting the jackpot with a TV show is much harder than a feature film.

Another aspect is viewer expectation. TV shows generally develop their characters over time, whereas a film needs to do it fairly quickly. For some reason, people seem have rather different expectations of how a character should appear in a film if they have already appeared on TV. It doesn’t help matters that there may be a completely different set of writers behind the film who may not have been involved in the production of the TV show. I want to put his down to simply the amount of time we, as the viewer, can tolerate certain characters. Sure, someone like Billy may be funny for 22 minutes, but could you watch him for an hour and a half? That might be a tough one.

Having said all that, it is possible and it can be repeated, provided that the right factors are in place.

The best example ever is SpongeBob Squarepants, who ruled the airwaves long before is appearance on the silver screen. How did he manage this? His success is partly the result of being an intensely complex yet likeable character but also the result of a production process that rewarded creativity and the creator. It also helped that the overall parent company of Nickelodeon also owned the film studio Paramount Pictures.

There is a stark contrast to The PowerPuff Girls Movie. The characters are equally complex and likeable and I feel that Craig McCracken created a genuinely decent show on a par with Ren & Stimpy. It’s journey to the big screen was much more tortuous than the yellow square and the particular parent conglomerate of the studio is notorious for the infighting within its divisions. Long story short, the film did not get the attention it so badly deserved from either the studio of the public.

In the end, it ll comes down to attention. Box office films get tons of free publicity as a result of their premieres, screenings and so forth. TV shows seem to whimper into existence without much fanfare beyond the channel itself, relying instead on fans of the show to sing the praises. Entertainment folks love attention and from what I can tell, fans count for zilch in Hollywood.

I firmly believe that a good TV show can be a great success at the box office and that it is a practice that is not done often enough. Regardless, I would much rather see creator-driven shows than shows based off movies on my TV.

 

Why Do They Turn Movies Into TV Shows and Not The Other Way Around? Read More »