Animation

Mark Mayerson Is Right!

3 Comments / Animation, Link /

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEPGpHADiKk

Due to my abysmal levels of energy this morning, Amid Amidi beat me to it, but Mark’s post is nonethless right on the money.

It’s a 2005 Tom and Jerry, co-directed by Joe Barbera. In some ways, it does a remarkably good job of duplicating the look and feel of the Hanna-Barbera Tom and Jerry cartoons of the 1940s and ’50s. However, in other ways, it doesn’t…..

Mark does an excellent job of running down the issues with the short, starting with the opening credits that would give any designer nightmares and going on to talk about the animation styles. There are some great comments so don’t forget to read those too.

So just what is the point of so attempting to recreate the old timey feel of a Tom & Jerry cartoon? Oh sure, it wears its loyalty to the source material on its sleeve but what does that prove? That it’s the ‘rightful successor/continuation’ to the originals? That it somehow legitimises the cartoon as a real “Tom & Jerry” short? Or is it that the creators are acknowledging the value to be had in the old shorts?

The answer is more likely that it doesn’t feel “right” to see Tom & Jerry in any other setting than the ones we’re used to. The problem is that the original shorts were a product of their time, the 1940s and 50s. Everything was different then, and Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera played on that. Just think of how many jokes they got out of that ironing board. Regardless of how many times the rehashed the same joke, they were at least using contemporary society for inspiration. Who has an ironing board like that now? No-one! As Mark says (emphasis mine):

Creative works are not only the product of people, they’re also the products of a time and place. As the world keeps changing, it is impossible to recreate something from the past. While artists often wish to duplicate what they love, they can only approximate it. Paradoxically, the closer they get to it, the more they’ve succeeded in doing nothing more than an good imitation. And since the originals are everywhere to begin with, is an imitation necessary?

And rightfully so. That’s partially why The Simpsons of today is so radically different from the early years. The show has changed but society changed even more. The first few series’ simply reflect the culture of the time (the early 90s); today’s episodes are much more post-September 11th/global recession in tone.

So the real question is, why are studios/producers reluctant to move older cartoon properties beyond their established norms? Are they afraid of the risk? I mean, Lunatics Unleashed can’t be that scary an example of what can happen, right?

Iif you’re going to go to the effort of updating properties, why not just do something new? It might be a bit more expensive, but risks can be mitigated, and you’re far more likely to have a stronger product that isn’t constrained by the pre-conceived notions of ” the old version”.

At the end of the day though, David OReilly says it best:

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/davidoreilly/status/131477972023656448″]

Mark Mayerson Is Right! Read More »

Puss In Boots is No. 1. So Why is DW Stock Down?

1 Comment / Animation, Misc. /

First of all, no need to worry, this isn’t going to be a lecture on economics. I hate those too. What it will though, is discuss how a studio’s stock can move relative to its releases. It’s not something that animators need to be too aware of as it doesn’t have a direct effect on their work, but it can affect how the studio operates on a higher level or indeed how decisions made in light of it can filter down to the lower ranks.

Firstly though, what does a stock’s price represent? If you said how much a company is worth, then congratulations! You’re correct! However, how do you determine how much a company is ‘worth’? Do you simply add up how many buildings it owns or how much cash it has on hand? No. It’s a bit more complex than that.

The price of stock is a complex thing that takes into account how much the company owns, but also how well (or poorly) its expected to perform in the future. If a company is expected to perform well, its stock price is high or is rising. If a stock price drops, it’s an indication that the company is either expected to do worse than it was or it’s simply failing to live up to its potential. Either way, the stock price is always correcting itself as investors either bid or sell at a price they feel is the right value.

In the case of DreeamWorks, the share price is just about half of what it was a year ago. Does this mean the company is only half as good now than it was then? No, of course it doesn’t. It simply means that the outlook for the studio is a bit hazier.

A studio’s stock price is a mixture of the company’s assets, it’s revenue steams (DVDs, etc.), it potential release slate (ever wonder why studios like to announce new projects years in advance?) and its current release slate. DW’s recent slide is the result of the current release slate in the form of Puss in Boots.

Y’see, there are analysts, hundreds if not thousands of them, whose job it is to analyse a company in the finest detail. They pour over company reports, sector reports, market reports, weather data (yes, those winter storms on the East coast can have a real impact), consumer spending, you name it. Their goal is to try and predict how well a company will perform based on the data available to them. They’re the ones who compile it all and sell it to other firms or investors who will make their decisions based on the data within.

Naturally, they paid close attention to the opening weekend of Puss in Boots, and unfortunately for DreamWorks, it came up short. From the LA Times:

With a production budget of about $130 million, “Puss in Boots” generated $34.1 million at the box office over the weekend. Although it was No. 1 movie, ticket sales were well below the $40 million to $45 million that most Wall Street analysts had forecast.

The resulting compendium that Wall Street ‘forecast’ is that with a lower box office, the DVD sales will be lower as will any and all merchandise, TV rights and potential sequels. As a group of pessimists, analysts are about as big as they come.

“But so what?” I hear you say. “Stock prices only have a bearing on investors, not on the studio itself”. This is true, but, a company’s ability to borrow is heavily dependent on their future prospects, and since investors have signalled that they’re not good, DreamWorks will now have to pay more for financing.

All of this goes to the bottom line of a film, where belts might get tightened. This is where the actions of this week will be felt by the rank and file. If upper management decide to scale back budgets, then there will be very real changes made on the ground level. People may be let go, or (more likely) schedules will be shortened and films brought forward to boost takings.

What does all of this teach us? Well, it should say not to pay much attention to analysts. They’ve got it wrong before (UP, anyone?) and they’re likely to get it wrong again. They also tend to focus on the very short term. It’s rapidly becoming the case that the box office opening is unconnected to a film’s subsequent performance in the DVD market and beyond.

DreamWorks (and every other studio) is in the middle of some choppy seas at the moment, and its simply dealing with them as best it can. Having the stock price go down is not the end of the world, not even close. Besides, any real investor is looking at the long term view, and in that regards DW is doing pretty fine considering its still independent.

Puss In Boots is No. 1. So Why is DW Stock Down? Read More »

Poll: Which is the Greatest Treehouse of Horror?

Animation, Poll, The Simpsons /

Via: Simpsons.wikia.com

Almost everyone who’s a fan of the Simpsons appreciates the annual Treehouse of Horror episodes that are broadcast around Halloween. They’re a delightfully welcome intrusion of silly nonsense into the otherwise (or rather, formerly) realistic universe that the Simpsons live in.

While some are better than others, these four represent the truly best episodes. Which do you think is the best?

[poll id=”4″]

 

 

Poll: Which is the Greatest Treehouse of Horror? Read More »

Character Sundays: Witch Hazel

Animation, Character Sundays /

I simply couldn’t let Halloween pass without mentioning a character with at least some connection to the holiday and I think a witch will suit just fine.

There’s not a lot to say about Witch Hazel except that she is constantly scheming but is ultimately thwarted by her own mistakes. She’s a quirky mix of you loveable old grandmother and a wicked witch. By far the funniest aspect to her character is her giggle. It’s as if she’s a schoolgirl and not an ancient old crone!

By far the best way to appreciate her is to watch her. Here she is in the absolute classic short, Broomstick Bunny. The whole short is a setup to the never-in-doubt ending but is hilarious nonetheless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTJNTQdjouM

Character Sundays: Witch Hazel Read More »

Describe Your Personality in 3 Cartoon Characters

1 Comment / Animation, Misc. /

Spotted over on Reddit this morning, I thought it was a pretty blasé kind of thing that you find on the internet until I actually tried to think of the three characters that would describe my personality. All I can say is that it wasn’t quite as easy as I had anticipated, but nonetheless, the results are accurate.


Yup, It’s

There’s also the alternates.

How would you describe your personality in three cartoon characters? Leave a comment below! 🙂

Describe Your Personality in 3 Cartoon Characters Read More »

A Fishing Fish and a Pythagasaurus

Animation /

Two videos for you this week. First up is Aaron Long’s Fester Fish, a delightfully inane homage to 1930s cartoons. This is the second in the Fester Fish series, with the first one revolving around Fester watching his nephew. That one’s well worth checking out too. Shout out to my good friend Sean Clarke for referring them to me.

Secondly, via Broadhseet.ie (again? These guys must like animation or something) Pythagasaurus centres on two cavemen and their quest to find the fabled Pythagasaurus. If you’re a civil engineer like me, you’ll appreciate the subtle math jokes, but if you’re not a civil engineer like me, you’ll appreciate that Bill Bailey’s in it and it’s produced by Aardman. Enjoy!

A Fishing Fish and a Pythagasaurus Read More »

Shea Fontana On Death in Cartoons

1 Comment / Animation, Opinion /

 Via: Grimadventures.wikia.com

Yesterday, Shea Fontana (talented animation writer) posted over on Tumblr about how she’s finally getting around to reading the final Harry Potter book. She mentions that having gotten this far, she’s noticed that a fair amount of characters are either killed off or die throughout the series, and that got her thinking about how things are quite different in cartoons.

 One S&P [standards & practices] note that has become so common that seasoned kid’s writers usually know to avoid it is that no one can die.  Okay, maybe at the end of the series, the main super bad guy can die.  But everyone else needs to give a good <MOAN> after they fall off a cliff to their (un)certain death so our young, impressionable viewers won’t be too sad.

This is a great observation. Death is a completely natural occurrence, we’ll all go through it without exception. Why then, do networks feel it is necessary to seclude this aspect of life from younger viewers?

Oh sure, it’s scary in some ways, and the oftentimes violent end that awaits a character is perhaps a bit too influential for younger viewers. Disney famously avoided an on-screen death for decades until The Lion King but never shied away from giving the audience a heavy hint about the character’s demise. The kids still knew what happened, they just didn’t get to see the gory details.

Why can’t we see more death in cartoons? Heck, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy managed to feature the grim reaper himself, and he still didn’t kill anyone! Would it really have made a difference to have Grim do his job on-screen instead of off? I don’t think so, and I thought it would have made the show even funnier than it already is.

Kids are spectacularly observant in many ways. They can tell the difference between characters and how and why they die. There’s no reason to hide it from them so blatantly.

Shea is spot on in her assessment:

It’s sad and tragic!  There’s real emotion because real people really die and real kids get that.

Lastly, Shea makes the excellent point that this kind of censorship only exists within the realm of the large corporation. Independent productions and novels are generally free from these kinds of restrictions, and with the advent of the internet, there’s an even greater ability for kids to see content that perhaps doesn’t attempt to hide the realities of life.

Go read the entire post, it’s well worth thinking about and there’s a cool drawing of Harry by the awesome Mike Maihack.

Shea Fontana On Death in Cartoons Read More »

The 6 Best Ways to Merchandise An Animated Creation

1 Comment / Animation, List /

Animation’s been around for a long time, and its related merchandise has been around for almost the same amount of time (Windsor McCay wasn’t very market-savvy). Arguably Walt Disney was the finest marketer that animation could have hoped for in that he didn’t just market anything and everything (except at the start), he knew his target audience but also who held the purse-strings for them.

Animation is a funny kind of a medium when it comes to merchandising because, unlike live-action, there’s only so much you can do. Oh sure, you have the usual things, which we’ll get to in a minute, but unfortunately, any physical replica can never match the animated version directly. Yes, even CGI falls into this trap, but they do have a leg up on traditional animation in that regard.

So, unlike a live-action TV show where you simply duplicate a prop or costume from the show and flog them to one and all, what are the best ways to create a merchandising empire built on an animated offering? Here’s a few of the best ones (that work for just about anything from a TV show to an independent film to an animated feature).

1. Toys

As much as I hate to be painfully obvious, toys are incredibly important for the simple reason that any animated TV show or film aimed at kids is slap bang-in-the-middle suitable for this. Why? Because toys are tried and tested and the reason for that is that they build upon the rampant imaginations of the little ones.

Toys are enormously lucrative but they do carry a lot of risks in that they’re costly to produce and can induce horrendous losses if they don’t sell. Perhaps best left to the big boys, toys can nonetheless be for adults too, (think novelties and high-quality figurines).

2. Clothing

It’s funny to think that these days its perfectly acceptable for grown adults to wear clothes with cartoon characters on them. Hot Topic seems to be doing quite well catering to the slightly older crowd with T-shirts and other items with recent shows such as Adventure Time but also older ones like Doug and Rugrats.

Clothing (for adults more so than kids) is a way for the wearer to publicly state that they identify with a character and who that character is.

Again, this is probably more suited to the big boys, but with the likes of Cafe Press, its possible for anyone to create something and plaster it on a T-shirt (or any other kind of merchandise for that matter). Personally, I’d like to see more clothing with animated characters on them (I’d wear more too but the office has a dress code). PS see my post with some of the T-shirts I found in Ireland featuring animated characters.

3. Books

Books! Who doesn’t like a book? Animation-related books are everywhere these days, from Art of, to storybooks to colouring books to you name it! Books do fall a lot closer to toys and animation in terms of cost and risk, but the great news is that you don’t even need to print books anymore, just make a PDF and put it online as an ebook!

You can, of course, still go the traditional route, but a lot of folks these days are taking the hybrid option, that is, offer an electronic version for download and a hard copy version to sell at shows or to those out there with more shelf space than myself.

Books are an important element in helping the audience connect with a project. “Art of” books are all the rage because they offer the consumer a glimpse into the processes that went into making their favourite film (or TV show). Storybooks, comics and the like allow the consumer to engage in additional stoytelling beyond the animated story, and who doesn’t like that?

All in all, books are an important element in selling your film or TV show that have been tried and tested for decades.

4. Signed Stuff

Why do people value singed stuff? Well, if they’re anything like me, they just like the feeling they get from knowing they have something unique (or close to it). Signed stuff is relatively rare in the grand scheme of things, and while they generally cost more than a non-signed item, they can provide the owner with a great sense of self-satisfaction.

Sadly, animators tend to hide behind the cel, but thankfully those that are known can create a valuable source of income and add a little extra to every sale by personalising things for their fans.

 5. Drawings

For years (back in the early days) it was assumed that the reams of paper produced at an animated studio were next to worthless. Heck, even Disney sold the cels from their classics at Disneyland in the 1950s.

That all changed pretty quick as studios and consumers realised that what could be better than owning a copy of something than owning a piece of it.

Bill Plympton utilizes this procedure very well. He’s a drawing kind of guy and relies heavily on merchandise to fund his animated adventures. So its only natural that he should sell the various drawings that he’s used to create is films (cels too). Why? Well for one, it costs money to store things, and secondly, why not? They help him engage with his fans and make him money doing it!

This can work for anyone, large or small. Even CGI films still produce tons of paper drawings (and concept art, etc) that one could sell.

Don’t think of it as selling a piece of yourself (it’s not), think of it as selling a piece of your creation to someone who will value it a lot. That’s the kind of person you want because they’re willing to pay for the privilege.

6. Access

Lastly, access can be an avenue to merchandising success because what’re rarer than an actual piece of the film? Why some time with the animator(s) themselves! Now of course, this will depend heavily on how well you are known and how willing you are to travel.

Nina Paley engages in this a lot. She travels all over the world giving talks and classes and so forth, but she was never busier than when she was promoting her feature film, Sita Sings the Blues. Why? Because a screening of a film is more lucrative when the person responsible shows up for a meet and greet.

Obviously this isn’t just as simple as showing up and signing a few pieces of paper. Oh no. You have to engage with the audience so that they form a connection with you and your film. That kind of thing helps build relationships and help someone become more amenable to buying something if they fell they know you personally.

 

Need some examples? Check out these sites below!

The 6 Best Ways to Merchandise An Animated Creation Read More »

Character Sundays: Raven from Teen Titans

Animation, Character Sundays /

What’s the matter? Afraid of the dark?

Perhaps the ultimate mysterious character in a kids TV show is Raven from Teen Titans. She’s the resident quote/unquote “goth” of the group, but there is much more to her character than simply liking the dark side of life.

Why? Well, for one, she’s partly inhabited by her demon father (and you thought living at home was bad enough), which effectively curses her with terrible purpose. This makes her a very private character that sometimes leaves others questioning her demeanour. Of course, the truth comes out eventually, but for the most part, it remains hidden throughout the series.

Raven exhibits a high level of intelligence as she is continually reading and researching spells, potions and other things. In other words, she understands her powers and attempts to use them to their full potential. That’s not to say she’s smarter than other members of the group, but she does display the most discipline in relation to her powers.

She is ultimately a good character and has a deep connection to the rest of her team members. Her strong individuality does not preclude her team spirit in the slightest and she readily and willingly fights alongside the others.

That is not to say she is above the usual, human frailties. She can be jealous, scared, annoyed (especially by Beast Boy) and she can be especially angered by the actions of others that she judges to be insincere or stupid.

Raven has a brutal sense of anger, that is partially unleashed by her demon father. In such instances, no enemy is spared as she delights in terrorising them into insanity.

All the same, Raven in a way represents common sense within the Titans. She is always looking at problems objectively. She doens’t fly off the handle like the boys, or is she overly sensitive like Starfire. Nope, she sees things exactly the way then need to be seen and is not above raising her objections to what she sees is a flawed plan.

Raven is an incredibly deep and complex character that adds much to an erstwhile team of misfits. Despite being in a group with the word “teen” in the title, Raven is immensely more mature in both words and actions. That being said, she is not above the odd bit of mischief or fun, especially if it is at Beast Boy’s expense.

Overall, Raven is by far my favourite member of the Titans. She’s incredibly smart, unfathomably complex, suspiciously dark but unnendingly well-meaning. Such a mix of things are incredibly rare in a character, especially a superhero like Raven.

Character Sundays: Raven from Teen Titans Read More »