Animation

Quick Note: The ‘Shame’ of Going to See an Animated Film

Animation, Rant /

Just a short post today, but it’s quite a serious one in all fairness. Do you ever notice that some people, like, grown adults are sometimes embarassed when they tell you they went to see an animated film?

We’re talking adults in general here, not necessarily the ones with kids, who believe they’ve got a genuine excuse in the little ones. I mean adults, the ones without kids. Sometimes it seems like they’re downright ashamed to admit that they went to see an animated film, kid-friendly or otherwise. Why is that?

Is an admission the evidence someone needs to torpedo your reputation as a mature individual? Hardly. Is it perhaps the lingering remnants of the peer pressure of your teenage years? Again, hardly, although as humans, we do tend to suppress certain elements of individualism in favour of conformity.

I’ll admit that I have no problem saying I went to see an animated film. heck, I’ve no problem telling my co-workers that I went to see an animated princess film. And guess what? They didn’t judge me, or laugh at my face either! They actually asked what it was like, either for use as a yardstick when taking their own kids or for some other reason.

The point is, no-one, and I mean no-one should have to be ashamed or worried about the state of their character just because they saw an animated film. Years ago when I was just beginning to watch cartoons regularly again, someone asked me how I could watched something that was aimed at kids. My reply was that grown men and women make the shows so why couldn’t a grown man enjoy the shows? They were silent after that.

Who cares what you watch and if someone judges you based on that then they have some very poor inter-personal skills that need to be addressed.

Quick Note: The ‘Shame’ of Going to See an Animated Film Read More »

Studios ‘Stealing’ Ideas and Why Animators Need to Know Their Rights

2 Comments / Animation /

Via: List.co.uk

This morning, I read over on AWN that some guy, by the name of Terence Dunn, is suing DreamWorks for stealing his idea for Kung Fu Panda. Although everything is still at an early stage, this could shape up to be an interesting fight.

This is, of course, the worst fear of many animators, they pitch an idea to a network or studio, get turned around, and then just like that, see a project that’s eerily similar to their own being announced.

My recent post neglected to mention this whole area of copyright law as I regretfully forgot about it. Basically, you cannot copyright an idea, only actual creations. If you come up with the idea to make a show about, oh, I don’t know, an Octopus Pirate, then you can’t simply go around suing everyone if they come up with a show about a pirate who’s also an octopus.

That’s not to say that you shouldn’t defend your legal rights, if someone misappropriates your idea, you are certainly entitled to seek compensation. The point is that it is possible to be over-zealous. Think back to the lawsuit from a few years ago regarding SpongeBob Squarepants. Some guy (who has a Wikipedia page?) sued Viacom for stealing his idea for a talking sponge.

The guy’s argument was that in 1991, he created and flogged some sponges with a markered on face. If only he had read Jerry Beck’s excellent Nicktoons book, he would have noticed a comic, drawn by Stephen Hillenberg and featuring a character called Bob the Sponge that was dated 1989. It’s too bad that tons of court time were wasted on a frivolous lawsuit like this although I’m sure some lawyers somewhere are quite happy about the whole ordeal.

In a lawsuit such as the one mentioned at the beginning, the discovery phase will help uncover any and all information that both sides will need in order to build a case. For Dunn, it will hinge on whether or not his idea passes a series of tests that will determine whether or not his concept could be considered the same as Kung Fu Panda. Things such as the plot, character descriptions, design, tone of the story and so forth will be scrutinized in microscopic detail. In addition, the full details of any and all meetings with DreamWorks staff will be similarly torn apart in the quest for the proof needed.

Does the guys suit have merit? Perhaps, it’s still way to early to tell. The reason it’s in the news today is that the court has ruled that Dunn can look at DreamWorks books in order to determine how much he could be owed in damages. This is a bit of a silly move because, at least in my mind, what he is owed should not be motivating him at this stage of the lawsuit if he is truly in the belief that his idea was stolen. It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that Kung Fu Panda was a successful film (with 6 more announced?!) and there should be no doubt in his or anyone else’s mind that should he win, he would be in line for a substantial payout.

There is a good chance that DreamWorks will settle, especially if it looks like they will lose. As in most cases like this, it is much cheaper for them to offer the guy a certain (not unsubstantial) amount that puts everything to rest and allows things to carry on much as they did before.

It’s important to remember that situations such as this are extremely rare. Studios and networks are well aware of the potential for crippling damages if they are shown to have blatantly ripped off some-one’s idea, as a result, they are much more inclined (and motivated) to either acquire the original idea and develop it themselves, or take the basic concept (a kung fu panda) and turn it into their own creation.

Like I said at the beginning, you cannot copyright an idea (yet), only actual creative work. Lawsuits such as those mentioned above are all the more reason for animators to familiarize themselves with copyright law and what rights and limitations are set out within.

Studios ‘Stealing’ Ideas and Why Animators Need to Know Their Rights Read More »

Floyd Norman’s Concerns About Animation

2 Comments / Animation, CGI /

Yesterday, animation legend Floyd Norman tweeted the following:

I have seen Tangled (the review is forthcoming, I promise) and I can attest that it does contain some excellent animation, both character and otherwise.

Not being an animator, I tend to appreciate the different forms of animation on a different level. I tend to enjoy all types, be it traditional, 3-D CGI, stop motion or even flash! I can, however, attest to the gut-wrenching admission that something that is better than what you use or do comes along. It’s tough to make such a statement and Floyd’s a big man for doing it.

The question is: does Floyd need to feel sad that a CGI film has excellent animation in it? It is surely not an acceptance of CGI or a rebuttal of traditional methods, not by a long shot. The problem (as far as I can tell) is that animation (and I’m talking feature animation here) is still a very stigmatising area of the artform.

Think about it, for years, Disney set the gold standard when it came to animated features with the result that every man and his dog tried to ape their formula, with varying degrees of success. Don Bluth gave things a good run for a bit and DreamWorks tried their best before they switched gears with Shrek.

It wasn’t until Pixar came along and up-ended the whole idea of what an animated film is that things became more interesting. Thus far, Pixar has not released a musical and Disney has only released two films that weren’t musicals, both [perhaps] not coincidentally CGI. To the best of my knowledge (and when I say knowledge, I mean recalling from memory without having time to confirm them on the internet), Disney has not released a non-musical feature within living memory.

So the land of animated features seems to be somewhat stigmatised. Traditional animation almost have to be a musical and CGI almost can’t be a musical. Now in fairness, cost could be used as an issue. A traditionally animated film can be really expansive, but with Toy Story 3’s recent cost estimated at in and around $300 million (that’s $300,000,000.oo) that argument isn’t really valid.

In that case is Floyd’s statement really valid? The answer is maybe. Tangled is the first CGI musical film and could easily be seen to be encroaching on the bastion of traditionally animated features. Having said that, it’s important to remember that Disney shut down their entire traditional department a few years ago in anticipation of becoming a CGI-only studio. What they didn’t realise is that CGI is simply a method, not a genre.

So in that case, why don’t we see a better mixture of themes within animated films? Perhaps John Lasseter can answer that, in the meantime, that sounds more like a post for another day.

Maybe Floyd’s concerned about the shift of skills in animation. CGI is created in a very different manner to traditional methods, where everything is drawn (or at least it was in the old days) on paper, one sheet at a time. There was a lot of skill inherent in making characters move with grace and with the dominance of CGI, there is a legitimate concern that these could disappear from the mainstream.

For me, I think he’s somewhat right. There is a noticeable shift in animation from traditional methods to CGI but there is still a lack of variety within the differing methods. Perhaps in time, this will change. If Tangled is any indication, then I think we can look forward to a more colourful and varied future for the animated feature.

Floyd Norman’s Concerns About Animation Read More »

A Note on Executive’s Notes

Animation, Opinion /

Via: AllPosters.co.uk

I’m in the middle of reading “To Infinity and Beyond!: The Story of Pixar Animation Studios” a rather substantial tome that is well worth the amount of time it takes to read it. I’ll likely post a proper review in due course, but in the meantime, it’s got me thinking about the bane of every employee’s life: notes from the management.

Animators are all to familiar with notes. They can come from directors, producers, executive producers and network/studio management. Some are rightly judicious, some are just downright nonsensical, most are somewhere in between. Of those, they can be broken up into general story/plot notes and technical notes, which, for the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that encompasses all the animation/directing/sound/effects/etc.

There seems to be a propensity among a small percentage of executives out there that they must issue notes on a project that must be adhered to or else. Such a style of management is a very poor one. The production of an animated programme or film, like any team exercise, is a collaborative effort that can only truly flourish if everyone works towards the ultimate goal.

I bring this up because in the course of reading the aforementioned book, it is mentioned that Toy Story went through an initial plot that was rather poor. The reasoning behind it was that the Pixar team, who had never created animation for anyone else before, had blindly followed any notes sent up from Disney in Burbank. They assumed that the executives were always right in their judgement. Of course, that is not the case, and the resulting film was very nearly scrapped before Pixar was able to cobble together a tweaked plot and some animation to back it up.

If you’re an executive and you feel that you must issue notes then you are doing it wrong, very wrong. Seeing as I’m a dreamer (I was diagnosed at an early age but was only informed of such when I was in my early 20s), I’ve concluded that the purpose of the production team (animators, writers, etc.) is to create the project. The executive’s job is to make sure said project comes in on time and on budget and that all that is undertaken in as smooth a manner as possible. Meddling in the creative areas of the project should be kept to a minimum, and even then, the criticism should be constructive.

I say all of this from an outsider’s perspective. I’ve never had any personal experience is such situations, and there’s a good chance that I only ever hear all the bad stuff that goes on. No-one (not even me) will say that a project is running as normal. People only ever talk about stuff that is going really (and I mean exceptionally) good or it’s going from bad to worse. That’s human nature and we’re all guilty of it at some point or another.

The old saying “less is more” holds true in any case. The less an executive has to manage a project, the more time they have to focus on more important things, like whether the project is on budget, can things be run more efficiently, etc, etc. I know myself, I like to be given a task and then left alone in peace to do it. One time I was doing a job and I was micro-managed all the way. Not overwhelmingly mind you, but it made the whole experience much less enjoyable and it dissuaded me from putting in my normal amount of effort.

So executive types out there, keep the hands on the wheel, not on the kid in the back seat! Creative types need management but not necessarily the kind you think they need. Focus on your own job and try to think on a larger scale. Remember, some of the bets shows out there had the least interference of all.

A Note on Executive’s Notes Read More »

A Comparison Between The Jetsons and Futurama

Animation, TV /

Via: Cinemafique and Ten.com

I am obliged to acknowledge my girlfriend Alicia for the inspiration for this post.

Here we have two of my favourite cartoons that happen to deal with living in the future. One was created in the 1960s and is set in 2062, the other ostensibly the late 1990s and thereafter and is set in the year 3000. Both shows make light of the fact that technological advances have not necessarily made life easier for the human population.

The nature of each shows conception and production play an important role in understanding why each show is the way it is. The Jetsons, created by Hanna-Barbera is clearly the polar opposite of The Flintstones. One is set in the future, the other in the past. However that is where the similarities end. The Flintstones played on the fact that even though they are set in the Stone Age, the characters enjoy all the modern conveniences a real person would. The Jetsons on the other hand is much more a flight of fancy towards the world of tomorrow.

Futurama, while also aimed at prime-time audiences, does not share the same utopian view. In New New York, the culture is rather like the one of today. There is plenty of chaos, but there is also plenty of enjoyment to be had from living in the future. Whereas The Jetsons limited themselves to robots, Futurama goes a step further with aliens.

Granted, the two shows aimed for completely different audiences, and as a result, the humour tends to be quite different. The Jetsons centres very much on the nuclear family, with a hard-working husband bearing the brunt of any comedic escapades that occur. Futurama centres instead on a lazy bachelor and his cohort of work chums who happen to be just as lazy and/or self-centred as himself.

Each show has its own comedic traits so it’s not really fair to directly compare jokes, although both shows make heavy use of the unexpected results from using technology, either through George Jetson getting hauled around by the robot who dresses him or Fry who has a hard time adjusting to the fact that the Moon has been turned into a place with a theme park on it.

Both shows represent the era in which they were created quite well. The Jetson is full of Googie architecture that epitomized the optimism of the future. This was back when we were all supposed to be living on the Moon by the year 2000 and robots and/or automation would take care of our every convenience.

Futurama rounds on these beliefs a little bit, but that is more because we have been told the same thing over and over again since the 50s and we still haven’t sent a person back to the Moon. While we are somewhat awed by the advances of technology in Futurama, we are much more affected by the laughs we get when said technology goes awry, or indeed when it does something completely unexpected.

It is perhaps not really fair to compare two shows that are so vastly different in nature. They are aimed at different audiences, were created at two completely different points in American history and culture and represent two extremely different views of the future.

The Jetsons is also set much closer to the present (currently 52 years away) whereas we still have a whole millennium to go before we get to that time period. That is part of the reason why Matt Groening and David X. Cohen set it that far into the future. Their reasoning was that we have no idea what life will be like after 1,000 years and that makes it all the more believable and expands the opportunities for ideas and laughs.

Personally, I think Futurama is the closer one to the real future, what with all its snarky humour, and yet the Jetsons remains one of my favourites, if only because it is at this point, a throwback to what people expected the future to be like and also because the humour is more akin to The Flintstones. Both shows are entertaining predictions of life in the future that in their own respects, are right.

A Comparison Between The Jetsons and Futurama Read More »

Attitude in Animated Characters

3 Comments / Animation /

Via: The Simpsons Black & White

Yesterday, Michael Sporn posted an opinion piece that expresses his dismay at not only the repetition present in Glen Keane’s artwork but also the continued presence of attitude in them. I had to go back and read it twice just to be sure I understood. Surely attitude comes from the character themselves not the way they look, right? Eh, no. As it turns out, you can pull plenty of faces that can be read as having an attitude.

The main point of Michael’s post is that Keane seems to have become comfortable with a series of repetitive character designs and an overwhelming knack for drawing them in poses that seem to shout rather than speak.

All of this got me thinking, where does the attitude of an animated character come form? Yes, their look has something to do with it, but actions speak much louder than words.

Think back to the original contemporary bad boy of animation, Bart Simpson. Look at the character model below (that took me an age to find):

Now we all know who Bart Simpson is, we all see his exploits and we all know that the picture above belies little if any of his character traits. Having said that, there are plenty of other pictures out there that can attest or allude to his mischievous behaviour. Perhaps the Simpsons isn’t the best show to use as an example. The characters are relatively simple and the show has relied more on plot and knowledge of the characters in order to elicit emotions from their characters, In other words, if Lisa is sad, she will cry, Homer’s eyebrows will furrow and he will clench his teeth if he’s mad and Bart will normally result to physical acts for a range of emotions.

Personally, I believe that attitude should come from inside the character. Think about Donald Duck. There’s a guy with some serious attitude problems yet they only came to the audience’s attention when they came up from below the surface. Outwardly, he seems like a genuinely charming duck, not the violent menace he often becomes in his short films.

What the Simpsons did do quite well was display the over-arching desire of some folks in the industry for their characters to display attitude outwardly. The classic episode of Itchy, Scratchy and Poochie is an excellent, satirical observation of this practise.

During the creation of Poochie, the executives constantly bombard the animator with ideas about how the character should look in the belief that form follows function. The last comment made is that the character should have more “attitude”, with the result that he gains a pair of sunglasses. Naturally because of the “attitude” that Poochie displays, he is immediately written off as one of the worst characters ever made.

When it comes to something like animation (and this is something that has been known for years), the former limitations of the medium (the traditional type anyway) meant that actions and noises were pressed into service as a means of displaying emotion.

My point is that the limitations of animation meant that characters had to convey their character as it were, in more ways than just the visual alone. With contemporary CGI technology it has become possible to mimic the muscles in the human face, thus allowing much more accurate replications of nuanced human reactions. This should become a crutch however, and traditional animation would do well to cling to the tried-and-tested methods of displaying attitude through other means rather than relying on looks alone.

Attitude in Animated Characters Read More »

Reflections on Mr. Magoo and Leslie Nielson

Animation /

Via: Wikipedia

The world of comedy lost one of its greatest talents the other day when Leslie Nielson passed away. I am certainly not the person to write a eulogy although I was somewhat disheartened by the sheer number of “Don’t call me Shirley” tweets flowing by yesterday. Yes, that performance changed his career, but he was much more than that.

In fact, one of his roles that I didn’t hear about at all was his oft-overlooked performance as Mr. Magoo. While not his best role (Lt. Frank Debin takes that cake), it did serve to remind me that Mr. Magoo is (was?) still very much in the public’s consciousness despite being over 50 years old.

Originally a side character, Mr. Magoo went on to star in his own series of shorts, created at the deeply influential UPA Studio. Despite his age, and the fact that he is not near as popular as in his hayday, Mr. Magoo is still an active character that pops up here and there to remind us of his existence.

The aforementioned film is perhaps the best indication that Mr. Magoo is still nestled in the consciousness of the American public. Granted the film was released over a decade ago, although if the character were truly dead, said film would never have seen the light of day.

Mr. Magoo is proof that you don’t necessarily need to be all over the place in order to be popular. Brief interstitial appearances that gently remind the public of your existence should be enough to maintain a certain level of popularity.

That, I believe, is the mistake that Warner Bros. et al are making whenever they haul the Looney Tunes out for another film. Yes, they need to bring in new blood to sustain demand for the characters, but a new film is almost certainly not the most effective way to do it. (I am aware of the possible contradiction with what I said above but the circumstances are slightly different, the Mr. Magoo film was certainly not an attempt to reboot the character).

Besides the character himself, the Mr. Magoo shorts were very noteworthy because they cam from the UPA studio, a somewhat ground-breaking company that hauled animation look and design into the modern age. If you happen to be interested in learning more about it (and who isn’t) I’d recommend Cartoon Modern by Amid Amidi, a passionately written tome that espouses the heavily stylized design that came to define 1950s America.

Mr. Magoo was and still is one of the most important cartoon characters ever created. He broke the mould for what made cartoon characters popular and he could certainly be seen to serve as an inspiration (however small) for Carl Fredrickson in Up.

Reflections on Mr. Magoo and Leslie Nielson Read More »

What I Found at the Second-Hand Bookshop

Animation, Book /

Via: GoodReads.com

A wee while ago I espoused the virtues of the library as a great source for animation and animation-related books. Naturally, it is not the only source in existence for reading materials. Frankly, I’m quite ashamed that I forgot to mention the second-hand book shop as well.

While up in western New York this past weekend (hence the brief hiatus), I happened to pay a visit to a local bookshop whose owners had decided it was time to enjoy the finer things in life and were in the process of flogging off ever single book in the place (all 200,000 of them) for the princely sum of $2 each. Yes, that’s right, two of your fine [American] dollars would get you any book in the joint.

Now myself, being the bookworm type, simply had to pop in and take a bit of a nose around to see what I could find. The only downside to such shops is that you can guarantee that nothing is really organised and that a bit of foraging is required to find what you’re looking for.

So, in amongst the Idiot’s Guide to Netscape and first editions of Nancy Drew there is the possibility of finding some, shall we say, diamonds in the rough. Thankfully, I did manage to locate said diamonds, and promptly cleaned the guy out of every decent animation book he had, all 6 of them!

There’s a biography of Chuck Jones by Hugh Kenner that looks pretty decent, a book dedicated to Big Little Books that has a ton of early, 1930s-era animation, comic and detective books and Walt in Wonderland, which focuses on his silent animated films from the 20s.

Excited as I was to start reading those, they will have to wait. Before then, I have to plough through How to Make Animated Movies by Anthony Kinsey, the official Walt Disney biography by Bob Thomas (very excited to read this) and last but certainly not least, “That’s All Folks: The Art of Warner Bros. Animation” by Steve Schneider.

Are these real gems of book? Nah, they’re fairly run of the mill (except the Kinsey book, that seems pretty rare) and any second-hand bookshop is likely to be the same. Nonetheless, if I hadn’t stopped in and looked around, I wouldn’t have all these lovely books to read in the coming months. 🙂

What I Found at the Second-Hand Bookshop Read More »

Food for Thought: Female CGI Character Designs

5 Comments / Animation, CGI /
Via: DevilCatz.wordpress.com

You would think that over the last 15 years or so, there would be plenty of exciting human character designs put out by the Hollywood studios, what with CGI being a new and exciting field and all. When the idea popped into my head yesterday, I realised that we haven’t seen all that many over the years. Granted, making CGI humans has only really been possible over the last 5 years or so, but even then, the examples have been few and far between.

Take a look at this small sampling:

Ginormica:

Via: Discover Magazine

Sam Sparks

Via: MattTrailer

Colette

Via: DevilCatz.wordpress.com

and Roxanne

Via:megamindmovietrailer.blogspot.com

Elastigirl from The Incredibles doesn’t really count because I don’t consider her as a “normal” human character in the same sense as those above.

Compare those charcters to this one, by Andrew Hickinbottom

Woah! Big difference, eh? You can tell this one has real character, and she looks even more French than Colette!

OK, yeah, they’re all female but I can justify it on the grounds that female characters in general have much more intricate designs and distinguishing features and as a result more often than not represent the best designs in a film. I’m not being biased, just my personal opinion.

If you look back over the years at all the cartoons ever made, good character design can do wonders for your film. I can say with certainty, that when I was young, my mother pretty much hit the nail on the head when she opined that no-Disney animated films really did lack the polished design that Disney’s had. Was that the only thing that hurt their chances, probably not, but I bet it didn’t help them either.

Like I said, it’s still early days so I am hopeful that we’ll start to see more and more explorations of the capabilities that CGI can offer in terms of character design and the level of detail the technology can provide.

Food for Thought: Female CGI Character Designs Read More »

Why I’m Currently Thinking About Fievel Mousekewitz

Animation, Ireland /

Via: Squidoo

It’s been a rough time to be an Irishman this past week. First we didn’t need the bailout then we might need a bailout and now we’re taking the bailout, which comes with an added dose of patriotic-busting shame in that most of it happens to come from the British. The French may have swallowed their national pride and took the Marshall Aid when it was given to them, although in fairness, they kind of really needed it.

So all this talk about the country being in the toilet has got me thinking about the last time it was in the toilet, which are more affectionately called the dark ages, a period of time known to the rest of the world as the 1980s. I should point out though, that the topic of today’s post happens to have been made in the 90s, although we were poor then too!

Today’s film is notable for being one of the first I remember seeing at the cinema. Beauty and the Beast was perhaps the first, which i saw right after they’d finished refurbishing the local picture house. All the same, Fievel Goes West has a place in my heart as the first film I can remember actually seeing. Sure I watched Beauty & the Beast, but I couldn’t for the life of me tell you how I felt about it at the time.

I should point out that Fievel Goes West was not associated with Don Bluth, although there is an Irish connection in that he did set up an animation studio in Ireland in the late 80s, the short-lived Sullivan-Bluth studio. Arguably Bluth’s greatest contribution to Ireland was the founding of an animation course at Ballyfermot College, which paved the way for home-grown studios to emerge, creating the likes of The Secret of Kells and Granny O’Grimm.

Getting back to the point, the film is somewhat sadly forgotten at this point, standing in the shadow of the original American Tale film that is lauded as one of Don Bluth’s best after he left Disney. I haven’t watched it in literally years, but I can still recall some of my favourite parts, the funny jokes, Tiger the cat and of course, Cat R. Waul, played to perfection by Mr. John Cleese.

I suppose that kind of brings up another aspect of youth, looking back and realising that for years you either listened to, or watched all these famous and talented people without having a clue who they were. I will freely admit that i watched Thomas the Tank Engine all through my early years and knowing that they were narrated by some bloke called Ringo Starr who seemed to be pretty good at it.

Did Fievel Goes West deserve to succeeed? I think it did, and it probably would have if it hadn’t have been caught up in the maelstrom of succes that Disney had only just begun to create with Beauty and the Beast. It’s an entertaining film on a number of levels, perhaps slightly more juvenile than we’ve come to expect thanks to Pixar, but it deserves at least one viewing. As far as I know, it is on Netflix, so now you’ve no excuses!

In the meantime, prayers for the repose of the soul of the country formerly known as Ireland are being csaid, most likely at a Catholic church near you.

Why I’m Currently Thinking About Fievel Mousekewitz Read More »