Opinion – Page 5 – The Animation Anomaly

The Enemy of Animation: Ignorance

To be fair, you could say that ignorance is the enemy of just about anything, but consider for a second how it affects animation as a whole.

The Issues

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve realised that there’s simply too much information in the world for one person to know it all (that didn’t stop me from trying when I was younger though). It’s impossible to know too much, but it’s completely possible to know too little.

You may not need to know how to correctly design a curve in the road to enjoy life, but would your enjoyment of a film be enhanced if you knew more about how it was made? The answer points to yes thanks to the mandatory making-of videos that are available for just about every piece of entertainment out there.

That said, how many people amongst the general public know how an animated film is made? Not many; heck there are people in the industry who don’t even know how it’s made. One smiles at the story of the newly arrived executive at Disney who asked to see the “retakes” of a particular scene.

Thankfully Jeffrey Katzenberg did his homework and the industry is all the better for it, but how many other people don’t know even the basic facts behind creating animation?

I would go so far as to say that the problem is endemic and seriously undermines artists’ ability to function as well as supressing the quality of the industry’s output.

The Results

What ignorance results in has been on view ever since animation became a commercial enterprise. Plowing through the creative and technological obstacles without disregard has resulted in more than enough poor quality content being produced over the last 80 years. Plenty of Disney’s early competitors made that mistake and you’re well aware of how popular they are nowadays.

Today, ignorance manifests itself in many forms. Much more than the poor quality of content that’s out there is the disregard for the efforts that goes into it. I’m sure you’ve all seen something like this:

We can blame CGI for the expansion of such notions in recent years, but they are proliferating at a speedy rate. Pressures at the lower end of the budget scale are putting artists into increasingly tight positions in regards to their work and their ability to carve out a successful and fulfilling career.

Do costs have something to do with it? Sure they do, but on a deeper level is an ignorance of how animation production relates to unit costs and output levels. A client who expects a 1 minute animated commercial to be made in a week is clearly ignorant. What sucks is that they will attempt to find someone to meet his deadline rather than educating themselves on how much time it actually takes to make it and adjusting their schedule accordingly.

TV shows and features are no different save for being overseen by people acutely familiar with animation.

The Solution

Solving the ignorance problem is easier said than done. Animation is far from a solely entertaining technique but the vast majority of animation is designed for entertainment purposes. Education is clearly the key to solving the problem but raises issues of its own.

Whom do you educate? Besides those within the industry and devoted fans familiar with how it works, it’s a complicated task to nail down who needs to know more about animation.

Let’s start with those within the wider entertainment industry itself. God knows I felt for both Michael Sporn and Amid Amidi when they appeared on a Fox News segment and were asked questions that any 5 years old with access to Google could tell you. That episode simply illustrated in a perfectly clear manner how little most people know about animation. The questions posed served to ‘educate’ viewers on animation but ideally should be common knowledge already.

Educating those within the wider entertainment industry should be a priority followed by those within the industries reliant on animation in some way shape or form. Advertising ought to be the big one; too many executives know next to nothing about a creative technique that makes their bread and butter. They should be followed by the general public. Documentaries on animation are not lacking, but focus much more on the creativity rather than the large mass of skill behind it.

In a way, I’m reminded of the Reluctant Dragon; entertaining sure, but it also served to educate the wider public about the many stages that are involved with making an animated film.

The Payoff

Lastly, what is there to be gained from all this time and effort?

For one, we’d see a larger uptake of careers as parents, no longer able to claim ignorance, see careers in animation in a much more favourable light. Producers would better understand what goes into making animation and executives (TV, film, ad or otherwise) would be better able to plan out their schedules and budgets with artists getting a fairer deal into the bargain. Lastly, the public at large would better appreciate animation on a level comparable to the way it discusses and analyses a live-action performance; c’mon, everyone has an opinion on the acting in the latest blockbuster, but they could barely discuss the movements in the latest Pixar hit.

How would you tackle the widespread ignorance of animation? Would you take a more convention approach or prefer something innovative?

The Enemy of Animation: Ignorance Read More »

A Theory on Government Subsidies For Animation

Opinion / Charles Kenny

It’s currently a hot topic among animation circles, and especially their cousins in the VFX industry. Yes, government subsidies are contentious no matter what side of the debate you’re on. Those for, argue that they retain jobs and industries in countries (or regions) that would otherwise lose them to cheaper competition. Those against, argue that they entice companies to slide from country to country and region to region as subsidies are created and retracted. Subsidies are a form of support from government, but today, I’m proposing support of a particular kind.

Little Witch Academia

This past weekend, I watched the short film Little Witch Academia, which I enjoyed immensely. (It’s stunning to think that it packs more action and character into the same amount of time as an episode of any TV show.) What piqued my interest in the short in addition to the animation was how it was funded.

Yes, Little Witch Academia was created by a studio called Trigger and although a group of ex-Gainax animators were involved, the short itself was the product of many young animators who were the recipients of a grant from the Japanese government.

The grant itself is entitled ‘Young Animator Training Project‘ [link]. Essentially, the Japanese government endows a certain amount; in this case 214.5 million yen (about US$2.27 million), which is distributed among four studios. These studios in turn create projects such as Little Witch Academia with a staff of young animators who essentially learn on the job. The goal of the project is that training as Japan has seen an increase in animation being sent overseas.

Why Not Direct Government Subsidies?

Many people see direct government subsidies in the form of tax relief as a great tool for creating demand. While that is certainly true (one need only look at Ireland to see an industry grown from scratch thanks to a healthy subsidy), subsidies themselves can only go so far. They can lower production costs, but they do not address the causes for them to be so high in the first place (that’s usually a macroeconomic concern.)

Moreover, direct subsidies are inherently risky because they are susceptible to undermining. Don’t believe it? Look at British Columbia, a state that had generous government subsidies for VFX and animation but is now seeing such work leave thanks to a larger subsidy being offered in Ontario and other jurisdictions.

Direct subsidies also do not, on their own, either increase work or skills. The rise in work they bring in certainly do, but tax relief itself does not spur creativity or the desire to create new content.

Why Indirect Government Subsidies Are Better

Indirect subsidies are essentially efforts like the Young Animator Training Project. They are governments putting money into animation, but rather than attempting to ‘pull’ demand, they ‘push’ it. Consider the following points:

They Can Focus On the Problem

Indirect subsidies can be meted out in a specific manner. They can be targeted at specific areas or problems that direct subsidies are only so good at accomplishing. They can focus on specific skills, ages, genders and regions. Once a problem is identified, an indirect subsidy can be created and applied quickly. In Japan’s case, work was going abroad and young animators were getting neither the training or employment they needed.

For many in animation, cost is a considerably concern. However, costs are only relative insofar that they are related to supply. It’s a complicated issue, but generally, clients will pay for skills they can’t find anywhere else. Indirect subsides can improve skills and mitigate this concern.

They Can Fund Things That Otherwise Would Never Be Made

Unfortunately, commercial studios are notoriously risk averse; hence the reason we had so many Shrek movies long past the series’ use-by date. With studios unwilling (or unable) to take risks with creating content, governments can step in to fill the void. Practically every country in the world has some sort of commission or council that funds film projects. While many of their projects live up to the stereotype of permitting artsy fartsy content to come to fruition, they can also give more mainstream content the extra helping hand it needs.

The Secret of Kells was one such project that, while not overtly art house in nature, it did receive assistance from both Bord Scannán na hÉireann (the Irish Film Board) and the state broadcaster, RTÉ. Both entities receive their funding through public sources but they utilise it in order to create the best content possible. No-one, of course, would argue that the world (and animation in general) is worse-off because the Secret of Kells was released.

They Don’t Bet On Horses

In line with the point above is that indirect subsidies do not bet on horses so to speak. Direct subsidies anticipate a certain level of investment but they also cannot control who undertakes such activities. In that respect, they tend to be bets placed with public money. Just look at what happened in Florida with Digital Domain. It was a successful company that whittled funds from the State of Florida to build a studio with the promise of jobs. Said facility was built and jobs were created, but when everything went south, the results were catastrophic.

Indirect subsidies mitigate such risks by simply ignoring them. Instead of backing ventures that potentially turn a profit, indirect subsidies instead anticipate no profit being made; in other words, they eliminate the risks associated with the production costs. The difference is significant because production costs are the risk that studios undertake when producing animation. The reason is simple, they must carry their burden before earning them back through box office sales and so on. If grants can reduce or eliminate production costs, then studios have no reason not to produce!

This reduction in risk permits studios who receive them to be a bit more daring in their offerings; another reason why films from the National Film Board of Canada are so widely regarded.

Their Films Act As A Calling Card

To come back to Kells for a second, that film was utterly and unashamedly Irish in all aspects. It was rightfully recognised as being the ideal siren film for Irish animation which was only amplified by its Academy Award nomination. Films sponsored through indirect subsidies can accomplish this on a successful scale. As you might expect, such films generally tend to champion the source of their funding; Kells with Ireland, Little Witch Academia with Japanese animation.

They Can Incite Creativity

Direct government subsidies for animation bring in a lot of work, but do they necessarily incite creativity among the artists who work on them? Sure, American shows are popular abroad as well as at home, but The Simpsons has been animated in South Korea for over 20 years, and I have yet to see anything emanate from that country resembling Springfield’s first family.

Yes, cultural differences can be a sticking point for direct subsidies. What good does it do to local talent if the work all day on something they may not necessarily relate to? Would it not perhaps be better to have them work on something they identify with culturally and socially? Perhaps even something that could improve their cultural identity?

Working on something you identify with is much more likely to spur you to create something yourself. If you work on a film that permits you to put a bit of yourself into it and learn from it, you’re more likely to perhaps take on an independent film, right?

Conclusion

All the above isn’t to say the direct subsidies do not have their benefits, they certainly do. In Ireland’s case, an industry has been built up from near nothing! However, indirect subsidies can accomplish much more, in both the financial and creative sense. They are better for the industry on a range of levels and should be utilised more.

Let’s hear your thoughts on government support for animation! Do you favour one form over another? Should they be abolished entirely? Leave a comment below!

A Theory on Government Subsidies For Animation Read More »

Thoughts On The Angry Birds Cartoon

1 Comment / Opinion / Charles Kenny

Launching over tomorrow and Sunday is the Angry Birds cartoon series. Although on the surface a rather uneventful, uh, event, this series is unique in a few ways that we haven’t seen before. Let’s take a look at what they are and what they could mean for the series.

It’s Based on a Game

OK, this isn’t a new thing, but it is new that it’s based on a mobile game. Plenty of console characters have had their animated likeness plastered all over screens (Mario and Sonic being the obvious ones), but Angry Birds is the first game to make the leap from the mobile one.

Naturally, this was almost a given seeing how successful the series of games has been and over 1 billion downloads is nothing to sniff about for any form of media. This existing brand recognition among members of the public will do ithe Angry Birds cartoon no harm at all.

The Show Has a Supporting Empire

Yes, the studio behind the franchise, Rovio, has been harbouring ambitions beyond the video game and unless your vision isn’t the best, you’re bound to have noticed the proliferation of Angry Birds merchandise that was just about everywhere this past Christmas season.

Toys, stuffed animals, branded gimmicks; Angry Birds is on all of them and barring an over-saturation, the brand has the marketing pump well-primed to deliver a series into.

Contrast that with how a normal series builds up attention via broadcasts and tries to sell the merchandise thereafter. The risk to Rovio for the Angry Birds cartoon series is significantly less; a fact that is sure not to be lost on other studios. After all, why sink a huge amount of money into a series when you can cobble together an app or game for much less and build from there. Don’t laugh, Disney has already begun laying the groundwork.

Using the App for the Angry Birds Cartoon’s Distribution

This final point is where the Angry Birds cartoon really differs from the pack. Rovio is offering the series through the company’s Angry Birds mobile app (among other media)

The reasoning behind this is fairly obvious. Rovio’s software is installed on over 1 billion devices and seeing as they have the ability (through software updates) to add the necessary functionality to play videos, why not give their cartoon a prominent placement where it is likely to be seen by the very people most likely to watch!

The studio will release one short a week for an entire year. Each episode will be available through the app and you can be sure that every user will get a notification to say it’s available for viewing, a surefire way to drive up the viewing numbers.

This strategy is curious; sure Rovio will have a massive potential audience, but what of those of us who haven’t downloaded the game (or have Comcast for that matter?) It’s unlikely that people will download the app just to watch the series so is Rovio actually, purposefully, limiting their potential audience?

The signs seem to indicate yes, albeit on scale so massive it may not matter much today. Rovio will have to alter it or find an alternative in the future though. If their ambitions are to be believed, they will have to venture into the world beyond mobile phones to find greater success.

That said, all the best to them. I’ll be watching to see how well they do.

Thoughts On The Angry Birds Cartoon Read More »

Animation Ruins Movies!

2 Comments / Opinion / Charles Kenny

CGI vs storytelling

In a recent piece published on the New York Times website, Armond White (chief film critic of City Arts) makes the plea that the level of computer animation in mainstream films be reduced, lest moviegoers lose all sense of realism. The article is a short one, but it manages to mangle many of the myths surrounding animation into points with which to bash the technique.

It Kills A Movie’s Credibility

In this post-“Avatar” culture, Hollywood relies on digital effects to emphasize lavish other-worldly environments to give audiences what they want: escapism. But there’s also an escape from credibility happening here. Special effects used to bring us closer to realism; now they douse us in artifice. “Speed Racer,” anyone?

Don’t all audiences want escapism though? Surely that’s the reason they even watch films in the first place; as an alternative way to spend time than doing something in the real world. Does White purpose that animated special effects make films seems unbelievable? Because in the case of the two films he calls out, that’s precisely the point.

It’s hard to articulate his line about being driven away from realism though. Animated effects can do both in exactly the same way that makeup can. Makeup has been used since the dawn of cinema to facilitate an audience’s faith in constructed realism. Animated effects are no different; they manufacture realism when it is necessary and compliment reality when it is not.

It Pushes Technology Over Narrative

Technological excess has overwhelmed narrative meaning. This digital grandstanding suffocates what I — and D.W. Griffith and Andre Bazin and past generations of theorists, critics and cinematic practitioners — once considered the essence of cinema: nature and the human face.

This would be an appropriate statement if, and only if, computer animation was applied to every single film released in the manner that White describes. A scenario that patently doesn’t exist. The Hunger Games is a film that utilised CGI when it needed to (in Panem) but quite happily took in all the nature it could once the setting changed to the arena.

“Oz the Great and Powerful” has been digitized to look like a hyperactive coloring book

While Oz may or may not be an artistically significant film (this blogger leans towards the latter), the decision to rely on large amounts of computer animation for the look rests entirely with the studio that produced it. Said studio (Disney) has been noted as relying on so-called tentpole films that contain a lot of CGI for the precise reason that it draws in audiences. Artistic credibility is sufficiently absent from the list of goals for such films that emphasis star performers, grandiose plots and visual spectacle. To bemoan the lack of cinematic credibility in such films is comparable to decrying the dearth of opera on ESPN; it’s looking for something that will never be.

It’s Turning Us All Into Kids

Yes, unfortunately this tired argument gets rolled out yet again:

The further Hollywood gets from that essence, the more computer-generated imagery we will get. “Animation Domination,” as it’s advertised on the Fox network. It almost seems as if Hollywood’s emphasis on digital effects aims to turn moviegoers into children rather than aesthetically responsive viewers.

Yup. Animation is turning us all into kids because that’s what animation is meant for, right? NO! Just because the technique is prevalent in content that is suitable for young viewers in no way means that it is responsible for turning viewers into delinquent juveniles. If you want to make that argument, blame the content itself; how it is formed and presented has next to nothing to do with it.

Animation is capable of the full range of dramatic cinema that live-action film is and this fact is something that Mr. White should be aware of, but he has regretfully glossed over this in favour of using animation as an excuse for Hollywood’s risk-averse business decisions.

You Can See His Point Though

I do empathise with White when it comes to mainstream cinema though; a market where most big releases are increasingly following a formula (they always have of course, but it is obvious now more so than ever) and that formula just happens to call for lots of CGI and banal plots.

I cannot agree with his statement that we are “are suffering from digital effects overload, plain and simple”. The rise of the internet as a distribution platform and the plummeting costs of filmmaking equipment and technology means that there is a burgeoning independent scene that is all too happy to rely on the good old fashioned style of cinema that caters to artistic minds

Animation is not the source of cinema’s current slate. If anything, it is holding it up.

Animation Ruins Movies! Read More »

How The Academy Awards Screws Animation

2 Comments / Opinion / Charles Kenny

So by now the winners have been announced and everyone’s done patting themselves on the back for another year. However, our coverage today has nothing to do with last night’s Academy Awards ceremony or even the winners and losers, rather it takes a look at how animation gets screwed by the Academy and those it has deals with. It isn’t pretty, but it’s the truth that will have to change before the technique is accepted with the respect that it deserves.

The Distributor

The first area where animation gets shafted is in the best shorts category. These impressive films usually receive (as part of their nomination) inclusion in a program that is offered to cinemas across the country around the time of the award’s ceremony. The traditional reason for this is natural enough; most cinemas won’t run the shorts individually so they are compiled and offered as a complete program that can be easily marketed and sold. That’s a fair enough deal and it offers the short’s creators the opportunity to get their films in front of the populace instead of just Academy voters and critics.

Such a fine proposition has existed for a number of years but this time around, something different occurred; all the shorts were made available online, and for free! The upshot was that many people took the opportunity to view the shorts. Paperman alone was viewed at least tens of thousands of times if not many more. The other shorts had similarly impressive numbers. Discussion was rampant online and off, as many fans and critics alike grasped the chance to see the films in a convenient manner.

All that changed on February 14th as a letter from Carter Pilcher of Shorts International was sent to the five respective nominees requesting that they remove the shorts from their official hosts. The letter itself is confusing as it initially states the obvious but falls back on that to ponder why the films were put online at all, since “Academy voters have other and better means of viewing the films.”

To cut through all the bullshit, what the entire fiasco amounts to is the Academy’s anointed distributor reacting to claims by its customers that their attendance is down because the shorts are available online. Business is business, but the people ultimately being sold for thirty pieces of silver are the animators themselves:

“Unlike Webbies or Ani’s, the Academy Award is designed to award excellence in the making of motion pictures that receive a cinematic release, not an online release,” Pilcher wrote. “This release of the films on the Internet threatens to destroy 8 years of audience growth and the notion that these film gems are indeed movies — no feature length film would consider a free online release as a marketing tool!”

No offence sir, but fuck you. Insinuating that animated shorts are even potentially below that of features is a smack in the face to those who create them. Shorts tell stories just as profound as features and attempting to justify their presence online as demeaning to them comes off as a rather desperate ploy.

Now all this isn’t to say that the cinema’s don’t have a legitimate claim, they very well might, but that is their problem for them to deal with. Trying to squeeze the distributor to get to the animators is a selfish act that is the cowards way of fixing things. People don’t go to cinemas just because they’re showing something, they go because it’s a social event and happens to have a 30-foot screen and other unique things that people don’t have in their own home. If you can’t offer something to compete with the shorts being on the internet, perhaps you need to look at what you’re doing wrong instead of trying to pin the blame on someone else.

The ultimate result of the shorts disappearing from the internet is that plenty of people who would have seen the shorts now cannot (we’re talking those living in the middle of nowhere and foreign countries, etc.) This castration of audience size stuffs animated shorts back into the realm of obscurity, and for what? So cinemas, the distributor and the Academy can put a few more pennies in their pockets while animators and their films get walked over at the one time of the year when they can benefit from all the publicity.

The Voting (and Voters)

As if animated films weren’t already getting screwed in some way by this years awards, along comes The Hollywood Reporter with an article that looks at how one voter casts his ballot as well as his thoughts as he does so. Under the title of An Oscar Voter’s Brutally Honest Ballot, we get an inside look at what happens when votes are cast. Most of the article is interesting enough, but as you would expect, the animated categories are where things start to heat up.

Take for starters the animated short category:

BEST SHORT (ANIMATED)

[Had not seen any of the films, but had heard good things about Paperman so he voted for it.]

Vote: Paperman

And that, is pretty much how a lot of other voters picked their choices as well. The audacity of it all is that this guy had not seen any of the short documentaries either but abstained from that category entirely as he had heard nothing about any of the nominees. Eh? Just because you heard good things about one of the nominated films, you decide to vote for that one? Not exactly fair now is it. This act immediately excludes all other contenders because Disney, as ever, is making a lot of noise about its films and ultimately has a good bit of clout to boot. Once again, animated shorts are screwed.

Now how about those animated features:

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

“It’s a tough category because everything is mediocre. I’m definitely not voting for The Pirates. I’m not voting for Frankenweenie. Brave was unimpressive. So I guess it’s between ParaNorman and Wreck-It Ralph. So… ” [At this time, he assigned the screen-side of his iPhone to the former and the back-side of it to the latter, and spun it on his desk.]

Vote: Wreck-It Ralph

Now fair enough, the animated feature field is a bit average this year, but that does not excuse such behaviour. Perhaps we can telepathically read his thoughts on each of the nominees:

The Pirates – “not a hometown production, didn’t gain from its nomination or will gain from a win. No vote”
Frankenweenie – “Tim Burton? Yuck! Ugly dog + the undead = shite. No vote”
Brave – “Just another princess movie the same as the others that I’ll never vote for, even if it is by Pixar. No vote”
ParaNorman and Wreck-It-Ralph – “Fuck it, I’m bored just talking about these films. Let’s just pick one and get on with it”

It’s tempting to think that the guy simply has no interest in animation, which may very well be the case, but the problem is that if he’s not taking the animated categories seriously, then who really is? Judging by the winners year after year, it pretty clear that most voters simply pick the one that is the best/most well known.

A few years ago, The Secret of Kells managed to sneak in and during the nominee announcements, we had George Clooney proclaim for all and sundry that nobody had even heard of it. While such a gesture was surely symptomatic of how Kells won the nomination in the first place, it nonetheless revealed the truth that even serious actors didn’t see the animated feature category as something that rewards the best rather than the most obvious.

This voter’s decision making isn’t the worst part though, for the article reveals that the best picture nomination is by preference. In other words, you pick a favourite, second favourite, etc. Anyone familiar with such preferential voting systems knows that they tend to benefit the smaller players, as they can gain from picking up second preferences once the lowest nominees get eliminated.

How does that screw animation? Well the best animated feature category is a straight vote. No preferences. The result is that films win based on totals rather than averages, so even though Brave may have been everyone’s first choice, ParaNorman may have ranked higher among voters overall.

This placement of animated features on a secondary voting system provides even more proof that the Academy views animated features as a category to appease certain players in the industry [coughDisneycough] rather than a serious attempt to convey any sort of cultural approval as they so often claim the awards are.

Conclusion

Both of these practices should prove beyond any doubt that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does not, and probably will not see animated as an equal. Their eponymous awards are sold as something that conveys honours on the best of the best, but they are really nothing of the sort. Why, as an animator (independent or otherwise) would you throw money and time at them in the hope of a payoff is beyond me. Until things improve, save your money and accommodate your fans; they’re the ones who feed you after all.

How The Academy Awards Screws Animation Read More »

What Opportunities Mean

Opinion / Charles Kenny

Opportunity. It’s something that we all hope comes along at certain times in our lives, but it’s true when we say that it knocks. It doesn’t necessarily announce itself and it can sometimes be downright sneaky, only presenting its true form potentially months after the initial event. I’m writing about this today because I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Opportunity himself, Rob Paulsen.

This isn’t to say that I view the chance to meet him as some sort of foreshadowing or fortuitous event that will pay dividends later. No, it’s nothing like that at all. What it boils down to is the various sets of circumstances about how we came to be in the same place at the same time and how opportunity plays a large part in that.

The (extremely enjoyable) hour-long Q&A that Rob held brought forth his entire career and how he came to become a voice actor. It became apparent that he took a few chances, but also enjoyed plenty of opportunities that came his way. The original Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (sorry, the politically correct European title was burned into my noggin) was an opportunity that he still talks about 20+ years later.

Rob’s job is one thing, but during the talk, the topic of discussion came around to what he does outside of voice-acting. For him, it’s teaching and his (just as entertaining) podcast, Talkin’ Toons. In both, Rob saw opportunities and decided to take them. They’ve worked very well for him too, but if he hadn’t seen the potential, they would have passed him by.

What got me onto this line of thinking was the realisation that you really do have to be open and receptive to opportunities in order to benefit from them. For me there have been numerous opportunities that came my way. Some have worked out, others have not. The opportunity to work in China was one that didn’t work out, although it did re-affirm my view that the I was better suited to the USA anyway.

I had to listen for the opportunity to work in China, and I had to listen really hard for the opportunity to work in the US. The latter took well over a year to finally pay off too; proof that patience can be a virtue. The point is that opportunities don’t come along and say “Hey! Look at me! I’m an opportunity you should take!”. If only they did that, and maybe slap you around the face for good measure.

Rather, opportunities are more along the lines of, “hey, I’m kind of interesting. Maybe you should look into me more.” Let me assure you, it won’t be shouted at you either. It’ll be whispered softly and it can be all too easy to miss. That’s why it’s important to always keep an ear out for these kinds of things; they’re extremely easy to miss.

I don’t say all this as some sort of pharisee; I’ve missed plenty of opportunities because I wasn’t paying attention, even when they were in plain sight in front of me screaming and yelling for my attention. Sometimes I’ve been really lucky that an opportunity has come along at just the right time; such as a job offer. Either way, I’ve learned that you have to be constantly listening and be willing to follow up on things that seemingly have no connection to your goals.

I had the opportunity to meet Rob Paulsen here in Baltimore this weekend and while it is tempting to think that it was simply fortuitous, in the grand scheme of things, the meeting was the result of both of us sensing opportunities and taking them. I’m certainly grateful that he took the opportunities he had that have led him to a long and successful career and I can only hope that I end up doing the same.

What Opportunities Mean Read More »

Thoughts on Female Representation in Animation

2 Comments / Animation, Opinion / Charles Kenny

Kick-ass Korra — Korra won out as the character to feature because she’s a great contemporary example of a female protagonist.

I like female characters, that’s no secret at this point, they’re awesome and unfortunately continue to be under-represented in contemporary animation programming. That’s not to say they don’t exist at all, but they do tend to occupy either the sideline characters more so than the lead protagonists.

Jason Tammemägi recently wrote about this in a brilliant post where he also tackles the concept of genderisation in kids programming. Much more than that, as a creator, Jason notes that:

I find myself very consciously making sure I have female characters in my shows….But a few years back, I did a little drawing-a-day project with zombies. Somewhat gruesome and not for the kids, it was just for fun. I realised when I approached the end of it that an overwhelming amount of the zombies were male. Why? Well, I wasn’t really thinking about it. They just were. It’s like even being so aware of female under-representation that, when I stopped thinking about it, I would fall back into the whole ‘default human being male’ thing.

Is that a fair assumption? Do we (as adults) have preconceived notions of the place that gender plays in roles? Absolutely, but as Jason rightly points out, it shouldn’t be that way:

It tells me the only way to change this situation, to improve this, is to be active about it. Is to actively make it part of our thinking as we develop shows, games, anything. Should we force female characters in to a show if natural development has led to mostly males? In my opinion, yes. Yes we should. Because that ‘natural’ situation usually comes about because we are just perpetuating old media habits and conditioning and those are really hard to break without actively pushing against them. Getting female characters, varied, interesting and active should be a clear goal when developing media. Because there is a very good chance it won’t happen on its own.

In conjunction with the above post is one from the soooper talented Brianne Drouhard (a.k.a. Potato Farm Girl) wherein she details a concept she developed herself, Harpy Gee. Check out the awesome art she posted the other day:

The post where the picture came from is a fairly simple one that details the characters:

Harpy: An elf that cannot use magic, considered a grave handicap in her home country, she’s been sheltered all her life. She lives and works at the Item Shop, but also will take any odd job around town, regardless if it’s teaching, ballet school, or scrubbing the castle floors. Nothing is too mundane or adventurous. She’s doing her best to make up for lost time and stay optimistic.

Pumpkin: Harpy’s goblin cat. He is indestructible, and will eat anything. Luckily he is lazy and sleeps most of the time. He’s also her living suitcase, she keeps her important items, clothing and weapons in his inter-dimensional stomach.

Opal: A witch doctor from a large family of pig ranchers. She doesn’t like dirt, but since she has to dig up most of her potion ingredients, she wears gloves and a bandana. She uses her shovel to fly, since she also needs it to dig. She likes anything that’s cute, and her helpful ingredient smelling pet pig, Truffle.

Ash: A knight in training. He thinks highly of himself, and regards the others as children. He secretly collects playing cards of famous knights. He tries his best to act like what he knows what he’s doing, but half the time ends up embarrassed.

Humphrey: The prince of the kingdom, he was sent to live at his uncle’s castle in town. He doesn’t like being outside or sunlight, and would rather write sad poetry or read about battles that end in failure. His uncle regularly sends him out to take Peepers, the royal dog out for walks.

They’re all fairly straightforward, right? I mean, there’s nothing in there that could potentially scare away any potential networks or studios, and I sincerely doubt that Brianne would even consider something that would to begin with.

Nope, where the really interesting fact lies is in one of Brianne’s posts from March 2012 that goes into much more detail about the struggles of getting Harpy picked up:

In the end, the shorts program [the aborted Cartoonstitute] went in a different direction, and Harpy was shown around to a few other studios. I don’t think it’ll ever happen, after being told, “Make Harpy a boy”, “put her in high school on Earth”, “it’s too scary”, “it’s too cute”, “boys won’t watch it”, “make her an animal”…

Aside from the more generic comments, a few of the asinine ones sure stand out. What advantage would it be to make Harpy a boy? What’s wrong with the character being a girl? More to the point, why wouldn’t boys watch it? the concept has male characters, so it isn’t as saccharine as, say, My Little Pony, and it’s not exactly about ‘girly’ things like makeup either. Unfortunately Jason hits the nail on the head:

At the weekend, my eldest Daisy was at a party in a kid’s art place. She made a rather awesome clay model of a princess in a tower. Asking her about it, she explained that the girls all had to make princesses to be rescued while the boys all had to make knights with swords to rescue the princesses. I was not exactly happy with this narrow gender-based project. Seeing this, Daisy went further and told me that they could choose to do either but all the girls chose princesses and all the boys chose knights.

I am not sure what form this choice was presented in or if indeed it was much of a choice at all. But if it was an open choice, I could well believe that most girls would choose princesses and most boys would choose knights. Because those are the gender roles assigned to them in an overwhelming amount of media and, in particular, marketing.

In reality, kids only know what they’re told, and with the average American child (and adult) being bombarded with literally hundreds of commercials every day that purport the gender roles that Jason discusses, it isn’t hard to see how boys could be said to favour male-centric programs over female ones.

It’s truly unfortunate because until there is better parity, awesome shows like The Legend of Korra, where the main protagonist is a female (and a kick-ass one at that) will continue to be the exception rather than the rule. And despite the fact that Korra has almost as many boys watching as girls, it’s tough for just one show to change significant numbers of minds. Kim Possible was a great model and the effect it’s had has yet to be felt. Even Lauren Faust says as much, and she knows the truth:

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/Fyre_flye/status/273563869383884800″]

A more collaborative effort is needed that sees a better balance between male and female characters in shows but also a sobering realisation that if boys profess a dislike for lead female protagonists it is perhaps because it has been drilled into them that such a character isn’t acceptable to them.

Is a quota of some kind needed? I would hope not, although if I were the head of a studio, I would much rather see my content watched by the largest audience possible rather than trying to narrow it down in the hopes of selling more merchandise and would make damned sure someone else didn’t attempt to push me down that road.

To end on a positive note, both posts discussed here are optimistic about the future:

Brianne:

I’m also curious how the next few years are going to be for female characters in animated tv shows.
“Legend of Korra” just started on Nickelodeon, and is amazing! Lauren Faust did an excellent job with the current “My Little Pony” and “Super Best Friends Forever” shorts.
I’ve been really happy getting a chance to work on Amethyst too. Sword fighting magical girls is right up my alley!

Jason:

If we do this and do it well (and by the way, I think many of us in preschool are actively tackling this right now), it would take just one generation to make real change. One generation later and maybe the writers won’t have to think about getting strong female characters into their stories. It will just happen as it becomes normal.

What are your thoughts? What do think it will take to see a more balanced approach to televised animation?

Thoughts on Female Representation in Animation Read More »

Who Is Kickstarter Ideally Suited for?

Animation, Opinion / Charles Kenny

Kickstarter is a great service and one that I’ve covered before in some detail, but recently I got around to thinking, just who is Kickstarter ideally suited for (from the animation world)? What got me started on this train of thought was a project that I’ll discuss in detail further down (that was brought to my attention by Amid Amidi), and after looking at it, I did spend some time perusing the other animation projects on the site but came away scratching my head.

The reason is simple, there’s a complete smorgasbord of projects on there and it’s hard to make a distinction between all of them (unless of course a major name is attached). However, what did become apparent is that there are a few main types of projects:

Pitches
Episodes/series
Short films
Production “sprints”
Feature films

Pitches

Starting with the pitches, they are basically exactly that; a Kickstarter to make something that will be used to convince someone else that the project is a good idea. I discussed one extensively in this post and was a bit harsh on the guy, but it was justifiable (and to be fair, we emailed afterward so everything’s cool). This kind most recently came to light with The Goon; essentially a very expensive pitch reel to be used on major studios. That’s great and all, but the budget for that film was astronomical, and a huge name was attached too. The vast majority of this kind of Kickstarter are of this variety; small, independent guys trying to find their way in the world. Kickstarter isn’t ideally suited to them for the precise reason that they’re using it in the first place; nobody knows them!

Episodes and Series

Moving up the scale, episodes and series are quite popular with many projects aiming to create either a single episode or a series of episodes/shorts. The budgets for these are generally higher but the production values tend to be larger too. These projects can be solicited by either individuals or small studios. One that I am familiar with is the one I helped back, the Vegtoons series. The Kickstarter was for one episode but the ultimate goal is an entire series with production being done by Cartoon Saloon.

These projects tend to have a lot more of the unknown about them insofar that what happens after the episode or series is created is sometimes undefined. At least in the Vegtoons instance, a series is promised. It should be noted that there is a lot of crossover between this category and the one above. Plenty of projects are for one episode in a potential series that can be used to gauge interest or as a proof of concept for an investor.

These projects are ideally suited to a small studio rather than an individual. The reason is simple; a studio would be in a more immediate position to get going should production commence. An individual would still need to find a studio and organise the production.

Short Films

The short films projects are very common with plenty of individual animators and collectives looking to get the funds necessary to complete their masterpieces. The scope of these projects varies but almost all are for funds to complete either the entire of the remainder of production. The latter coming almost always after the creator runs out of their own time/money to complete things in a successful manner.

These projects have even more unknowns than the series’. The reason, quite simply, is what happens to the short film after it is created? I saw one campaign that was simply looking for funds to enter a film in festivals! In any case, the reward of a short film is inevitably the film itself (either in a download or DVD). the economics of these campaigns are more than a bit blurry but at the end of the day they represent the closest approximation of creators interacting with their fans. Naturally there will be disappointments from time to time (I’ve heard noises about John K’s project potentially being one of them) but short film campaigns represent both the largest variety within the Kickstarter community and the closest point where creators and fans interact and meet each others needs.

“Sprints”

These projects are the odd man out of the other Kickstarter projects in that they are not complete projects. Rather, they are campaigns to complete stages of a project. The notion being that initial stages require less money and therefore fewer backers whereas the middle or final stages of production will require significantly more money and therefore more backers. The idea behind this structure is that word of mouth can build during production so that the largest potential pool of backers is acquired at just the right time.

Such a method can greatly enhance the success of a project, especially if the audience has yet to be reached. Michael Sporn’s POE film fell just short of funding but could well have been successful (on Kickstarter at least; he eventually received significant funds through Indiegogo) had he broken the production into more segments and run a campaign for each of them.

This method requires multiple visits to the ‘trough’ that may eventually run dry. That said, if a production is well run and keeps its fans informed and updated, there is little reason to suspect that they will stop supporting it. the TUBE Open Movie project is one such example; wherein it is being funded in stages but keeps its backers up to date on progress and even invites them to help!

Feature Films

This is, literally, the holy grail of campaigning. Getting a feature film funded is one of the most difficult tasks in the entertainment business. There are countless stories of independent filmmakers taking on multiple credit cards of debt just to get their films made. Professional investment is tricky and time-consuming and the results aren’t guaranteed (deals falling through, investor jitters, etc.) Kickstarter takes a lot of that out of the equation but it doesn’t help in the budgeting department. Animated feature films are still phenomenally expansive and successful Kickstarter campaigns have all been well below what a theatrical-standard feature film would cost.

Some have gone for the “sprint” route discussed above (the TUBE Open Movie is just one example) whereas others have managed to go the whole hog (Dick Figures) although in fairness, they were not going to maximum quality (or length). It’s hard to see how feature films can find a true home on Kickstarter as the costs are so huge and since only studios are likely to undertake one, they will already have sufficient abilities to raise money or at least talk directly to the people that do.

Is Kickstarter a replacement for traditional investment? No, but that isn’t stopping some people from trying, like this project. Granted, the $250,000 isn’t to finish the entire film, but it does represent a significant chunk of the cost of a film. Michael Barrier has a good opinion of Kickstarter on his website and Mark Sonntag chimes in in the comments with some thoughts that echo my feeling of Kickstarter when it comes to major films. That is, it’s hard to solicit funds from people for such a major project with little more than gifts being the reward. Equity makes people sit up and take notice, and the lure of a return is even better. One way that feature films could succeed on Kickstarter is to basically give everyone a piece of the pie. It’s something that may come along eventually, but for now, it seems that Kickstarter is off-limits to large budget feature films.

Conclusion

To conclude, it’s clear that Kickstarter really does help a large swathe of the animation community get their projects up and running. Unfortunately plenty of projects (both worthy and unworthy) go unfunded and perceived quality isn’t really a yardstick for success. Where Kickstarter seems to shine best is in getting physical objects into the hands of backers. Sending DVDs of a short is one thing, but funding DVDs of something that is already successful is another thing.

Take for example the webcomic Narbonic. Cartoonist Shaenon Garrity successfully funded two print volumes (proudly displayed on my bookshelf) through Kickstarter. She was able to take advantage of the fact that she was funding physical objects and the fact that Narbonic was a great webcomic with a devoted fanbase. Animators looking to use Kickstarter should take note; it’s much easier to raise funds when you already have an audience but when you do, Kickstarter can be a great tool to fulfilling your dreams.

Who Is Kickstarter Ideally Suited for? Read More »

A Response To Amid’s Post Concerning an Animator’s Brand

Animation, Opinion / Charles Kenny

Amid over at Cartoon Brew has an insightful post that looks at Spike Lee and how he has managed to create a personal brand around himself and his company. Its a good post and Amid raises a number of questions. Rather than detailing it in an über long comment, I thought it best to write a full post instead.

How do Spike Lee’s thoughts fit into today’s animation world, where selling one’s creation to a TV network is often considered the pinnacle of success?

This a good point, although it really does raise the question of why selling to networks is considered the pinnacle of success. Surely the pinnacle would be to get a theatrical feature released, no? Perhaps it is, but that really is an uphill battle all the way if ever there was one and only a very select few ever actually achieve it.

Things are changing though. TV series are (slowly) disappearing, or at least becoming less prominent. In the near future, we’ll see a lot more branded online networks. Some will be personal brands and others will be more reminiscent of traditional networks that take pitches and so forth.

So as far as I see it, animators will more than likely have to get a personal brand together in order to be successful on their own terms. Plenty of them have already done so, like PES and Xeth Fineburg, so the concept is hardly new.

Is giving up control of one’s creation a prerequisite for success in our industry, or can artists who own their brands carve out successful careers?

That ties in nicely with the point above insofar that while that may be true today, where networks normally demand control in exchange for funding, the future is likely to be radically different. If you create, distribute and manage your own content via your own website, then you CAN control your own work.

Artists have also proved fairly apt at this already. Think of Bill Plympton’s Plymptoons or again, PES. Success can be measured in many ways and owning your own brand and success (in the generally accepted sense) are not mutually exclusive.

Can an artist sell a creation to a corporation, but still maintain the integrity of their personal brand?

This is a tricky one, mainly because it’s necessary to define a “personal brand” and what exactly would undermine its integrity.

Taking a simple example, if you were an animator who sold an idea to a network but they requested you change a few things like the language, or the tone, or the jokes, if you did, would that undermine your brand? What if they requested changing, say a minority character into a white character and you did. If you’re a member of that minority, is that selling-out?

The reason I bring these examples up is that they illustrate how difficult it can be to determine whether a brand is being undermined or simply making the right decisions. Determining the integrity of your brand will depend on how exactly your brand is defined.

At the end of the day, many people conclude that when you accept a project for money and money only, then you have undermined your brand, because that is supposed to stand for something, to give people an instant impression of your content and creation. By “selling-out” you undermine that immediately.

All of this rests on the creator whose brand it is. It is up to them to decide whether it is good practice to sell an idea and lose control. Artists like Bill Plympton decided not to, and they’ve managed to build an incredibly strong brand because of it. Bill decided not to participate in Disney’s Aladdin because he felt it would ruin his brand and in so doing, created the gold standard for decision-making against which all others will be judged.

A Response To Amid’s Post Concerning an Animator’s Brand Read More »

What About Apprenticeships in Animation Instead?

5 Comments / Animation, Opinion / Charles Kenny

So there was a bit of a furrow last week as a post by Brodoof on Tumblr concerning the various “Art Institute” colleges run by the Education Management Corporation made the rounds (itself brought on by another story of an Art Institute teacher facing termination because he refused to comply with a policy to require students to purchase books). Anyway, it got me thinking about animation and education and whether or not it is being taught in the right manner. That is to say, is a degree or other kind of formally taught certification the best or even right approach to take and would apprenticeships work instead? Let’s look at the facts.

Animation Isn’t A Formal Skill

Now when I say ‘formal’, I mean in the very strictest sense. You can go to school and study animation. You can be called an animator by the studio or Guild and have a cert to prove it. But in the legal sense, there is no such thing as an ‘animator’. I draw this conclusion because as a civil engineer, that is considered a formal skill; one that is legally recognised when you become Chartered, or a Professional Engineer (PE) in the States.

Why even mention it? Well as the recently departed Tissa David once famously said, “Animation is….animation.” Absolutely anyone can be an animator, or a concept artist, or a background artist or a prop designer. Yes, you need the artistic abilites and some experience before you can make a career out of it, but the point is; you do not need a formal, legally recognised qualification to become an animator.

Now this isn’t to look down the nose at our favourite technique, but it does lead to the next point.

Certifications Are Worth Much Less Than What They Are Sold At

If you receive a formal education in animation, you normally receive a sheet of paper saying as much. This piece of paper is accredited by someone so it guarantees a minimum set of skills to potential employers. So why are they almost worthless?

Well, this is America, where a degree from CalArts is ostensibly the same as a degree from another art school but in reality, the two aren’t even close. Pile on top of that the fact that portfolios are also a must for any graduate, and you have system that more or less cranks out graduates but leaves them little notion of what to do next. (I’m keeping in mind Elliot Cowan’s advice to graduates that quite frankly, should be known to them before they even receive their mortarboard.)

The real issue here is that employers like to see degrees and certs because it gives them a quick and dirty way of classifying job candidates. “You want this job? Sorry, you need a bachelors. Why? Because we’re too lazy/understaffed/pressed for time to properly grade you based on your employment history/portfolio.” This leads nicely into the next point.

Climbing the Ladder With Experience

Experience counts for a heck of a lot in the job market. Naturally graduates have next to none, so their options are extremely limited.. However, plenty of people (in fact, most of the really successful people) start at the bottom and work their way up the old-fashioned way. It’s tougher than slogging through 4 years of school, but the results are just as good for those who truly work at it. Once you get even a short way up the ladder, experience takes precedence over education in any job application.

Moving Away From The Current Approach

The current method of hiring a team for a project and letting them go once it is over is tremendously inefficient. Think of all the hiring and firing that must go on for such a system to function. How many man-hours and HR resources are spent acquiring workers, potentially training them and then letting them go just to repeat the cycle again.

Now think of the old days, when someone might enter the door of a studio and stay there for 20, 30 years or more! That’s unheard of today, but that person not only acquired a ton of experience over the years, they were normally pretty eager to share it to! The same practices continue today, but it is hard to build a rapport with someone if they are switching jobs every few years.

So what’s the solution?

The Proposal

The solution is a return to apprenticeships. The notion that younger animators and artists are trained by the older ones is a tradition that has dated back centuries. It might be tricky to implement, but there are numerous benefits for all involved.

Why People (and Studios) Benefit

Firstly, the people. That should be obvious. Learning in a practical setting from someone who’s worked in the industry for years can’t be overlooked.

Secondly, studios benefit because they have a set of young artists who are trained and familiar with the studio setups, systems and methods. This is a priceless asset to have. Think of all the know-how that remains within the studio!

However, some sort of formal system for all of this to work. There needs to be set, recognised steps in the process so everyone knows where they are, how far they have to go and what is expected of apprentices. Furthermore, there needs to be mutual recognition among all studios for the system and its skills. Why do this instead of keeping everything in-house? Well the days of the career job are long gone. People will move around between studios as a result of the nature of the business. Wouldn’t it make sense if they all agreed on common skills to have? They stand to benefit too as they will be able to quickly tell what skills animators have.

Ah, but I hear you say, isn’t that what a degree does already? Well yes, but the difference is you must go to school for a couple of years and then start working. Sure, the likes of Disney run summer apprenticeships, but they are too short. Think about the old Disney days, when students might have worked during the day, gaining practical experience and then attended night classes to learn the finer techniques and concepts.

Conclusion

Art in any form is an astonishing skill to have. It’s an innate skill as much as it is a learned one, but with the recent controversies about art education, it makes more practical sense to acquire or hone skills based on an apprenticeship approach. At the end, not only will apprentices have the skills, they’ll also have the personal relationships, the work experience and a qualification to prove it all.

What About Apprenticeships in Animation Instead? Read More »

On The Topic of the Aul Sins of Piracy

Animation, Opinion / Charles Kenny

allmoviephoto 2011_the_pirates_band_of_misfits_005 — What real ‘animation pirates’ look like

Via: All Movie Photo

Brown Bag Films CEO Cathal Gaffney recently published a piece in the Irish Independent with the terribly misleading title of “Giving Up Yer Aul Sins of Piracy May Protect Irish Jobs“. Far from being focused on “piracy” (although we’ll get to that in a minute), it’s a superb overview of the Irish animation landscape and how much it currently means to the Irish economy. Go read it now, I’ll wait.

For a long time there was a stigma of sorts around Irish animation being accepted in a serious way by Irish people themselves, and Cathal’s piece attempts to put paid to the idea that animation is a kiddie thing; a fun job with suitably “fun” revenues and rewards. Far from it, the Irish animation industry has grown from nothing to industry powerhouse through the smart use of international partners, tax incentives and their own creative talents.

While the article may not have a whole lot of meaning for readers abroad, if you want to know how Irish animation has gotten to where it is, there is no better comprehensive explanation.

Now, back to the “piracy” thing.

At the end of Cathal’s piece is this paragraph:

Piracy remains a real problem in Ireland and a threat to the growth of these companies. Piracy (of content and software) is not considered a real crime in Ireland but I wonder if the people who feel a sense of entitlement towards pirated content would feel the same if they knew it could cost Irish jobs. I believe the futile attempts at collecting the TV licences should evolve to see a tax on the ISPs addressing the wholesale theft of content.

It’s the only one in the entire article that deals with the subject and even them it seems tacked on (if you read the article you’ll see why the title is misleading).

The first question is whether “piracy” is a real problem in Ireland and whether it does threaten these companies. The country is only 4 million people and has a broadband penetration rate that trails the EU average quite significantly. Surely the UK market with 60 million people, a far higher percentage of people with broadband access, a common language and only a short plane ride away would be the bigger worry, no? Naturally the article isn’t aimed at British readers, but it seems unfair to pin the blame on groups who are likely to account for only a very small proportion of the viewing audience of Irish animation products.

We’ll come back to the sense of entitlement later, but the matter of how people would feel about “piracy” costing jobs is a delicate yet complex aspect to the whole problem. Unfortunately there exists a disconnect between what people view in their living rooms and how that content is actually produced. Yes, people who know people in the industry will be aware, but for everyone else, they are unlikely to know or even care where the content is produced. This is especially true in Ireland, where a significant chunk of televised entertainment is imported from abroad.

To further complex matters is the inevitable discrimination that exists when consumers are faced with a choice. In the case of televised content, is choosing to watch a British-made TV show considered wrong because it is at the expense of an Irish show produced with Irish labour? To extend the concept further, what if I get my coffee at Starbucks instead of the Irish-owned Insomnia Coffee or better yet, the local independent cafe? Am I a bad person for choosing the international chain over the national one? If I choose the national chain, I’m actively denying the independent cafe revenue.

And how do American animators feel about a show being broadcast in their country but is made in another? Since it’s taking a spot that could be occupied by an American show, that has a direct impact on the American animation industry and employment therein. Who’s to say which country’s industry takes priority? It’s an economic concept that is extremely difficult for many people to grasp, let alone for companies and governments to manage.

Coming back to the entitlement issue; it’s very, very important to distinguish between “entitlement” and “demand”. Entitlement is something that is something that people feel they are owed, such as clean air. No-one should feel entitled to free content. We have become accustomed to it, sure, but that vast majority of consumers have been proven time and again to be willing to pay for content.

Now whether their “demand” for content is being met is an entirely different matter. I freely admit that I downloaded the superb Nickelodeon show, The Legend of Korra from the good ol’ Pirate Bay but hear me out before you judge me.

Did I try to watch it online legally? Yes. I watched the first episode on Nick.com, fell in love with the concept and subsequently went back and watched the original Avatar:The Last Airbender series on Netflix. By the time I was finished with that, Nick had pulled the first couple of episodes of Korra from their website. So now I’m in a pickle. I can’t jump into the series halfway through, I’m not getting cable for just one show, and it will be quite literally years before the show is available on DVD or Netflix.

So what are my options here? How is Nickelodeon catering to my demands as a consumer? How are they extracting revenue from this loyal viewer? Are they favouring consumers over cable companies? The simple answer is that they are not on all three counts. I will in all likelihood purchase the DVDs when they are eventually released, but would I even consider doing so until I have seen the series? Probably not; it’s the same reason I declined to purchase the Avatar DVDs for a long time. I didn’t think I liked the show until I actually watched it.

So I downloaded Korra, I watched the episodes in glorious 1080p HD resolution as opposed to a compression-plagued Flash stream and I’m as big of a fan of the show as ever. Am I “entitled” to view the show? No. Is Nickelodeon “entitled” to my money for doing so? Yes! But only if they make it clear and obvious to me that they want it!

Lastly, Cathal raises the idea of a flat tax on ISPs to account for illegal downloading. (We’ll skip over the concept of the TV license; Americans would storm the Capitol if congress attempted to impose a tax on simply owning a TV). Besides the fact that collection agencies have been shown to act against artist’s interests again and again and again (that last one is just plain mean), it simply goes against basic capitalistic tendencies to forcefully divert money from the public to special interests.

The vast majority of internet users don’t engage in copyright infringement, nor do they engage with criminal elements who are actively profiting off stolen content. (That’s another important distinction; consumers who simply want to see and/or share the entertainment they love versus people who actively want to profit from it). It’s comparable to taxing car owners to offset the business that UPS and FedEx siphon away from the Post Office. Ireland isn’t France, if the Post Office has a problem, they need to compete. Be open later, deliver letters on time, offer services that UPS and Fed Ex don’t. In other words cater to consumer demand!

All the sectors of the creative economy are currently going though the wringer when it comes to selling their wares, but consumers are still the same. They want to see things, they want to read things, and they want (and will) pay for it. Will the fragmentation of the market affect the revenues to be earned? Absolutely, but there is little to be gained by simply pointing the finger at “pirates” and making everyone pay for something they might not buy in the first place.

What are your thoughts? Please share them in the comments below.

On The Topic of the Aul Sins of Piracy Read More »