Opinion

How Environmentally Friendly is Animation?

Animation, Opinion /

Via: The New York Times (which I was somehow able to access)

Yesterday it was announced that Captain Planet is being released on DVD. Would it not have been more environmentally friendly to just stream the shows instead?

With that in mind, just how environmentally friendly is animation anyway?

Let’s see:

Traditional animation:

  1. Reams upon reams of paper (most likely not recycled)
  2. Hundreds of pencils
  3. Thousands of cels (cellulose acetate)
  4. Hundreds of litres of ink and paint
  5. Various chemicals for developing the film (as well as the film itself)

CGI Animation (assuming an all-digital production)

  1. Hundreds  of Desktop computers
  2. Render farms with thousands of servers

Now these are extremely overly simplified lists, but each element of both can be extrapolated out in terms of their environmental impact. For example, the environmental cost of pencils is not just about the wood in them. It also include the emissions from the machinery to cut down the tree, the chemicals used to treat the wood and the emissions from the various vehicles used to transport it to the shop you bought it from as well as the emissions from your car that you used to drive down there.

Other things like air-conditioning for the building, the materials used in the studio and of course the transportation costs of distributing the actual films to theaters can all contribute to the environmental cost of an animated film.

All of this can go unnoticed and usually does, but they are important to remember because it is easy to become short-sighted and think that just because animation doesn’t really produce any tangible goods (in the strict sense) that it is environmentally friendly.

This post isn’t a lecture, just more of a subtle reminder to have a broad mind when it comes to this kind of thing.

How Environmentally Friendly is Animation? Read More »

Why Animators (and You) Need To Create A Network

Opinion /

Last night I attended a networking event put on by Loyola University here in Baltimore, where I currently undertake an MBA course of study. Now I’m not one to readily go out and ‘network’, I can be tremendously shy and nervous at events like these, however, I did find last night a great help insofar as persuading me that I need to attend more events like this (if that makes sense).

The most important lesson I took away from the evening was that relationships can matter a whole lot when it comes to business. Although this is kinda sad in a way, it is the truth, and thankfully, there is plenty you can do about it to help yourself get where you want or need to go.

For animators, creating a professional and personal network should be one of their highest priorities. You’ll likely already have one from school, but it is important to create one outside of that, either from the neighbourhood you live in, organisations like ASIFA or the Animation Guild, a drawing class, or even just the folks you work with.

One of the points that was hammered home last night was to build and maintain relationships. One of the panelists put it like this:

It’s not who you know, it’s who knows you.

That’s a great quote and pretty much sums up how you can determine your place in the labour supply pool. If no-one knows you, then there’s a good chance that you can become isolated professionally and that can have detrimental consequences when it comes time to look for a job or even climb the career ladder.

ASIFA-East President and one of the nicest guys I’ve ever met, David Levy, often mentions networking over on his blog, Animondays. His reason is more practical than most. As a New Yorker, the tight-knit animation community flourishes because of personal relationships. There are no really large ‘faceless’ corporations operating in the city so a fair amount of the time, he is working directly with an individual or small studio. In such a situation, personal relationships can (and do) count for an awful lot. Animondays has plenty of advice so check it out (if you don not do so already).

Relationships are also something that can slip away easily. I know myself that I am a horrible communicator. If you ever get an e-mail from me, I can come off as whiny, needy, hyperactive or just plain ignorant. If you don’t receive a reply from me, I more than likely neglected to take the 5 seconds to reply.

I know these are things I need to work on, and it can be hard when you’re working or going to school full-time to justify spending an evening or afternoon schmoozing with other people in the field. However, once you create a relationship, it is imperative that you take the small amount of time to maintain it. E-mails now and then, or even the occasional lunch can work wonders.

However, it would seem that the benefits are well worth the time put in, and like a couple of the panelists were saying, the more people who know you’re out of work, the greater the chance they know someone with an open position that needs to be filled.

So quit making excuses for yourself. That TV show or computer game can wait this evening. Head on out there and meet someone in the same boat as yourself! You’ll be surprised at they great kinds of people you’ll come across.

Why Animators (and You) Need To Create A Network Read More »

The End of Animation in Britain?

Animation, Opinion /

Yesterday, I read with dismay on Cartoon Brew that the British government, with its current Tory-led cabinet, has decided not to renew the grants and other funding it had made available to Animate Projects, a group who sponsored various animation projects at all levels of the spectrum.

A study put out by the Royal Television Society last year highlighted that Britain has become increasingly incapable of competing with other countries on just cost alone! The main issue they cite is that said other countries (namely Ireland) have benefitted greatly from government tax breaks that have caused productions that would have been made in Britain move elsewhere. As an Irishman, you can easily guess on which side of that argument I fall on.

Should governments subsidise an industry? That’s a political hot potato which you won’t find me discussing here, but I will say that for a market as large as Britain (both culturally and commercially) there is little or no excuse for the government not at least encouraging animation as a viable artform. Other European countries do it, we just don’t see the results very often due to cultural differences.

Is there a bright side to all of this? Can there be a bright side at all? Perhaps it is not clear now and the shock of the announcement is still being felt but I think animation in Britain is in need of a rebuilding of sorts. I find it hard to believe that here in the US we get such excellent animated shows as The Simpsons, et al while in Britain there is almost nothing in comparison (correct me if I’m wrong). That country has been putting out top-notch live-action programmes like The Office so there are no excuses when it comes to animated shows of the same quality.

I think we need to see more action on the part of broadcasters (I’m looking at you, Channel 4) to help encourage a change in attitudes to animation that we are starting to see over here in the States, i.e. that it is not just for children. The success of the likes of The Secret of Kells in the US is proof that the cultural and geographical divide is not so great that it cannot be bridged.

Ultimately, the closing of a program that helps people discover and nurture their creative talent will only serve to homogenise the workforce to the detriment of society at large although it almost certainly does not bring the curtain down on the rich and quirky history of British animation. Now is not the time for moaning, it is time to pick ourselves up and carry on.

The End of Animation in Britain? Read More »

My comment on Stephen M. Levinsons Blog Concerning Artists and The Productions They Work On

2 Comments / Animation, Opinion /

This is actually a comment I left over on Stephen’s Blog but it seems like a pretty good opinion piece that’s suitable to post here too.

Wow, that’s a lot of questions there Stephen!

Firstly, if you want to know about some of the basic principles of capitalism, I highly suggest a book on basic economics. The class I took went a long way in helping me understand some of the foundations upon which modern enterprise is built.

One of the principles that I learnt was that of opportunity cost and marginal benefit. Basically what that means is that you are willing to work at the price you work at because the opportunity costs of doing otherwise are too great. That’s not to say that you should keep working at a crappy job, but that if you believe you are under-valued, you will, not may, will look and move elsewhere.

I don’t agree with the pay of the Viacom executives, that’s just my opinion. As an engineer, I absolutely detest inefficiency and waste, so you can imagine how I might feel when I see that Vicom pays it’s execs far more than Disney while having a far lower market capitalisation. Granted, they’re different companies with different make-ups and priorities and the Cartoon Brew post did focus specifically on the numbers in light of animation, which I think skewed things a bit.

Should artists be given fair compensation for their work? Absolutely! However, capitalism is not necessarily based on merit, it’s based on risk. As a businessman, that is something you are already familiar with. Capitalism is founded on the idea that whoever takes the risk gets to enjoy the rewards. In a company or studio’s case, they are the ones putting up the capital for an animation project, and as a result, get to keep the proceeds. In most cases, they do, although it would be foolish to believe that some will not resort to shady tactics in order to keep as much of the earnings as possible.

I think the crux of your argument centres around the idea that animators do not receive adequate compensation for their work. I think they do, in light of the current level of demand and the size of labour supplies. When you look into it though, series creators normally do have rights in regards to their creations. In this regard, I think the internet will be a boon on a larger scale than what is offered by the incumbent networks.

Right now, we are right smack in the middle of a Gutenburg-esque transition in the world. The internet is only another broadcast medium albeit one that allows two-way interaction and right now, it is companies like Next New Networks who are showing the way to a successful business model in the new era. The transition will affect animation too, but the artform’s ability to transcend national boundaries with relative ease will stand to its benefit in the long term.

I firmly believe that artists and animators should have a say in how productions are run but as you posted yourself a while back, Joe Murray gets it dead on in his opinion that too nay artists don’t get the right balance between art and business, and if you’re the manager of a studio, would you want someone with know business knowledge making decisions that could affect your bottom line? I don’t think so.

My advice to you is to read (if you have not already done so) “Your Career in Animation: How to Survive and Thrive” by David B. Levy. It give a superb overview of the animation industry and offers plenty of insight into the rewards and pitfalls of a career in the industry.

By the sounds of things though, you should do just fine 🙂

All the best,

Charles

My comment on Stephen M. Levinsons Blog Concerning Artists and The Productions They Work On 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 »

The 2011 Academy Awards Shortlist and Why There Should be Five Nominees

Animation, Opinion /

By now you should have seen the shortlist for the contenders for the 3 nomination slots for this year’s Best Animated Film category of the Academy Awards. Just in case you haven’t, here it is:

  • Toy Story 3
  • How to Train Your Dragon
  • Shrek Forever After
  • Despicable Me
  • Alpha and Omega
  • Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore
  • The Dreams of Jinsha
  • Idiots and Angels
  • The Illusionist
  • Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole
  • Megamind
  • My Dog Tulip
  • Summer Wars
  • Tangled
  • Tinker Bell
  • Great Fairy Rescue

Academy Rules state that if there are more than 15 entries on the shortlist, then the number of nominations go up to 5. The logic behind this is that the rather artbitrary number of 15 is used as a yardstick to measure how popular animated films are in this country. In a year like this one, enough were not released to warrant the wider number of nominations.

Perhaps there is some underlying explanation that we are not privy to, but come on man, I could easily pick 5 films, nay, 5 universally acclaimed films from that list and still be left with plenty to spare. Maybe in years gone past the quality of films has meant that only three good films could be chosen. I don’t exactly know, although I would doubt it, seeing as the category has only existed since 2001.

Think of the debate that would be generated! Look at last year! There were 5 nominees and the quality of the nominees was very fine indeed. Included were Coraline, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Princess and the Frog, Up and The Secret of Kells, a film that hadn’t even been on general release when that ceremony was held!

With just three films in the race this year, it will most likely come down to Toy Story 3, How to Train Your Dragon and either Despicable Me or a take-your-pick from the indies; the general attitude to which can be summarised in the quote below from the Washington Post’s, Celebritology blog:

All the usual animated suspects made the first round of cuts…..”The Illusionist,” the requisite annual animated entry that’s critically lauded but that no one’s kids will ever see? Total check.

In such a circumstance, I’m relying on HTTYD to upset the Pixar apple cart. It’s just a shame that genuine contenders for the award are dismissed before they even get the chance to line up for the race.

Now imagine if there were 5 nominees. You can add in an extra two films to the mix and with a strong indie presence, you can be assured that they stand a better chance. Both The Illusionist and Idiots and Angels would garner a lot of extra exposure from even a simple nomination and that would only increase interest in the artform (surely something we can all agree on).

Like I said above, more contenders might not lower the odds for Toy Story 3 (at least not at your bookie) but it would reinforce the idea in the general public’s mind that animation is a wonderfully varied medium that exists outside the major Hollywood players. Having said that, I do realise that the Academy Awards are a back-slapping ceremony for Hollywood, so if you’re not in the club, your chances of winning are slim. But seriously, how much extra does it actually cost the Academy to add two more films to the list? Not much, but they could stand to gain a lot more if they did.

The 2011 Academy Awards Shortlist and Why There Should be Five Nominees Read More »

The Obstacles Facing Roger Rabbit 2

3 Comments / Animation, Film, Opinion /

At this point, it’s been over 20 years since the original Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a film that perhaps single-handedly resurrected interest in the classic cartoon shorts of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Despite being wildly successful (thankfully, as it was the most expensive movie ever made at that point in time), a sequel was never made.

There are a couple of reasons why a sequel was never made. Number one, Hollywood wasn’t near as sequel crazy as it is today and number 2, the complexities of the original film made it somewhat more difficult to produce another one. No, I’m not talking about the animation, or anything technical, it is he sheer number of characters required lengthy and exhaustive negotiations between all the rights holders. You may have noticed that the original film had neither Felix the Cat or Tom & Jerry as the rights to neither were secured prior to production.

Why do I think a sequel won’t work? Well, why do you think a sequel wouldn’t work? Perhaps because sequels invariably share the same set of problems. TV Tropes has a good rundown of the symptons associated with what they call, sequelitis. The plot isn’t a continuation, bit characters that became popular are given way more screen time than they should be allocated, new characters appear that add nothing of value, etc. etc.

The original film was notable for many reasons, not least because it used a huge cast of already popular animated characters and introducing a few that appeared well known despite being brand new. That’s why Baby Herman, Jessica Rabbit and even Roger are still known, they have created a link in the audience’s mind between themselves and the classic characters of yore. A sequel will most likely copy some elements of the character but discard the deeper stuff that matters.

Another aspect is time. It’s been over two decades since the original and the times have changed. Roger Rabbit succeeded because it was different. Animation didn’t get a lot of respect from people in the 80s. Roger Rabbit (along with The Little Mermaid) helped change that and establish animation as an artform that could deliver the goods at the box office. There was little to no competition unlike today, where a new animated film is released, on average, every couple of weeks. The quality of said films is also astounding, thanks to the folks at Pixar who raised the bar so high.

Finally, as everyone knows, sequels inevitably have a lower budget than the original. In animation (moreso CGI than traditional) this is partly because computer models and sets have already been constructed, however, corner are still cut in areas such as story development, size of the crew, etc. The difference is always noticeable and in the case of Roger Rabbit, it would definitely be noticeable. If you make the most expensive movie ever and spend less for the sequel, it will look different.

Of course, there is the test film for a CGI version of Roger from 1998. It’s embedded below along with the test from the original film. The two cannot be compared in overall quality, but notice the difference in the animation. The newer one says a lot about the attitudes of executives towards sequels of classic films.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw77Vt6sgdc]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0hNbcJO6EM&feature=player_embedded]

The Obstacles Facing Roger Rabbit 2 Read More »

Animators and VFX artists: The Differences And Similarities That Should Be Celebrated

2 Comments / Animation, Opinion /

There has been some talk over recent years as to whether visual effects artists are really animators by another name. They certainly share a lot of common skills and traits, but there remains a gulf between the two professions.

For starters, visual effects has traditionally been concerned with adding bits and pieces to traditional, live-action films, whereas animation has always been about creating everything from scratch. These classifications were fine until a few years ago, when the likes of Robert Zemeckis’ The Arctic Express began to really blur the lines at which VFX ended and animation began.

Fast forward to this year, and you had Richard winnning an Academy Award for best visual effects. There is nothing really notable here until you realise that Richie actually trained as an animtor in Dublin!

There are still many differences that, at least in my opinion, mean that although there will continue to be a convergance of professions in the areas of technology, looks and skills, there will remain a few fundamental differences.

Animators and VFX artists should realise that they can work together in harmony, complementing each other. It would be a shame to see the two camps descend into petty rivalry, especially around awards season, when the issue is most likely to crop up.

Apologies for the short post. The topic merits more discussion, which by all means can be done in the comments below.

Animators and VFX artists: The Differences And Similarities That Should Be Celebrated Read More »

What Does the Google/Verizon Deal Mean for Animators?

Animation, IT, Opinion /

There’s been a lot of hoopla on the internet over the last couple of days in regards to the announcement that Google & Verizon have joined together with the aim of constructing a framework that would help legislators create a new set of regulations governing the internet and the content served on it.

Basically up until now, all traffic has been treated as equal no matter what. That means that a text file is given the same priority as a video stream. In years gone past, this was not a problem, mainly because there was more text files than video. However, with the advent of YouTube, Hulue and netflix et al, there is concern that things will not be quite as equal as they were.

The reason? Well, there is a perception out there that the pipe owners (Verizon, Comcast, etc.) will begin accepting payments by content providers (YouTube, Hollywood studios, your local TV station) in return for allowing their content to flow faster through the pipes. The idea being that if you want higher quality entertainment, you will have to pay for it (because  the content providers will only pass the costs onto you).

When you think about it, that is not much different to now. If I want to see Mad Men or whatever the latest hit is, I have to pay for cable. The problem with the idea is that it favours certain players over others. Witness Comcast’s purchase of half of NBC-Universal. Can you take a guess who would get top priority on the Comcast network if bandwidth space became an issue?

That’s not particularly fair. It may hurt the larger players, but it will absolutely crucify individuals. Imagine if you’re an animator/filmmaker, and on your website you have a page with your demo reel on it. How well do you think the video will play unless you cough up a fee to the ISP to ensure that you’re viewers see it at full quality? Are you gonna pay a fee like that? I doubt it. I wouldn’t, and the truth is, I probably wouldn’t sit around to wait for your video to load if you didn’t either. Who loses out? Everyone.

The internet is proof positive that when there is minimal regulation in an area, business thrive. YouTube would not have even got off the drawing board if the founders had to pay a surcharge on the delivery of their videos. Time and time again, we have seen that consumers have realized that the only commodity that the internet costs them is time. Money doesn’t even factor into it ever since AOL went to a flat monthly fee.

Besides, they way things work now is pretty OK. If I want my videos to load faster, I’ll cough up an extra $10 a month to Verizon to bump up the speed cap on my DSL line.

The biggest problem is perhaps the assertion that the “mobile internet” is separate from the fixed one. This is complete nonsense. Granted, there is only a limited amount of the wavelength spectrum available, but that does not mean that mobile users should have to settle for a different standard. Heck, if you wait much longer, Wi-Fi should be near ubiquitous in cities across the country. Why should I pay a data plan to the mobile carrier when I can find an free hotspot?

Again, this only hurts the small folks, i.e. you and me. If it will become hard enough to watch video on the regular internet, how hard do you think it’ll become on the mobile one, which by the way, is just the regular one on a smaller screen?

Animators and studios (big and small alike) need an open internet now more then ever. Why should either the ISPs or Google dictate how they can and cannot run their businesses? Charge them for the connection, charge them for the extra, scarce services that they decide they need, but don’t run rampant over the top of them in the scramble for profits. In the end, everyone gets hurt.

[sigh] You’d expect that a free-market economy like this would operate a little differently wouldn’t you?

What Does the Google/Verizon Deal Mean for Animators? Read More »

Posting a TV show online: When Should It Be Done?

Opinion, TV /

Today, I was going to post a review of the new TBS (or is that tbs) show Neighbors from Hell, which debuted there last Monday. Well, clearly this post isn’t about that because, without beating around the buch too much, it isn’t online in legal form, well, not exactly. Apparently it is on iTunes, but being the true geek that I appear to be, I run Linux, which iTunes doesn’t support and probably never will.

So with no premiere episode to watch (yet), here are some thoughts on when TV shows should be put online for folks to watch.

The folks over at the MPAA and RIAA would have you believe that putting anything online, hell, even not putting it online is an invitation for anyone and everyone to “pirate” it for their own nefarious purposes. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. If I wan’t to watch a TV show online it’s because I want to watch it whenever I damned well please. Why should I have to schedule my time around the whims of the network? I shouldn’t, and for the most part, I don’t.

Anyway, networks are discovering (through the handicapped genius that is Hulu and the absolute genius that is Netflix) that allowing consumers to view your stuff online is actually a good thing. Not only does it do wonders for older stuff, but even new stuff as well as people are much more likely to watch a show they missed online rather than wait for a rerun. The Economist recently did a special report on the current and future state of television that is well worth a read.

Enough reasons though. When is a good time to put a show online. Let’s start by assuming it’s a new show. In that case, the obvious answer is straight away! As stupid an idea as it sounds, the +1 channels found on Sky in Europe are one of the best things ever. Sure all they’re doing is shifting the entire channel back by an hour, but how many TV shows have you come across that you just missed? It may be just beginning on the +1 channel!

Seeing as +1 channels are rare here in the States, the next best thing is putting the show on-demand or online. Putting it up straight away will pretty much thwart any reason a so-called “pirate” has for putting it up instead. Besides that, you can make some advertising revenue from your own site (or on another if your prefer).

If putting a new TV show online straight away is the best time, what about older series? The obvious answer is also, straight away! As you’re probably aware, you can pretty much find any TV show online if you do a bit of searching. Sadly TV-Links.co.uk [Wikipedia.org] is no-more after getting busted on sham charges and just like a game of Whack-A-Mole, about a dozen clones popped up to replace it. For legal purposes I probably shouldn’t encourage or condone you to seek out these means, and I’m not, I’m simply explaining the current situation.

With older shows, the arguments are exactly the same as the new ones. Why force consumers to seek out their favourite stuff by “illegal” means. Give them what they want! The customer is always right after all!

As for animation, Hulu has a rather good selection. It’s not ideal, with a lot of anime both popular and otherwise, like Ikki Tausen, seriously? The kids networks are also fairly decent. I have more experience with Cartoon Network, but Nickelodeon and Disney also seem to be fairly up to speed on getting their shows online ASAP.

The explosive growth in video-on-demand in recent years will hopefully mean that all TV shows will be online soon after they are broadcast. The notion that online viewing pulls viewers away from broadcast or cable viewing is nonsense and the sooner the networks get over it, the better.

Posting a TV show online: When Should It Be Done? Read More »

Do Characters in Preschool Shows Need Character?

Opinion, PBS /

The emphatic answer is yes! Why wouldn’t you give your character, character? That’s how your audience relates to your show. Of course, preschool audiences are somewhat less demanding than older kids but that does not mean they do not perceive what they see on the screen any differently.

With the current regulations regulated to educational TV shows in the US, it would seem that some networks (PBS excepted) seem to throw the bare minimum at that sector of the market. Others fare slightly better. Disney for instance has Little Einsteins and its stable of Disney characters to boot because it’s never too early to familiarize children with your properties.

Someone once lamented that some of those shows basically educate kids, there is little or no attempt to try and create something richer. For example, some shows simply teach the kids their ABCs or 123s with perhaps a little plot mixed in for good measure. This is perhaps the minimum standard for a TV show and the vast majority of shows are much more than this.

However, what sets Little Einsteins apart from other shows? In terms of character, not very much. The kids are kids doing kid things and that is that. It’s a fine concept and it has worked quite well for Disney as well as PBS in the form of Barney the Dinosaur.

In stark contrast stands Sesame Street, the bastion of children’s television in the US. That show has some perhaps some of the greatest characters to ever grace a TV screen in the Muppets. Think about it. Every single one of them is different and has a distinct trait. Big Bird is big and tall but is very understanding and loved by all. Oscar the Grouch hates everyone but also has his sift spot, the Cookie Monster needs no introduction whatsoever, Elmo is actually 3 years old and the list goes on.

Each one of the Muppets has his or her own strengths and weaknesses that are played out every week on TV for the kids to see. They might not full understand it at the time, but they nonetheless interpret it and retain it. Why else would they market Oscar the Grouch T-shirts to people such as myself?

Another excellent series is WordGirl the PBS animated show about a super-heroine alien girl who lives on earth. The show aims to teach kids how to spell but also relies on a significant entertainment aspect that has proven popular with kids and adults alike.

The creators of preschool shows are in a special category of their own. Many of them have a deep passion for their chosen career and display a special talent for creativity that resonates with kids. Networks should allow such creators as much freedom as possible and be open to new ideas. Kids programming is a sensitive area of media that receives special attention from the government and parents groups alike, but that should not preclude the use of charters that are fun, complex and resonate with kids and adults.

Do Characters in Preschool Shows Need Character? Read More »