Writing posts is enjoyable, but sometimes they can be a bit curt and to the point. For that reason, I’m considering writing a series of longer papers that would be a bit more detailed. A list of potential topics is listed in the poll below. Please take the time to vote for up to three that you would like to read. 🙂
Thanks!
[poll id=”14″]
Which Papers Would You Like To Read? Read More »
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the rise of India and China as potential global animation superpowers. Many believe that this will be accomplished by quote/unquote ‘stealing’ jobs from other, more expensive countries such as the United States. Other believe that the rise of Indian cinema means that those same Western countries face a deluge of cheap, Indian features coming their way at the expense of local output. Both view are hogwash, but it is undeniable that India is looking to grow its animation industry. They are, however, doing so in a normal way, so much so, that Indian animation studios are really an overblown threat. Here’s a few reasons why.
India has a vast, varied culture stretching back thousands of years. Its modern moviemaking industry is very much rooted in this culture and is reflected in pretty much ever film that’s released. Yes, the country shares a colonial history with Britain just like many other countries, but so dose America, Australia and South Africa. Yet the influence of the British is much stronger in those countries than in India, despite the latter gaining independence much, much later.
Film (and animation) is dependent on culture and cultural norms. India’s culture is extremely strong within the country itself as well as within ex-pat and emigrant communities. It is not strong in areas outside of these. Indian films are quite distinct from Western tastes (generally running much longer and dealing with different themes).
The country’s animated output either mimics local cultural norms or attempts to mimic Western ones. It succeeds with the former but falters with the latter. The simple reason is that it is extremely difficult to make a film that completely satisfies all the criteria for being culturally relevant. No, Slumdog Millionaire doesn’t count; it was a Western film with Indian themes but nothing more.
Disney has famously avoided such obstacles for decades by making films that are culturally obtuse; hence all the fairytales. DreamWorks unfortunately learned the hard way with Monsters Vs. Aliens; a film with plenty of gung-ho Americana that didn’t resonate well with foreign audiences.
Indian films will be similar. They will accurately reflect their origin and its culture, but until said culture and its filmmaking norms establish a large following among foreign audience, don’t expect films such as Kiara the Brave to be much of a threat.
A ton of focus on India and its competitive abilities have centred on cost, particularly labour cost. The first thing to get out of the way is that it isn’t all about costs. Yes, they play a large role, but ultimately, any studio that decamps to India on the basis of a lower wage rate is playing a mugs game.
The reasons are simple. Wages and salaries are only one cost that must be controlled when making a film or series. Sure, lower wages generally do reflect lower overall cost by virtue of their significant piece of the total cost pie. But they are not the be all and end all and it is unwise to use them as the sole reason to move abroad.
Sure, Indian animators may be cheaper, but there are many differences that must be overcome; cultural, administrative (taxes, permits, etc.), geographical (yes, this still matters in the internet age), and economical (GDP, purchasing power) all play a role in the decision to off-shore work. (These are handily summed up in the CAGE framework.)
Studios looking to move operations to India must look at all of these categories to consider whether it is beneficial to move. At the moment, even though cost is a major factor, the rest combine to make keeping animation US-based attractive for many companies. DreamWorks is moving ahead with its Indian and Chinese studios, but although these will handle some US work, my guess is that the ultimate aim is to get them producing their own content and that American productions are a simple way to get their skills up to speed quickly.
Work ethic also plays a role and even with all the abuses in the US VFX industry, it may stand to reason that Indian animators really are more productive. Maybe their isolated from the internet at work or they just don’t engage in office gossip, I don’t know. But if they can knock out more animation in a week, shouldn’t we be looking to them to discover their secret? I would as it would mean I could keep more people employed in the US.
Much of all this ballyhoo has focused on the big players (Disney, DreamWorks, etc.) but not much has been mentioned about the smaller players. There are hundreds if not thousands of them and they certainly face similar pressures to the larger studios in terms of labour costs. What’s different though, is that smaller studios can survive even in areas where larger studios aren’t really viable anymore.
Take for example New York City. Large-scale studios have been absent from the city for quite some time, and yet the industry adapted and remains the hub the animated commercials. It also has a thriving independent scene as evidence by the one-man feature film production team that is Elliot Cowan.
The point is that even though large studios may be the ones who are making the most noise, smaller studios must put up with the same pressures, and they are the ones who will most likely be able to adapt.
For all the talk about the internet and the elimination of borders and distance, the truth is that both obstacles and more (time zones, etc.) continue to have a massive bearing on businesses. Studios are no different and when it comes to the client-studio relationship, sometimes it really is beneficial to have a close on rather than one that spans almost an entire hemisphere.
Email may be quick, but if its the middle of the night where the recipient is, that induces wasted time into the process. That may be tolerable for short projects, but for longer ones, it has the potential to add weeks to the schedule; an intolerable probability for many studios, even with all the cost savings taken into account.
Since the vast majority of animation projects are time-sensitive, for that and other reasons, studios large and small will continue to demand that work be carried out close to home. India may be cheaper, but when time is of the essence, being within arms reach is priceless.
The short answer is no, it won’t.
The long answer is much more dependent on how American and European animators choose to react. If Indian animators constantly up their game and become more productive and proficient in Western culture, then yes, there is a real threat. If not, then Western animators can rest a bit easier. That said, technology is constantly improving to the point where it will be quicker and cheaper to send films to India for the monotonous or automated tasks (rendering, et.c.) Western animators will have to adapt to plying their advantages in their animating skills and abilities. If you can recognise that then you haven’t much to fear.
Are Indian Animation Studios an Overblown Threat? Read More »
It’s been a rough couple of months for DreamWorks Animation. If it wasn’t the poor performance of Rise of the Guardians, it was delays in development and most recently, the job losses resulting from each. In essence it’s a cash flow problem. Guardians didn’t bring in enough to keep the studio going along a the pace it originally planned. Borrowing the money would be costly so the unfortunate situation is that the release schedule has been dialled back and people have been let go. Many media and blogs focused on those aspects, but few were asking what DreamWorks should do next. Here’s a few hints.
As much as the death of TV is plastered on the internet, the medium is still very much alive. In fact it’s still far to big to ignore. The TV properties of Disney continue to prop up the film studio and until they don’t TV screen across the globe will continue to be central to any large studio’s strategy.
DreamWorks has made efforts to get its films onto the small screen. First it was The Penguins of Madagascar and recently it’s Dragons: Raiders of Berk. Both shows have done well on their respective networks and DreamWorks seems keen to continue to idea of spin-off shows. Heck, it did Disney no harm at all back in the 90s.
What DreamWorks should do though, is create an original TV series. They have the talent at their disposal, what better way to keep them busy and productive than to have them branch off into TV series? For one, they could crank out programmes much faster than feature films. Two, you can be sure plenty of networks around the world would jump at a DreamWorks TV show. And lastly, the revenues would help bring in revenue; not just from licensing fees, but from merchandise as well.
Sure, it’s a crowded TV market, but DreamWorks would be far and away the largest presence given that both Disney and Viacom (Nickelodeon) have their own networks. That fact would work in their favour.
The studio is off to a decent start, what with the tie-in with Rovio for The Croods, but what else are they doing in the mobile sphere? Well, they’ve got this augmented reality app that makes movie posters move. It’s a nice idea but ultimately a bit gimmicky. The studio’s Ptch app is a much better approach, but there’s been no word yet on where that app will ultimately lead for the company.
No matter who you talk to, the keyword is ‘mobile’. DreamWorks needs to figure out a concrete plan for the platform and what it intends to offer. Games are a no-brainer and Ptch is a great starting point, but where else can the company leverage its content on people’s phones and tablets? Netflix is clearly part of the solution, but the company could also look into leveraging the vast store of IT knowledge it has at its disposal. Just imagine a DreamWorks-created 3-D rendering app and you’ll get the picture.
In my post predicting the future of animation, I state that shorts will make a comeback. To clarify, that’s not completely individual shorts but rather those along the lines of the classic Looney Tunes. In other words, a recurring set of characters in a wide variety of plots.
The reason is simple: in conjunction with the shift to mobile platforms discussed above, shorter content will become popular again. If you consider the limited periods of time that people spend on mobile devices, it makes sense to produce content on a 7-8 minute scale rather than the traditional 11 or half hour scale.
Cartoon Hangover is giving this idea a shot and they’ve done OK with it overall. Bravest Warriors could have tighter stories but on the whole, the shorts work for the YouTube generation. At the other end of the scale, the Amethyst: Princess of Gemworld shorts clock in at just over a minute each. Theoretically ideal for mobile, but ultimately too short for substantial storylines.
DreamWorks hasn’t really created any shorts outside of the extras on its DVDs. It would be nice to see them throw some [more] out there either as promotion for the films or as sidelines to the TV show. They could easily do it and the payoff would be substantial.
Remember those theme parks that were announced a while back? Stop snickering! Just because they’re going to be situated in New Jersey and Russia is nothing to laugh about. Sure Disney has the theme park gig down pat, but they’re only in a few select markets (the US, France, Hong Kong and Japan.) DreamWorks is betting that with smaller, indoor parks, they can grab customers from a smaller area, but ultimately have them visit more times throughout the year, especially in the winter.
The parks are also in areas where Disney is not; Russia being the principal one. DreamWorks movies do quite well there, so it makes sense to head to that country first. The risk may be more than in western Europe, but the potential rewards are huge given Russia’s rapidly growing middle class.
The only downside to the theme park idea is that the dividends will take years to reap.
As mentioned above, DreamWorks has a great store of computing knowledge acquired historically from the PDI divsion and also through the technology that the studio itself has pioneered. The company has been moving in the technology direction for some time, and it make sense to continue down that road
Pixar has long done the same, selling and supporting its Renderman software as a side business to the animation. DreamWorks appears to be slowly doing the same, but it might be time to become more overt. Consider how Amazon went from being just an online retailer to an established technology firm thanks to the Amazon Web Services (AWS) division. The company basically realised that they could sell the technology they used to power their website and profit from it. DreamWorks could and should do the same.
What Should DreamWorks Do Next? Read More »
Today I’m going to piggyback on a post by Brian Solis dealing with the Five Pillars of New Media Strategy. They apply to animation too, but in a slightly different way than how Brian lays out (mostly because I’m being more specific.) To start, here’s Brian’s list:
These are all great points, but they deal with more general and corporate businesses than animation. Let’s try and narrow them down to the same level as the small studio or independent animator. Lastly, we’ll justify why such strategies are important and necessary.
This is the very first point. If you are creating something, even an independent film, you need to know who you are making it for. It’s easy to argue that it may not even matter, but in fact, it does. Think about it for a second. You’re not going to create something and then lock it away somewhere, are you? No! You’re going to show it to people, maybe even sell it to them. Therefore, it’s vitally important to know who those people are.
In the case of a small studio, that person is normally the client, and you’d be very poor at your job if you didn’t read up on them! That said, studios more often than not put out independent projects, and while they have a good head start over independent animators, the odd dud does make it through.
All this isn’t to say you have to know the audience inside out, rather its to say that you should spend a proportionate amount of time doing the research. For independents, this could mean sussing out what festivals you’re going to submit to and figuring out what kind of films they generally like. For studios, this could mean setting a game plan for the short in terms of where it will eventually lead (maybe a series, maybe a calling card) and going from there.
Lighting can sometimes strike twice, but that’s extremely rare. Was your last project successful? Are you tempted to do something similar again? Stop! Take the time to rethink things. What worked before may not work again; especially so if a significant amount of time has passed. Are you going in a different direction? Definitely take the time to figure out what has to change.
What if you’re humming along just fine on your strategy? Well, everyone else is changing up around you. You may be OK now, but eventually you will have to do a major overhaul, and that takes a lot of time (and money.)
Need proof of this? Just look at FOX. They had a bone fide smash hit with the Simpsons, but they tried for another home run using the same formula (no, not the shows themselves, but in how they approached them.) Futurama is sheer genius, but the network didn’t change their strategy for success. They focused on the wrong thing, and it ended up costing them; not once, but twice! (Family Guy in that case). If FOX had sat down and thought about how to make these new shows succeed, they may not have gone through the wringer like they did!
This is a critical one, especially for independents. When you make a short film, not only must you market it, you must market yourself as well. That fact can get pushed out of focus a bit during the process, but its vitally important to making your film succeed. You must know how to present yourself in order to succeed. Want commissions? Look like a keen, skilled, productive worker. Want critical acclaim? Appear more as an auteur of the technique.
These are just examples, but for the proof we need look no further than Bill Plympton; the undisputed master of independent animation. Bill knows just how to market himself to fans, and he does it expertly. He’s extremely personable and actively engages with fans all over the country and around the world! He knows the value of selling himself along with his films. That’s how he chooses to do it, how will you?
This one I’ve left untouched because it applies to animation just as equally. How do you engage with fans/customers? What is your social business strategy? Do you create work and simply cast it off into the ether? Do you stonewall any contact with those on the outside? If so, that may be doing you more harm than good.
Remember, you don’t have to be a social media maven to find success. You might only want to tweet once a week. But if you can make that one instance count, then you’ve done the right thing. Plenty of animators (or at least the ones I follow) are pretty good at the social side of things. Blogs, Facebook, Twitter; all are important to maintain on a regular basis. Blogs are the single most important though. They often form the first stop of fans, the curious and potential employers alike. Failure to keep it up to date can prove costly in the end.
Again, this is left the same because it applies just as much to animation as any other business. Building your community is simple enough, but what does it mean to ‘invest’ in them? Why should you worry about investing if your an animator? Well, it’s quite simple. As Brian explains:
Community is much more than belonging to something; it’s about doing something together that makes belonging matter. Participate in the communities that you host and also the communities that host the conversations that are important to your business. That’s the secret to earning a lasting affinity the contributes to you becoming a trusted resource.
The gist of it all? Don’t passively put stuff out there. Sure, having a blog is important, so is updating it regularly, but if people comment on posts and never receive a reply, what does that do for you? Nothing! The same goes for email, @ replies, anything that could potentially lead to interaction with people other than immediate friends and family should be treated as valuable as tonight’s winning lotto numbers and demand similar action on your part too.
I don’t write all of that to preach, I have to do it to! Which is absolutely try to do as best I can. It’s tough, it demands a lot of time and effort, but the results are worth it.
All the points above are not super secret. They’re basic common knowledge, but they’re the kind of common knowledge that we tend to take for granted sometimes. Now and then it’s nice to get a wee reminder about how to keep going and to make things work as best they can for you. These points go a long way towards that. Keep them in mind and utilise them on your next animation project (long, short or otherwise). You never know what the results could be!
Would you add more? Let us know in the comments!
The Five Pillars of New Animated Media Strategy Read More »
Merchandise is one of the recurring themes here on the Animation Anomaly for the simple reason that it plays such a large role in making the technique profitable for so many people. (You can get away without it, but that’s a topic for another day.) The Walt Disney Company has a long and fruitful history of merchandise stretching all the way back to the early days of Mickey Mouse. Things have changed over the years though, and while the youth remains an ever important part of the Disney merchandise empire, the company has become ever more adroit at exploiting market segments that you’d never thought possible. Here’s a look at two competing lines of Disney merchandise that illustrate just how disparate the company can be.
Let’s be honest, these aren’t quite as tacky as the ‘vintage’ office furniture that was bandied about a few years ago or even the line of wedding dresses the company offers, but it isn’t far off. Yes, that’s right, you can be the proud owner of a Disney pen! These however, are no ordinary pens that you can buy at any Wal-Mart. Nope, these are something else entirely. These, are the Walt Disney Signature [geddit?] collection. Behold!
The collection is being offered by noted manufacturer Monteverde. They’re a respected company and they make many fine products, but why, for the sake of all that is sane, would they offer products like these?
Who are these targeted at? What purpose do they serve? And what do they do for the Disney brand and the animation on which they are based? Well, the simple answers are that they are aimed at people with more money than sense (we’ll get to the details in a bit), they serve no purpose other than to endow the Disney brand with a sense of false caché, of vintage style that it never really had in the first place and that they don’t do anything for the films on which they are based.
The proof? The pen’s average cost is in and around the $300 mark, topping out at almost $2,300 for a three-piece limited-edition collection. That’s not to say they aren’t good pens, they are, but the price premium over the regular pens on which they are best makes them a laughable purchase.
These are pens that are designed to appeal to folks who think that they are buying into a genuine image (of Walt or otherwise) that doesn’t really exist. It’s deceptive and of course, the films (and Walt Disney himself) don’t benefit in any way at all. One could argue that such merchandise actually debases all three because pens have next to nothing to do with any of them. A tenuous connection could be made to Walt himself if you could prove that he actually used the same pen.
That is not the case, however, and these lines come off as Disney simply looking for the easy buck. They are exploiting fans rather than engaging in genuine business with them.
So now that you’ve seen the crappy Disney merchandise, let’s look at a much better effort.
Although only a special edition, the Mickey Mouse Moleskine notebook represents a much better Disney merchandise strategy. Setting aside the fact the cost factor (they’re certainly a lot less than the pens that could be used to write in them), there are far more concrete reasons for Disney to market these.
First of all, the product they are based on is a perfect match. Moleskine notebooks are something that no budding artist, writer or erstwhile creative would be seen without. The company has made a tidy business out of its products’ artistic history and even ensures that every notebook comes with a history of the same. Plenty of artists’ blogs are replete with scans from their journal and notebook pages.
Right, so the base product has merit, what about the Disney side of things? Well, it’s Mickey Mouse (everyone loves Mickey), but perhaps most importantly, it isn’t just his face slapped on the cover, instead it’s what Disney includes on the inside: instructions on how to draw Mickey.
Now they aren’t very comprehensive instructions but that’s not up for debate here. The point is that unlike the pens, these Moleskine books are aimed at people who might actually have an interest in something relevant to Disney; namely drawing/sketching/illustration, you name it. It might even be possible that such notebooks might draw people in who might not otherwise have thought of themselves as artists. That is a far-fetched notion, but it’s not entirely impossible either. Can you really see the pens encouraging people to start writing?
In other words, these notebooks are much more relevant to Disney fans. They are appealing, and although they are a premium product, that is something that most fans will be willing to pay for. Unlike the premium of the pens, which is massive, the premium for the notebooks is minimal, but the extra value that fans see is enormous.
So if you’re in any doubt (and I hope that you are not), ask yourself the question: Which product would you buy if cost was irrelevant? Would you really want a pen that has little connections to what its based on, or would you rather have something that at least makes a serious attempt to be true to its origins?
I know which one I would choose. Submit your answer with a comment below!
Contrasting Disney Merchandise: Right and Wrong Read More »
Week links! The stuff I read this week that you should too!
The always excellent Yowp blog has a great collection of photos (both publicity and otherwise) of all the great voice actors of the Golden Age. Well worth a few minutes of your time, if only to see Arnold Stang in drag.
The FLIP blog continues its hot streak of great posts with this interview. Don Hahn should be a recognisable name from all the films he’s produced over the years, as well as the books he’s authored. The interview also features a great checklist for breaking into the industry but this is the most salient and I feel obliged to post it here:
Don’t let the obstacles scare you away. Each studio has firewalls built up in order to keep the hobbyists and fan boys out. As a serious artist, it’s part of the rights of passage to get beyond those firewalls with your talent and persistence. If they don’t return your call, don’t like your reel, can’t talk to you unless you have an agent, or don’t have anything for you, see these for what they are…obstacles to keep the amateurs out. If you want to be professional, you’ll find a way to break past these with time and persistence.
[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/colmtobin/status/305859727877873666″]
[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/BoxnRoundhead/status/306743918362509313″]
[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/PaulYoung99/status/307504684267102209″]
Here’s Fionna and Cake dancing by Shmorky:
Week Links 08-2013 Read More »
No doubt you’ve seen them in almost every grocery store in the country. They’ve been around for years, and they are relentlessly targeted at everyone younger than their teens. Yes, they are the fruit snacks emblazoned with many a popular animated character. Here’s a photo I took at the local shop, your’s is no doubt similar:
Marvelous looking aren’t they? /sarcasm
The packets, as can clearly be seen, are designed to maximise the amount of space that is devoted to animated characters. Barely 10% is given over to describing what is actually in them. Personally, this blogger had no idea what they contained until he picked up a packet and carefully read it. It’s possible that that’s simply because I didn’t grow up in the States, and thus wasn’t subject to such marketing when I was in the target demographic, but how may parents would be in the same boat?
The presence of animated characters on products is not new by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s still a bit concerning that they occupy so much space. In essence, they are not so much selling the product as selling themselves.
You’ll notice that all the boxes contain the exact same products; there’s no difference between a Perry the Platypus and a Spiderman packet. So who’s that designed to trick?
It’s easy to nitpick such merchandise. They’re sugary, not particularly natural (read the ingredients) and are often passed of as being healthy because they contain ‘fruit juice’. That doesn’t stop people defending them, but on a wholly nutritional level, these snacks are far from ideal
OK, yes, kids have been targeted for decades, but in comparison, the EU and other countries place strict limits on all merchandise aimed at kids, and they still manage to sell. These fruit snacks do next to nothing to inform the kids what’s actually inside beyond pictures of the shapes of the snacks!
That’s not to argue that they should feature a laundry list of what they do contain, but rather that they attempt to inform kids about what they’re buying. Kids are stupid; that’s not being rude, but it is the truth when it comes to these kinds of things. They don’t read the ingredients, they don’t even realise they are having the wool pulled over their eyes in such a ham-fisted manner. All they know is that their favourite character is on the cover and there’s a tasty treat inside.
Thinking about this on a higher plane for a minute; shouldn’t merchandise for animated properties actually do something to feed back to the source material? I mean in a way besides just revenue or viewership. Sales of these packets above surely keep their respective shows in the minds of parents and kids, but do they actually improve the quality of the shows?
I’m thinking here in terms of how merchandise can provide feedback to studios and help them improve their output. Adventure Time is a good example; plenty of their merchandise features obscure characters that earned a repeat performance on the show. To consider a contrasting example; it’s doubtful this Legend of Korra dog bowl made for a bigger role for Naga.
Food and drink merchandise is difficult to manufacture and sell, but it is hard to believe that in the 21st century, studios rely on the same kinds of techniques that were first pioneered in the 1950s! Surely they can come up with a better (and healthier) alternative to fruit snacks. The grapes were a start, but they were marketed in the wrong way. Smarter thinking in this area is needed. The results will justify the effort involved.
Finally, just to put things into perspective, here’s a shot of the entire shelf where the fruit snacks are placed:
Notice that they higher up products appeal more to adults while the lower ones appeal to children. Both kinds of products are at the appropriate eye height for their targeted customer. That’s what grocery store psychology in action.
Why These Fruit Snacks Packets Are So Terrible Read More »
The good people at Shout! Factory recently sent over a copy of the complete Rocko’s Modern Life on DVD and while slowly working my way through it, something struck me: it was totally unwitting in its longevity! Don’t believe me? Check out these reasons why.
Yes, VHS was about, but at a time when feature films were selling for $30, the notion of putting an entire series out on home media was barely a glimmer in an executive’s eye. Animated TV shows were put out with the understanding (especially on cable networks) that their lifespan was limited. Once they ended production, there was hope for only a few years of reruns before new content took over.
Thankfully, that situation didn’t last forever, and the dominance of DVD was spurred on by consumer demand for content that previously never had a release. That trend continues today. Even with the transition to digital distribution already well under way, DVD continues to offer features not found in online streams or even torrents. Things like commentaries, shorts and the 2012 live recording with Joe Murray and crew, give the Rocko DVD the edge it needs to make it worth your while.
If you read Joe Murray’s (quite excellent) blog, there are plenty of posts where he discusses the production of Rocko’s Modern Life and how comical it was in many ways. The shoddiness of the studio building itself, the late, late nights, the arguing with the network. None of these indicated at the time that the show would be the massive success that it was. Neither did they indicate that it would surpass the quality of many subsequent productions by a country mile.
Oh sure, the animation isn’t as fluid as today’s shows, but that’s because it’s traditional animation; the awesome kind! Done without computers nothing much more than a pencil and paper. This time-tested method of animation production also gave Rocko the looseness for which it is known for.
Despite all these apparent setbacks, Rocko’s Modern Life managed to reach the pantheon of excellence simply by being a great show. As an almost-original Nicktoon, it’s immediate success was all but assured, and its long-term popularity was burnished by some fantastic plots, subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo and a fantastic cast of characters that could be universally related to.
Why the reason for this post at all? Well contemporary culture is notoriously fickle and forgettable; a quick visit to your nearest 3 for $10 bin will provide ample evidence of that. Any show that manages to not only warrant a release on DVD after its original audience has earned the right to sign contracts is noteworthy. Such a show is particularly so if it continues to provide entertainment for legions of new fans who could well be the kids of original viewers.
This is important to note because Joe Murray and crew didn’t sit down during production and try to figure out how to make their show appeal to audiences 20 years into the future. They just didn’t in the same way that the crews at Termite Terrace didn’t for one second think that what they had to crank out on a weekly basis would still get the same laughs from audiences more than 50 years later.
Such is the power of both comedy and a commitment to quality. Thankfully Rocko’s Modern Life has plenty of both.
So what are you waiting for? Enjoy the madness for yourself with the complete, 8-disc set from Shout! Factory today!
Rocko’s Modern Life & Unwitting Longevity Read More »
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 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.
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:
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.
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 »
So yes, tonight is the Academy Awards; Hollywood back-slapping, back-scratching, self-congratulating etc. etc yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah. Basically a media event designed and marketed to cater to the manufactured ‘glamour’ that the large studios pretend still exists more than 50 years after it actually has. The luster has long faded, at least for me, but I will watch tonight because it provides ample amusement for the evening.
Naturally, you are all wondering what my choices are. Well, in the tradition of that university professor who so graciously awarded his students two grades (the one they earned and the one they deserved), my predictions for the animated categories will be similarly split, between the real winner, the bookies winner and my personal preference; with justifications for each.
Don’t forget to check out tomorrow’s post too. Not for the results, oh no, you can find those instantly. Instead, I will discuss two ways how the Academy screws over animation. And I promise that it won’t be pretty.
Here you go:
The real winner: Brave – There is no way the Academy will give the award to a movie about video games. Suck it up Gen Yers. Tim Burton is too weird, and the rest lacked the marketing budget and the future potential to sway Hollywood kingmakers.
The bookies favourite: Brave (11/10 from Paddy Power) – Same as above.
Personal favourite: ParaNorman is the best of a relatively mediocre bunch. Although not perfect, it is at least honest and makes an attempt (however small) to move the game on a bit.
Here they are:
The real winner: Paperman – Disney, clinical, love; the trifecta for voters. A flawed short that had millions thrown at it and the Disney machine in full force. Too much for voters to ignore.
The bookies favourite: Paperman (2/7 from Willian Hill) – See above.
Personal favourite: I have not seen all the shorts, but Fresh Guacamole by PES is the quintessential short film. A complete story told in a few minutes with lots of ingenuity and heart.
Obligatory Academy Awards Post Read More »
A good few week links for you today. Enjoy!
The A.V. Club has a fairly detailed interview with the actress with some discussion on her current role as Wendy in Gravity Falls.
While we’re on the subject of Gravity Falls, the good folks over at We Love Fine are running a contest where fans can vote for their favourite designs to appear on clothing. Such campaigns have been used by Adventure Time to great advantage and with Gravity Falls enjoying similar levels of cult popularity, hopefully the contest does well for them too.
Via The Laughing Squid comes this cute collection of photographs from French artist Lowra and her Paperchild Revolution collection; the entirety of which is well worth a peek 🙂
It’s no secret that I’m a fan of these tragically short shorts, but much props go to Brianne Drouhard for going over and above the call of duty in posting lots of fantastic art from the show just like the one above. Check out her blog for much much more!
Via Animated Review comes this photo of a piece by street artist Invader that should be instantly recogniseable despite its pixelated composition.
Last but certainly not least is this overview of the ParaNorman title sequence and an interview with Aaron Sorenson over on the Art of the Title site. A definite must read.
Finally this week is this awesome bit of art by German artist Dirk Shulz of the eminently famous Scrooge McDuck.
[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/starbolting/status/302806682231271425″]
[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/Giancarlo_Volpe/status/302908394606571520″]
[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/EddieWhiteJr/status/304169901906612224″]
[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/SheaFontana/status/304391206689992705″]
[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/miketrap/status/304996811645530113″]
Week Links 07-2013 Read More »
