Seth MacFarlane: Integrity Lost?

Animation, FOX /

Seth MacFarlane is a talented chap. That is a fact that is very hard to deny. From his roots working on Cartoon Network shows to his meteoric rise to superstardom, he’s worked hard at what he’s done and he at least deserves credit for what he’s achieved thus far.

Having said that, a recent post over on ToonBarn espouses how he’s lost his integrity as of late by way of debasing the original nature of his shows and by making much more overt his political and philosophical leanings in his shows. While the nature of his leanings isn’t necessarily in question in the ToonBarn post, the fact that MacFarlane is doing it to existing, beloved shows is.

That’s a tough claim to make, especially in light of the fact that they are his shows and he is free to take them in any direction he wishes. However, it does speak volumes about how he is allowed to run his shows.

Two examples can be used as a comparison. The first is The Simpsons and the second is Ren & Stimpy.

Looking at the first, it is tough to argue that Matt Groening has lost his integrity when it comes to the Simpsons. After all, he is still the nerdy underground comic artist he was then, the only difference is that he also created and is still involved with, two hit TV shows. All the same, it is impossible to win the argument that says the Simpsons as it currently stands is the same as it was in the mid-90s. Can Groening be blamed for this? Hardly, he was only a small piece in the larger puzzle that is the Simpsons organization.

How about Ren & Stimpy creator John K.? He stuck to his artistic guns and was eventually fired by Nickelodeon because of it. His integrity wasn’t in question then; a position that hasn’t changed since.

So where does that leave MacFarlane? He is undoubtedly the same person now as he was when Family Guy was first broadcast so it’s hard to say whether that is the case. His shows are all the same basic structure (family-based with two characters who shouldn’t talk but do anyway) and have stayed surprisingly close to their original premise compared to other hit shows.

Nope, MacFarlane as a person still has his integrity intact. What’s changed is the network he deals with, FOX.

Although it was well established when Family Guy was conceived, the FOX network was still only about 10 years old at the time and still a relative upstart compared to the same network of today. The spirit of underdog was still prevalent when Family Guy and cousin Futurama were ordered but the business conservationism that defined the other three networks was slowly creeping in, thus even though the shows were new and edgy, they didn’t really push that many boundaries.

Fast forward to today, and Family Guy has gone through a re-incarnation after fans rightfully demanded that it be brought back. The difference this time is that it’s now been on the air for over 10 years, a time frame that puts it in very rarefied company indeed, and will need to be replaced someday soon.

The only problem is that networks hate having to replace moneymaking shows because it means rolling the dice and potentially losing a lot of dough. Cue the cheaper solution of letting shows run as necessary but by giving the creators significant leeway to experiment. Thus we have Family Guy descend to a lower levels of audience intelligence in the never-ending pursuit of eyeballs.

FOX could step in at any time and stop the rot, but they haven’t, and it is on this fact that they are the ones who can be said to have lost their integrity. MacFarlane was always going to make the show that he saw fit and how Family Guy has progressed is simply evidence of that. In stark contrast, Nickelodeon saw falling standards and they did not hesitate to act. As a result both John K. and the show suffered in the short term but have ultimately gained in the long term as the high standards have stood the test of time

Seth MacFarlane: Integrity Lost? Read More »

Re-Aniamted GIFs by Matthew DiVito

Animation /

Coming by way of British magazine, Creative Review, is the work of Matthew DiVito, a motion graphics designer in Boston. In his free time he puts together some truly extraordinary animated GIFs that manage to push the boundaries when it comes to using the file format as a visual medium.

He has a tumblelog so you won’t miss the awesomeness ever again. As a bonus, check out some of his true animation work, check out his excellent reel below:

 

Re-Aniamted GIFs by Matthew DiVito Read More »

A Review of Zombie Simpsons by The Dead Homer Society

Animation, Review, The Simpsons /

Image (naturally) yoinked from The Dead Homer Society

A couple of years ago (and the exact circumstances escape me), I stumbled across the Dead Homer Society and have bee a loyal reader ever since. It’s not uncommon for websites and blogs to sprout up to save a beloved series, but it’s quite rare to see one dedicated to completely and totally ending a current, beloved, popular and iconic TV show. That however, is the stated purpose of the DHS, whose manifesto proclaims:

Dead Homer Society was formed for two reasons:

1) To create an on-line home for Simpsons fans who outright despise most, if not all, of the double-digit seasons but revere the old ones the way religious types do their stupid books.

2) To create a central place for people who want to see the show finally taken off the air.

So no beating about the bush there. Although the site continues to dissect episodes both old and new, it has also been a great source of analysis as to how and why the show went downhill. Cue the latest piece of literature from the DHS: Zombie Simpsons: How the Best Show Ever Became the Broadcasting Undead.

Although it’s not of biblical length, Charlie Sweatpants has managed to squeeze in a ton of information and analysis into this pseudo post series/ebook. Personally, I always laid the blame for the show’s decline on their move into more outlandish and cartoonish plots without regard for the characters. After reading Zombie Simpsons though, I can safely say that there was much, much more to the decline than that.

Broken down into chapters for your convenience, Zombie Simpsons begins with a look at why it’s a topic that needs to be discussed and why the fall from grace is so gut-wrenching to behold. From the deathly bland nature of the three major networks in the 1980s that gave the upstart FOX network an excuse to be different to the frustration of the viewing audience, we see that The Simpsons was not so much a product of insane brilliance as it was in the right place at the right time.

Moving on, we delve into the inner forces at work behind the TV screen. Deaths, writer changes and ultimately the shift within the FOX network itself from scrappy young fighter to established player have all played a part in how The Simpsons have changed over the years. Zombie Simpsons does a fine job of spelling out how the slide was gradual and ultimately, inevitable.

On top of that, there’s a comprehensive appendix that deals with such trivial things like production and broadcast numbers and some not-so-trivial things such as the often misplaced blame on Mike Scully.

A fine text in itself, it is well worth taking the time to read and ruminate on. It is highly likely that we will never see something the likes of the Simpsons again so as horrible as it is to read about the fall of an icon, it is essential if we are to appreciate the golden years even more.

A Review of Zombie Simpsons by The Dead Homer Society Read More »

A Felix Fine Art Find!

1 Comment / Animation /

It’s always fun to keep any eye out for animation-related stuff while you’re away from home and Key west, Florida is no exception. I’m down here for a wedding this weekend (not Pride week) and besides visiting the drinking hole of Ernest Hemingway and buying a new hat, there’s tons of art galleries all along Duval Street. One of which, The Pop Culture Vault, contained something I wasn’t aware existed:

Apparently it’s by Don Oriolo, son of Otto Messmer’s assistant, Joe Oriolo who creates them and he seems to be quite prolific.

Sadly they’re a wee bit above my price range but they’re nonetheless a pretty neat, unexepcted find 🙂

 

 

A Felix Fine Art Find! Read More »

The Annecy Siren Film: Matches

Animation /

The 2012 Annecy Film Festival is currently under way and the focus this year is on Irish animation. My twitter feed is currently jammed with tweets from folks either at, going to or complaining that they are not at, the festival. Nonetheless, it’s nice to see renowned animation school Gobelins tackle one of the more devastating aspects of life in Ireland over the last 40 years; that being the Troubles, in their siren film for the festival.

 

The Annecy Siren Film: Matches Read More »

Why I’m Sorry The Simpsons Don’t Age

3 Comments / Animation, The Simpsons /

The blog We Professional Liars has a great post on how The Simpsons and South Park deal with the progression of time within the respective universe of each show. The point is that The Simpsons remains stuck in 1990 whereas South Park ignores years and simply has the show take place ‘now’.

The post raises a good question that is often ignored in western animated TV shows; should the universe show the progression of time? Futurama is the only example that I can readily recall that actually progresses the year of the show (starting in 3000) but the characters and universe do not. Fry will always be a delivery boy, etc.

Should TV shows progress their universes? I think they should.

To explain myself: progressing shows creates an easy comparison for the viewer. We are aging and it is weird to see something that does not age. Live-action TV shows cannot avoid this and simply try to avert attention to it as much as possible; hence the kids in Saved by the Bell seemed to be in high school forever. In contrast, animated TV shows don’t have that problem. Bart and Lisa Simpson were 10 and 8 when the show debuted twenty three years ago and they still are today.

As to why I think character should age, it is simply a matter of story and content. By allowing characters to age. you can continually progress the kinds of plots that you can tackle. Think of Saved by the Bell; the themes gradually became more mature as the characters and actors aged. The doesn’t really happen in animated shows beyond the odd “crystal ball” episode.

In the case of the Simpsons, Bart and Lisa could have aged well into their teens by now, which could have allowed the show to progress plots into uncharted and more complex territory than it has had to contend with over the last 13 seasons or so. For example having Bart kicked out of school over and over again is one thing, but it’s always been the same school with the same principal. Imagine how things would have worked had it been a different school each time? Getting kicked out of secondary or high school presents a rather different set of challenges than the elementary school would.

Or how about love? Yes that old chestnut. The show has dealt with it a number of times (key examples include Bart and Laura Powers and Lisa and Nelson) but there isone episode that had a peek inside Lisa’s brain that shows her libido locked up, where it is informed that it wouldn’t get out until her teenage years. Just imagine what fun could have been had with that!

I don’t advocate the show advancing year for year just like us, but it would be nice to say that over 20+ years, the show has moved from being a relatively young family to being a relatively mature one. A nice series send-off could have been a college graduation or similar.

Would such practices have made the series better? That is uncertain, but they could have helped the series stay fresher than it currently is. If the audience is growing up and gradually losing interest, then that is a problem. OK, the Simpsons isn’t a kids show; it appeals to all ages, but that does not mean that the teenagers watching in the 90s are watching now. However kids in the 90s that saw the characters age roughly alongside them might be more inclined to retain interest.

The key point of all this is that the show’s rating would not be harmed provided it avoided descending into cliche territory and appealing only to that demographic. With the broad appeal of the golden era episodes, it’s safe to say that that would probably have not been a problem.

In addition, every show has a finite lifespan, no scripted show can go on forever. You can make them last, but eventually they will lose favour and be put out to pasture. The question is: do you ride the wave, or do you try to make a really great show all the way to the end. Most shows do the former, the latter is the road less travelled.

 

Why I’m Sorry The Simpsons Don’t Age Read More »

Epic: A New Low In Celebrity Voice Casting

2 Comments / Animation /

It’s a topic I’ve covered in the past, and one that continually grinds my gears in more ways than one. However none more so than the recent announcement of the cast for the upcoming FOX animated film, Epic. When I saw it, my heart almost sank.

Who picks these people? That’s what I want to know. Beyonce? OK, sure, she has some sort of vocal talent, for which there had better be some good songs coming out of this film. Pitbull on the other hand; how does he fit into the mix? I once read a tweet that described him as the guy who shows up in the middle of songs and starts rapping gibberish. How about Johnny Knoxville? The guy’s a decent actor for sure, but what about his voice? Can you picture anyone else shouting “I’m Johnny Knoxville and welcome to Jackass”? I can think of at least 5 personal friends that will give him a good run for the money. Throw in Colin Farrell, the guy from the Hunger Games and Steven Tyler among others and you have a very weird cast altogether.

Is this something that studios are losing sight of? Yes, a star can help sell a film, but it won’t make the film. Think of Delgo, it was a film that had an admittedly admirable B-list celebrity voice cast, but it was a terrible film that failed. Celebrities far from made that film into a success.

So why keep doing it? If Eddie Murphy costs $10 million, that’s $10 million that can’t be spent on (a lot of) animation. In addition, you have to earn double that at the box office to turn a profit. What studio wouldn’t want to get the same or similar film for a good deal less? Add in a couple of celebrities and we’re already talking double-digit percentages of the total cost. Will Eddie Murphy bring in $10 million more in box office gross? For something like a family film like Shrek, I would hope to doubt it, but then I do tend to overestimate the intelligence of people.

Another aspect of the practice is that celebrities are a brand onto themselves. By associating them with a film, a studio is essentially betting that their brand identity will be strong enough to boost sales. That may be OK if it were a company, but if you’re betting on a single person that could prove problematic, if say for example, that person ends up in rehab but you just cast them in a family film, and so forth.

Who si to blame? Studios are to be sure, but celebrities and their agents are the catalyst and someone in the casting department is getting hoodwinked.

I’m sure Epic will be an OK film, but with a cast like that, I can’t help but wonder whether the film will actually suffer instead of benefitting.

Epic: A New Low In Celebrity Voice Casting Read More »

Three Great ‘Art of’ Books

Animation, Book /

‘Art Of’ books have become quite popular over the last number of years and it seems that they have become an established part of movie merchandise for all movies, not just the animated ones where they began.

The content of art of books tends to vary quite a bit. Some are truly fantastic windows into the creative processes behind a film, while others, such as the one for Laika’s film, Coraline, seeme to be slapped together at the last minute in an attempt to placate the movie going public.

The three I’ve chosen for this list are far from that insofar as they represent the best kind of ‘art of’ books in their own way. One is for a western film, one is for an eastern film and one is for a TV series. Together they take quite different approaches but all serve the same purpose, that is, to show how filmmakers created the worlds and characters that we all love.

Note: All the images come from the excellent and highly recommended Parka Blogs website where you can find comprehensive reviews of each books in addition to links to Amazon for purchase.

The Art Of The Incredibles

This was the first book of its kind that I came across, and it is not hard to see why it remains one of my favourites. Drawing heavily on the look of the film, The Art Of The Incredibles contains a good mixture of character, layout and background art. There are plenty of sketches and concepts which convey the many iterations of design that some of the characters went through before final design.

However, it is the landscapes and backgrounds that deserve the highest praise. All the main sets and locations are shown in detail, with plenty of information on how the look of the film was heavily inspired by the 1950s and 60s. As a special bonus, a fold-out in the middle contains the entire colour script!

The Art Of The Incredibles is bursting with art from cover to cover and ensures its place in this list with plenty that cannot be seen anywhere else.

The Art of Spirited Away

While this may appear to be a similar book, it does in fact take a very different approach. All the characters, backgrounds and layouts are there to be sure, but this book covers a Miyazaki film! Instead of the lush, flawless art of the book discussed above, The Art of Spirited Away is chock full of sketches, watercolours in addition to finished art.

The book compliments Miyazaki’s art style in a way that conveys the individual effort that went into the film; read: thousands of hand-drawn cels. Unlike other books, the emphasis is on the art moreso than the film or how it developed. In deferrance to other books, there is also a comprehensive looks at how the film utilised digital technology to enhance the tradtional processes; a throughly educational and enjoyable read.

Pure art from start to finish, The Art of Spirited Away represents almost the antihesis of The Art of The Incredibles.

The Art of Avatar: The Last Airbender

Lastly, we come to an ‘art of’ book made for a TV series. Something of a rarity, the book came about only because there was a theatrical, live-action film made of the series. Apparently the art in that didn’t warrant its own tome, so we have this one to read instead.

The Art of Avatar: The Last Airbender takes yet another road to artistic gratification. It methodically goes through the main characters in the series before going into each episode in detail before finally ending with the many ancilliary pieces of art that go into things like video games and promo posters.

Naturally as a series, this book can’t afford to go into nearly as much detail with each episode as you would for each scene in a film. Nonetheless, it admirably covers scenes, props and characters in each episode over the three seasons and provides as much information as possible about them. As you might expect, everything is still a bit brief, but that is only because the series could easily fill three books or more with the volume of art created for the series.

From cover to cover, The Art of Avatar is a superb companion to a great show that provides a wonderful overview of how the creators came up with a universe quite unlike anything we’ve seen on TV before or since.

And there you have it, three very different yet equally fulfilling ways to express all the wonderful art that goes into animated productions.

Three Great ‘Art of’ Books Read More »

Will Motion-Capture Take Over?

1 Comment / Animation /

One of the things that is easy to lose sight of is the fact that technology and techniques are constantly developing and improving. At the beginning, animation went from paper to cels to colour to multi-plane. Even the drawing aspects of the process changed, with inkers disappearing as the xerox process eliminated the need for them. With the arrival of the digital revolution, everybody who worked on paper was suddenly under threat as the computer meant an entire production could be done without felling a single tree (at least theoretically).

So how will animation technology continue to develop over the next decade or two? Here’s a theory.

The first thing to consider is that the cost of computers relative to power will continue to fall at a fairly rapid pace. Bear in mind that modern smartphones are more powerful than supercomputers were not 20-25 years ago, so in another 20 years we should be carrying around devices that are as powerful as perhaps a whole data center is today. By that extension, the processing power employed by studios or even regular desktops will, in all likelihood, allow for real-time animation on par with what Pixar puts out today.

So if real-time animation is possible within the next decade or so, who stands to gain the most from it? Traditional animation (in the real sense) depends on an animator creating the movement. Right now that is normally done at a level of detail that is well below the finished product, with layers of detail added after the movement is completed before everything is rendered. Real-time animation will at least allow an animator to see how their work will appear as it will in the final stages of design. DreamWorks is already moving in this direction but they still have a lag for rendering. That will disappear in due course.

But what about the other aspect to real-time animation? Traditional proceses will benefit, that is certain, but what if costs, budgets and public demand pushes things in the other direction, towards motion-capture?

Think about it for a second. Shows such as King of the Hill, The Simpsons, Futurama and others contain plenty of movements that are normal for any human. Mo-cap would allow studios to dramatically cut costs if they can utilise cheap actors in suits to do these movements and save the costly animation for the parts that actually require it. It’s a hybrid model of sorts as the efficiencies of both techniques are extracted. Once you throw in the real-time abilities on top of that, you’ll have the ability to churn out a TV show in dramatically less time than today.

Combined with the shift towards online viewing and web series, the opportunity to serve up animated shows (and potentially movies) in much less time and cost than they are now will be almost too tempting for studios and networks to pass up. Expect to see motion-capture becoming more and more commonplace in animated programming, and remember, they don’t have to be human either. Mo-cap is equally applicable to other anthropomorphic characters with a bit of tweaking on the part of the animation team.

Why theorise on all this? Animation remains a successful industry with more variety now than at any point in the past. Employment is good (although wages could be better) and the quality is continuing to improve at a rapid pace. The reason is simple. Technology and its associated changes don’t wait for anyone. Think of all the inkers who got the floor taken out from under them thanks to the xerox process. Animation as a skill will not go away, but the way in which it is conducted will change. Mo-cap is likely to become much more prevalent, especially once the uncanny-valleyness of it is figured out, which it will.

Are you in a position to adapt? How can you ensure that audiences won’t accept mo-cap once is becomes good enough or commonplace enough that they can’t tell the difference between it and traditional animation? I’m sure these are all questions that the Animation Guild has already thought about as they make a push into the VFX sphere, which is what studios are more likely to consider folks utilising mo-cap rather than animators, which is what they sort of are.

Anyway, just something to think about today. Have you any thoughts on such a potential future for animation? Share them in the comments below!

Will Motion-Capture Take Over? Read More »

When Cartoon Network Shoots Themselves in The Foot

3 Comments / Animation, Cartoon Network /

Although this was posted on r/AdventureTime today, I had to go and check it out for myself just to be sure. Here’s my actual screenshot (click to embiggen):

 

Nice isn’t it? Instead of a full episode of Adventure Time (or any other series), I’m greeted with a nice reminder that I don’t, in fact, have cable or satellite.

While I heartily laugh at the subtle suggestion that I start forking out and arm and/or leg for channels with more commercials than content, this screenshot nonetheless represents Cartoon Network shooting themselves in the foot and taking aim at Adventure Time fans too.

Why? The answer is simple. By restricting online streaming of full episodes, guess what that does? It not only inconveniences fans who want to catch up on the latest episode, it also directly prevents new fans of the series from increasing their enjoyment of the show. Surely the whole point of entertainment is to get as many eyeballs on it as you can, right?

Turner Broadcasting seems to think differently however, and would rather cut off fans both old and new from their favourite show, by extension reducing the audience and the market for any merchandise.

Now that is not to say that the show will disappear, even the post on reddit is called “This is why I torrent” alluding to the fact that the show really is that good. The downside for Turner and Cartoon Network is that any fan who moseys on over the torrents is a lost fan, one whose interest (and potentially money) is directed away from their operations.

If I were studio chief, I would have serious misgivings about seeing fans go elsewhere for the sake of ensuring that only paid-up subscribers see the legitimate stream.

When Cartoon Network Shoots Themselves in The Foot Read More »