Animation

Someone Will Hack Into An Animation Studio And Steal This

1 Comment / Analysis /
Orlando Sentinal Disney Vault
Unfortunately the Disney Vault is not the kind of security this post is about.

It’s not really something we tend to think about until a story pops up in the news, but IT security is a big issue nowadays with every kind of company exposed to differing levels of risk. Animation studios are no different; they are businesses after all. So what will happen when someone decides to hack into an animation studio and what exactly will they decide to steal? Here’s an idea.

The Reasons for Stealing

First off, it’s necessary to accurately describe what is being discussed. Contemporary hacking varies quite a lot depending on the nature of it as well as what the target is. The kind of large-scale, mass break-ins popularised by Hollywood and The Matrix are few and far between. Variants of the “smash and grab” as well as defacing attacks are more common but relatively harmless in the grand scheme of things.

So what am I talking about? Well it’s the kind of sophisticated hacking that contributed to the collapse of Nortel; that is, the kind that no-one even notices until it is too late.

The reasons why are simple:

  • Software is expensive
  • modern animation itself is expensive
  • everyone (and hence their data) uses the internet
  • the vast majority of animation is really just files on a computer
  • time is becoming an ever important factor in production schedules

The Motivation To Steal

It’s easy to speculate on why people steal but it’s often quite difficult to get down to the reasons why they are motivated to steal. Traditionally, animation studios were subject to [serious] theft of only two things: ideas and people. The former was perhaps most clearly evident when both Pixar and DreamWorks released films whose characters were ants (A Big’s Life and Antz). The latter came to light when Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed not to poach each other’s employees (resulting in an anti-trust lawsuit.)

With the growing complexity of animation (and hence, the growing cost) there will be those with a looser moral compass out there who will gladly exploit weaknesses in a competitor’s security. Again, I don’t mean that they will make such exploits known. The truly nefarious will gain access to a studio’s network, and gladly remain there out of site, quietly siphoning off whatever they feel they can get away with. Such activity offers the potential to steal far more than just animation files and data, but also information.

Information can, in fact, be far more valuable than any animation. Look at how it worked for DreamWorks with Antz; essentially giving them a leg-up with their CGI ventures. Imagine how valuable details on multiple films would be to a rival studio? Priceless is my guess.

What Will Be Stolen

So what will be stolen? Theoretically, any computer file stored or transmitted over a network is a target. In reality though, it will depend on who is doing the stealing. A small studio is more likely to go after files (rigs, backgrounds, etc.) A larger studio will be far more interested in ideas, concepts, etc. Studios fancying themselves as rivals to Disney would be thrilled to get a really close look at how Frozen is going.

Imagine if they could get as good a view as Disney employees get? Imagine they got a good look and managed to knock out a similar picture before Disney? All those knock-offs we see these days seem to be making money for somebody, just think how much they could make if they get there’s out first?

Basically, if it is on or transmitted over a computer network (or the internet), it IS a target. This isn’t fear-mongering, it’s a fact, and the more sober you are about it, the safer you will be.

Who It Will Be Stolen From

I mention Disney and DreamWorks as simple examples. The reality is that they already have well developed IT departments. More likely targets are smaller studios and independent animators. They simply do not have the budget to maintain a full IT department let alone one with a dedicated security division. They are ripe for targeting as many do work on projects for the big boys, and as such, can be just as valuable to the dedicated  criminal.

Conclusion

Long gone are the days when if you wanted to steal something of value from an animated studio, you had to physically break into the place. Nowadays, you don’t even need to be in the same country to do it. Security is something that most people only play lip-service to until it is too late. Don’t let that be you.

The US government’s Computer Security Resource Center has plenty of guides to help.

Someone Will Hack Into An Animation Studio And Steal This Read More »

Cyanide And Happiness Opt Out of Old Model For Animated Show

7 Comments / Business Models /
Via: Cyanide & Happiness
Via: Cyanide and Happiness

For those not familiar with Cyanide and Happiness, it’s a webcomic that often focus on black comedy and sardonic humour with a distinct hint of questionable morals. The series is a collaborative effort and has become one of the most successful webcomics since its launch in 2004. As with many creative properties of this nature, a move beyond the static world of comics and into the dynamic world of animation is a natural one that has been on the cards for some time. The difference is how the creators approached it and what they learned from the process.

The Traditional Route

Initially, the creators (Kris Wilson, Rob DenBleyker, Matt Melvin and Dave McElfatrick) ventured down the traditional avenue for developing an animated project: they talked to some TV networks. This tried and trusted method has been used by countless people since creator driven shows came back into vogue just over 20 years ago. As a result, this seemed like a sensible option. As Rob outlays:

…it feels kinda natural for us to get back into animation, because we all started out as amateur animators when we were kids. Because of that, over the years we’ve built up a wealth of ideas that don’t really work as comics; they need to be animated.

However, what the group discovered as they jumped through the many negotiation hoops was that the way networks operate and how the web operates are entirely different. As Kris explains:

We walked away from the first two due to rights and creative control issues.

As you may be aware, when a network acquires the show, they assume control over it. The vast majority of the time, they will hire the creator to ensure that his or her vision makes it to the screen. This arrangement benefits both parties and almost always passes without incident. However, anyone who is familiar with the saga of Ren & Stimpy and John Kricfalusi will know that creators are merely an employee on their own show and can be removed by the network for almost any reason.

The C&H guys weren’t too comfortable with this. They inhabit a realm (the internet) where the creators have complete and total control over what they create (although not necessarily how it received or distributed.) Not liking the idea of losing control, they have started to look at alternatives to this traditional route.

The Alternative Route

As with many similar projects over the last year or so, haute couture site Kickstarter is mentioned as the likely platform from which they will launch the alternative series. Although that aspect is an indicator, it is what they hope to actually produce:

We’ll be using Kickstarter to raise money for production. We firmly believe the entertainment industry is changing, and the Internet will eventually become the only way people watch shows.

This route will involve raising funds, deciding on what exactly to produce (length, no. of episodes, etc.) no details of which are available yet. Nonetheless the move represents only the latest in a wave of properties that have become popular on the internet and have shown a reluctance to relinquish some of the freedoms that the platform offers.

Via: Cyanide & Happiness
Via: Cyanide and Happiness

Why Their Decision is Significant

While it is tempting to brush off the C&H decision as merely the latest in a long line of internet phenomenons whose creators are unwilling to bend to the demands of traditional business models, that isn’t the case. The decision to go the alternative route was not rushed by any stretch of the imagination. Rob:

The four of us traveled to LA twice, and spent many more days in phone calls with over a dozen networks. A few of the discussions got pretty involved, lasting months and even years.

And Kris:

…we’ve been negotiating a Cyanide and Happiness TV show with a cable network for a while now. What you guys may not know is that this is actually the latest of three TV show talks we’ve been in. We walked away from the first two due to rights and creative control issues. We thought that we could settle those issues in the third deal, but things didn’t quite work out as we hoped.

Today, we are letting you all know that we’ve officially walked away from this TV deal as well, for similar reasons as the first two.

Oftentimes web success stories receive a bit of a drubbing for their propensity to misunderstand traditional models, but not the C&H guys. To their credit, they understand where the networks are coming from:

Every single one of these deals, after much back and forth, eventually came down to the same basic problem: Television networks don’t want to take much risk when it comes to new shows. Nor should they have to. It’s entirely their investment; we’re just the writers. This manifests itself in a lot of scary ways when you read a typical TV contract. Stuff like giving up the rights to existing characters in order to feature them in the show, no final say on what gets removed or changed, even potentially being fired as writers from our own show. Not to mention the fact that good shows get cancelled all the time.

What is interesting though, and something that they picked up on while undertaking the entire adventure, is that they realised that what the networks were attempting to produce and what the C&H guys felt they needed to produce were too entirely different things:

As Rob notes, TV networks undertake a significant amount of risk when it comes to a TV show. They must invest a lot of time, money and resources and the payoff will not become known until vast amounts of all three have been spent. In a capitalistic society, risks like those are generally undertaken with the acknowledgement that whatever rewards (or pitfalls) that are to be had belong to the person or entity undertaking the risk.

That’s a fair arrangement that has underpinned the nature of business in free economies since day dot. The C&H guys simply discovered the entertainment version and what it entails, read: giving up the rights to your creation.

What makes their decision significant is that they also realised that they don’t need a traditional network to get an animated Cyanide and Happiness series off the ground (Kris):

We’re starting to realize that TV as an industry just isn’t compatible with what we want to do with our animation: deliver it conveniently to a global audience, something we’ve been doing all along with our comics these past eight years. That’s just the nature of television versus the Internet, I suppose.

Why You Should Pay Attention

The developments that are about to happen would be significant anyway, but you should pay particular attention to them for the following reasons:

This WILL Set the Pattern For Future Projects

Plenty of people have run successful [animated] Kickstarter projects. Plenty of people have created successful animated web series. However, we are about to see how someone can successfully leverage a successful existing property into a Kickstarter project into a web series.

What the C&H decision will do is cement the pattern for creators wishing to create their own animated series. Plenty of animators are trying their hand but few consider the following:

  • the need to be a goal-oriented creator
  • the need for a fanbase to build with
  • the knowledge that a demand for an animated series exists
  • the huge amounts of energy needed to create a series

With a successful campaign and series, expect many to mimic Cyanide and Happiness. My money is on creators needing to (not having to, needing to) develop a fanbase prior to attempting an animated series. Even those that have pulled off an entirely new series, such as Cartoon Hangover’s Bravest Warriors have not been shy about leveraging any connection to an existing, successful property and its fanbase (in this case, Pen Ward and Adventure Time.)

Fans

Networks have been clever at leveraging fanbases to drive ratings and merchandise sales but when it comes down to it, few actually respect them. Consider delays in getting DVD boxsets out, issuing takedowns to fan creations and actively blocking access to online streaming. Yup, networks love fans, but only for their money.

In contrast, the Cyanide and Happiness guys practically love their fans. As Kris explains:

We firmly believe the entertainment industry is changing, and the Internet will eventually become the only way people watch shows. Especially the people that make up our awesome fanbase. The Internet is already the largest network, available when you think about it. Why go anywhere else?…..The prospect of doing an uncensored, unaltered Cyanide and Happiness Show and giving it directly to the fans is an incredible opportunity. We’re really excited to see how far we can take things.

Look at that! They actually considered their fans in their decisions. They anticipated that if all their fans are already on the internet, why go to TV just because?

That represents the other facet to the emerging internet generation: the desire not to alienate the very fans that support them. Take heed, because fandoms created on the internet have been known to desert their favourite things when they feel they are being unnecessarily trodden upon. Digg is (and should be) the poster child for this.

Audiences

Lastly there is the audience itself. It’s widely acknowledged that they are moving not so much online as they are acquiring content from the internet. The television set remains the dominant screen when it comes to consumer’s entertainment source but how the content gets to that screen is changing.

Services like Netflix, Amazon, Boxee and others are shifting audiences away from a schedule-based viewing regime to an on-demand one that conforms to consumer’s unique schedules. A Cyanide and Happiness show broadcast on a cable network may have had the potential to reach millions, but if the show’s fans mainly congregate online whenever they choose, it is quite unlikely that they will switch to tuning in at a particular time.

The decision to remain online serves the needs of the C&H audience and won’t hinder the show’s ability to reach new fans either, seeing as the people most likely to start watching are already online. Sooner or later, those new viewers that reside on the fringes will be brought into the fold.

What this proves is that it is foolish to chase after an audience you only think you need. This consideration of the audience beyond the fanbase will dictate how and where new web series’ emerge and proliferate. This is the biggest one to keep and eye on because it is, as of 2013, the only one that does not have a recognised strategy behind it.

Cyanide And Happiness Opt Out of Old Model For Animated Show Read More »

Treasure Planet And the Failure To Advance Creatively

4 Comments / Analysis /
Via: Disney Screencaps
Via: Disney Screencaps

Last weekend I decided to watch the film Treasure Planet. I hadn’t seen it before being, well, outside the target audience when it was released back in 2002. I started on Saturday evening and, well, had to give up after just under an hour. I made sure to finish it the following morning, but I couldn’t help but notice that the film proves what can happen when you rest on your creative laurels.

The Film’s Faults

As far as I was concerned, Treasure Planet is caught between a rock and a hard place. It came well after the storied Disney Renaissance of the late 80s and early 90s and was also made 7 years after Toy Story brought the storytelling bar to a whole new level of sophistication.

The Visuals

The visuals are stunning, but it was far too obvious that CG was in use everywhere, even where it wasn’t necessary. OK, I get it, you can use CG in a traditionally animated film, but the use was gratuitous in far too many circumstances and does nothing to advance the plot or improve the viewing experience. This is the film’s more egregious error; eye candy for the sake of eye candy. Yes, Beauty and the Beast did the same with the ballroom scene, but at least that had never been done before. By 2002, Disney films had a legacy of being visually stunning but always within the reason that it added to the viewing experience. In the case of Treasure Planet, having a CG prop fall of the table does not add to the viewing experience. In other words, CG was nothing new and couldn’t be relied upon to sustain an audience’s attention on its own. Miyazaki does it right; CG so subtle, you never notice it.

The Story

The plot of the film is nothing remarkable save for the fact that it places Jules Verne’s Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island in space. As mentioned above though, Pixar had already exhibited a knack for creating superb stories from elemental parts and proved that a complicated and outwardly sophisticated story isn’t necessary to make a great film. Treasure Planet follows in the footsteps of previous Disney films, but by 2002, audiences were being wowed by a different style of story emanating from Emeryville that has persisted ever since.

The Songs

Let’s just say that Disney’s hit songs were missing from their films long before Treasure Planet was released.

The Characters

This, at least for me, was the most disappointing aspect to Treasure Planet. TV Tropes identifies Treasure Planet as the film where Disney reacted to shifting market forces. Giving the characters a darker subtext (read: a dysfunctional family) was their way of becoming more identifiable with audiences. In addition to that, the remainder of the cast while complex in their own way, are never given a chance to shine; instead being slaves to a plot that dictates their roles. Case in point is Captain Amelia, who undoubtedly a strong female character (albeit with a very stiff upper lip), is nonetheless rendered useless in the latter part of the film. In a similar vein are Morph and B.E.N. who serve no purpose except as catalysts for the plot. All in all, the characters in Treasure Planet offer nothing exceptional outside of the film.

External Factors

The Competition

First and foremost, it has to be noted that by 2002, the feature animation landscape had changed, and by changed, I mean moved on. Pixar hadn’t so much shifted the goalposts as they had moved to another field entirely. Their storytelling combined with the CGI animation had won over audiences before Treasure Planet’s debut.

In a similar manner, DreamWorks’ Shrek gave audiences the send-up of Disney films that they never knew they needed. Suddenly animated films could be full-blown comedies rather than serious dramas.

Both these shifts leave Treasure Planet looking somewhat dated and belonging to another time, which undoubtedly it does.

Conclusion

Treasure Planet is far from a terrible film. Plenty of talented individuals worked on it for a long time and it is always disheartening to see an animated film fail to find success. However, the film proves in more ways than one that if you fail to progress creatively, someone else will rise up and overtake you.

Pixar has been quite successful are constantly upping their game, but even they are in danger of falling into tried and trusted routines (read: sequels) and stand to lose should someone else catch them unawares.

Treasure Planet should serve as a warning that even with everything going for it, a film that presumes success can, and most likely will, fail.

 

Treasure Planet And the Failure To Advance Creatively Read More »

The Most Underrated Man in Hollywood

Analysis /

Let’s not spoil the surprise just yet, but see if you can guess who the most underrated man in Hollywood is before the reveal.

His Achievements

This person’s list of achievements is long over the course of his career. He has received numerous Academy Awards and has risen to a prominent place within a large animation studio.

He has been instrumental in the development of technology that has played such a significant role in the history of animation that without it, things would be quite, nay, substantially different than what we know it as today.

In addition to these achievements, he is also known as a man with a clear vision of the future. He was quite literally decades ahead of his time and his vision for animated entertainment was proven exactly as he envisioned. Naturally, he was astute enough to place himself in roles that would serve this purpose and his arrival at certain companies at particular times was quite fortuitous for both parties.

Today, his technological achievements continue to find widespread use throughout the world, and the films that he helped create rank among the highest grossing animated films of all time.

Although well known within the animation community and afforded some recognition outside of it, this relatively quiet intellectual does not enjoy the same celebrity status that some of his contemporaries do. As such, while his achievements, creations and the films that they have enabled have become synonymous among the public with quality entertainment, this man remains somewhat of a mystery to many of ordinary folks who enjoy his films.

Can you guess who it is?

Yes, it is of course, Ed Catmull.

Via: Ieee.org
Via: Ieee.org

You probably know who he is, and you definitely know the studio he helped found (Pixar), but his 34 credits on IMDB enormously belie his contributions to contemporary animated films and even to the wider movie industry itself.

Why He Deserves the Title

His Influence is Felt Everywhere

As one of many people behind Pixar, Catmull could be construed as being one of the backroom boys, but this is far from the case. While John Lasseter and others were forging ahead on the creative side, Catmull was heading up the technical side that was making the films possible.

That alone would make him noteworthy if it were not for the fact that he was instrumental in seeing how the technology he was developing could be applied to entertainment. That action puts him right up alongside Walt Disney in his forward thinking. Heck, he was mulling CG animated films in the 1970s, but had to wait until technology advanced enough to make it economical and until he found someone willing to give him the resources necessary to experiment. That person was George Lucas, who was apparently (thankfully) blind to the fact that a rogue computer animator was running around at Industrial Light and Magic.

Although initially Catmull’s software was only suitable for purely animated films, it has since found its way into special FX and today, CG FX often form so much of a film’s on-screen visuals, that they are considered fully animated.

Today, CGI animated films are prevalent. They dominate the American box office and have proliferated into TV shows too. At one point, they were considered to be the sole future for animation with result being that Disney shut down the traditional animation department that made them famous.

His Foresight Rivals His Patience

Although Catmull knew where CG technology would eventually go and what it could potentially achieve, he showed enormous patience as he wound his way through various universities and ILM before Pixar was spun off in 1985. Even then, his goals were not within arms reach. It took a few more years before Tin Toy debuted and showed that computers could make high quality animation.

Catmull’s goal ramained a few years away though. Finally, Toy Story was put into production and became the world’s first entirely CGI-animated film. This was Catmull’s ultimate goal and he only had to wait, what, nearly 20 years for it to reach fruition? That’s a heck of a lot of patience that most people in entertainment could stand to learn from.

His Passion For The Animated Technique, Not Just the Technology

It may be surprising to learn that Ed Catmull has a passion for all animation, not just the CGI stuff he helped develop, but also the traditional stuff too. In fact, when installed as the president of Walt Disney Feature Animation, in conjunction with John Lasseter, he was instrumental in getting traditional features going again at a time when many thought the technique was a dead as silent films.

Why He’s Underrated

As mentioned way up at the top, Catmull resides much more out of the limelight compared to his more publicity-friendly compadres like John Lasseter, Pete Doctor, Andrew Stanton, etc. Many people acknowledge his contribution to what Pixar became, but few seem to acknowledge the wider contributions to animated films and animation in general. Yes, he was not alone in this work, but he is the single link between otherwise disparate people and studios.

Ed Catmull’s grand contribution to modern film should not be overlooked, and that’s why he’s the most underrated man in Hollywood.

The Most Underrated Man in Hollywood Read More »

Are You Thinking Globally?

Questions /
Totally Spies
Totally Spies
Via: Fanpop
An example of the opposite of today’s post: a foreign cartoon created with American culture in mind.

A silly question perhaps, but a serious one. If you’re reading this in the United States, then congratulations! You’ve already achieved something that a lot of people in other countries would give their right arm for. Another question: how often do you think about those countries outside American borders? In other words: are you thinking globally?

Why Does This Even Matter?

The reason I pose this question is that animation, as an industry is global. Unlike, say, teaching Polish, there is an animation presence in almost every country. It may be very large or it may be very small, but I guarantee you that someone somewhere in every country, they are practicing animation in some form.

Why should you, as someone in the US care about this? Well, we’re just about at the stage where US films and TV shows are taking in a significant proportion (more than half in some cases) of their revenue from outside the country. That in itself is an important fact. (Ever wonder why a show like Heroes went on as long as it did? It was partly because its popularity abroad was bringing in profits for NBC.)

What Does It Have To Do With Animation

Large-scale animation (read: Disney, DreamWorks, etc.) have to make their content suitable for foreign audiences. They have no choice in the matter any more. American audiences have shrunk to the point where they cannot sustain most blockbuster-sized films on their own. So, naturally, studios look abroad for the necessary box office and home media monies to make up the rest of the profits.

The same goes for TV shows, although with smaller budgets, selling them abroad simply increases revenues for the studio. The difference also plays through in that there is also a significant amount of animated TV shows that are imported into the US. The one shown at top is a prime example.

So Why Should I Start Thinking Globally?

Ah, a good question indeed. Just why should you think and know about all this? Well, it’s because whether or not you are involved in the creation or selling of animated products, the fact of the matter is that the internet makes international barriers non-existent.

How many hurdles do you think you’d have to go through using the traditional channels to get your content shown in another country? Besides finding a distributor, negotiating with them and then finding someone to broadcast it, that takes a heck of a lot of time and money.

With the internet, you can throw the content up yourself and immediately have an audience from around the world. It would be like me trying to get a newsletter published in multiple countries around the world for my readers. It simply isn’t feasible, but, with a blog (and the internet), I can do it for next to nothing and have a platform that encourages interactivity.

The Other REALLY Important Thing

Yes, there is one other thing: the content itself. America is really a very insulated country in the cultural sense. Yes, it is great at exporting it’s culture abroad, but when it comes to letting others in, it’s,well, a bit selfish. That’s hardly a conscious act though; the country is huge, and there are a lot of people here.

The problem is that what may work well content-wise in America may not work so well abroad. Think of The Office, the classic BBC comedy that had (absolutely had) to be remade for US audiences despite sharing a common language. Why? Well when shown to network executives, they thought it was a real documentary, not a spoof.

Pixar is acutely aware of some of these cultural issues and they make a point of ensuring that text within a film (newspapers, etc.) are shown in the local language rather than English.

Why should this concern you? Again it comes back to the internet. Could you grow a substantial audience abroad if you only create something with American audiences in mind?

It’s not likely at this early stage in the game, but expect it to become just as much of an issue for new media creators as traditional ones. At a time when YouTube series’ budgets are hitting hundreds of thousands, earning that revenue back is going to be rough going if you depend on audiences in only one country.

Do you pay attention to foreign content? Do you create with foreign audiences in mind? Let us know in the comments!

Are You Thinking Globally? Read More »

Female Demographics Neglected By Animation

5 Comments / Analysis /
Daria Morgendorfer
This character should be a hint.

When we think of animation, or indeed any form of entertainment, there is a propensity to think of it only in terms of how it already exists. What I mean is that animation, for a staggeringly long time, was considered as belonging in the kids’ realm (I’m afraid I can’t source the famous “we’re the babysitter” quote that I thought was attributed to Wollie Reitherman.) and it’s only very recently that we’ve started to see it slowly away from that perception. What I’m curious about though, is are there female demographics neglected by animation at the moment, and if so, why?

Who IS Covered

First though, it’s important to look at who is currently covered:

  • Boys aged 0-12
  • Girls aged 0-12
  • Boys aged 16-29

Now before you get out the pitchforks, bear in mind that I’m talking specifically about animation that is aimed at a particular demo. Yes, The Simpsons can be, and is enjoyed by everyone; the same goes for Pixar films, but if you were to collar someone from the responsible marketing department and ask them nicely (or maybe rough them up) they will tell you that either animation is marketed with one demographic in mind.

Which demographic that is will depend heavily not only on who is expected to watch the show, but also who is expected to support it. Examples are pre-school and pre-teen shows. Neither has an audience with any meaningful disposable income but both possess parents who do!

So even though the pre-school show will appeal to kids, you find that it is specifically tailored to what parents desire in their kid’s entertainment. In the case of pre-school that is partly the reason why almost all of them contain a heavy emphasis on education over pure entertainment.

Moving up the age scale, kids aged 6-12 do get more of an emphasis on entertainment because their ability to sell their parents on supporting merchandise is much stronger and by the time they make it to the top, they are practically mini consumers; a.k.a. tweens.

Boys and young males aged 16 and above are adequately catered for through the likes of [adult swim], anime (if they are so inclined) and whatever other kinds of animated entertainment they can dig up for themselves.

Who is NOT Covered

Where things tend to fall apart is once the teenage years kick in. Based on what is currently out there, there is a glut for both genders around the 13-15 mark. That’s pretty natural though as kids get caught between a rock and a hard place in regards to content; too old for the younger stuff, too young for the older stuff. I don’t foresee this gap being narrowed substantially any time soon.

What is noticeable though is that while boys have options once they hit their mid-late teens, girls do not. In other words, boys are brought back into the animation fold through the likes of [adult swim] and anime (plenty of guns, violence and giant robots), girls don’t have anything (or very little) comparable to that at all.

Seriously. Close your eyes and think of a current, animated TV program (or animated film) that’s aimed specifically at mid-late teenage girls or those in their early 20s. I can easily name a dozen live-action shows but nothing animated even comes close to mind.

Again, this is not to say that girls in that age range can’t enjoy animated programming or films; a heck of a lot of them do, but a glance around the TV schedules and cinema listings reveals a glaring gap in animated programming tailored to them.

Oh, and as for Brave, well again, you’ll have to corner our marketing friend, but I would be greatly shocked if that was being tailored for anyone over the age of 13.

So could it be that girls are ‘dropping out’ of the animation scene in their teenage years because there is nothing to pick them up at the other side of the lull around 13-15? The signs currently point to yes, and there are many, many reasons behind it.

Standard arguments that get trotted out for this kind of thing is that there is no market for it, that girls genuinely have no interest in animated programming once they near adulthood and (most egregiously) that they simply enjoy the same content as guys. All are false. Audiences can only watch what they are given, so saying they don’t want to watch something that doesn’t exist is a load of hogwash.

What About Daria?

Ah yes, what about Daria. The MTV animated show could be said to aim precisely at the very audiences discussed in this post. It had a female lead(s) and tended to adhere to the social and moral quandaries that many teenagers face. The show also achieved all this while bridging the gender divide and appealing to all teenagers.

However, the show has long since departed from the airwaves and nary a replacement has been seen since. As of 2013, it regretfully resides in the nostalgia zone, where only those who originally watched it will seek it out in any meaningful numbers.

What Can Be Done

It’s a topic that’s been covered here on the blog before, but the bottom line is that there simply is not enough animated content being made for girls at all ages, prepubescent or otherwise. Even the comics industry has seen an increase in this kind of content with plenty of female comic artists and writers getting works out that is more likely to appeal to that kind of audience.

Animation retains a kind of stigma when it comes to this, and my guess is that no-one of the powers that be are willing to make the right move to get the shows that are needed, made and broadcast.

The simple answer is to make the content and make it well.

 

Female Demographics Neglected By Animation Read More »

A Venn Diagram of Animated Films

7 Comments / Analysis /

AA_Venn Diagram of Animated Films

Click to mammothly enlarge.

This Venn diagram of animated films represents three groups connected with an animated film (animators, fans and studio executives) and which film identifies with them in the most accurate way.

Do you agree or disagree with any of them? Leave a comment with your choices!

PS. Please feel free to share this around 🙂

A Venn Diagram of Animated Films Read More »

Does Cartoon Network Disrespect Its Old Shows?

16 Comments / Questions /
Via: randyadr on deviantArt/a>
Via: randyadr on deviantArt

See update below!

Cartoon Network really is the odd man out of the three US kids channels. Originally a division of Turner Broadcasting, it now operates as an arm of the vast Time Warner empire. However, despite this trait shared with Nickelodeon and Disney, Cartoon Network has shown an almost remarkable attitude to the content it has created over the years.

How The Original Series’ Popularity Fares Today

To start off right at the beginning, how are the very first batch of original cartoons treated today? Well, they’re still relatively popular among fans. Plenty of GIFs and screenshots can be found on social sites like Tumblr. Dexter’s Laboratory seems to be the current favourite, but Powerpuff Girls and Johnny Bravo can be found too.

How Newer Series’ Fare Today

After the original group of shows, a second wave of Cartoon Network originals hit the airwaves in and around 2001 and continuing thereafter. These shows varied as to their length; some lasting only two years but others, such as The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy made it all the way to 5 or more. This wave of shows brings us to around 2009-2010, at which point he current crop of shows took over and continue to this day.

These shows hold less nostalgia than those from the 90s, but they remain embedded in the consciousness of older fans.

How Cartoon Network Disrespects Both Types of Show

The signs have never been good for an animated show on Cartoon Network having much of a life off the small screen, or even after their original run has ended. Such a state of affairs has only very recently begun to change, which we’ll discuss further down.

Reruns (or rather lack of)

I never had the Cartoon Network until I came to the States, and it very quickly became apparent to me that current series are broadcast ad nauseum. Yup, when a series is “in production”, episodes will be broadcast non-stop with new ones appearing as necessary. I can safely say that I watched many episodes of Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends multiple times.

That said, once a show has ended, it all but disappears from the schedule. Ostensibly this is to make way for the new show that replaces it, but in reality, it only serves to accelerate a show’s move into the history books.

Once a show is old enough, it is likely to get shifted onto Boomerang, but the lag between vanishing on one network and appearing on another can be years. By which stage the original audience has all but evaporated.

Merchandise

This one was apparent even to me, as I tried in vain to find some nice Foster’s merchandise. At best, all I could find were some figurines and a [very] expensive ‘cel’ of the characters. Could I find a t-shirt? Nope. Could I find a poster? Nope. I was grateful there were even wallpapers I could download for my desktop. Believe me when I say that Foster’s was not alone in that regard. All the shows suffered the same glut of merchandise.

The sole exceptions have been the Powerpuff Girls, which rode the fad all the way until it was too late for the feature film to succeed, and Ben 10, which through some magical twist of fate, has had a first rate merchandise channel since day one. Other shows in the CN library have been mostly forgotten or regrettably left to the likes of Hot Topic to satisfy fan’s desires.

Home Media

Of the three areas that are under discussion in this post, the home media efforts of the Cartoon Network are the most appalling. Let me ask you some questions:

  • Can you buy Season 2 of Johnny Bravo on DVD?
  • How about a blu ray of Megas XLR?
  • Can you legally download any season of Camp Lazlo besides the first one?

If you answered yes to any other those questions, you’re either a liar or you’ve mistaken your sources as being legitimate.

Yes, Cartoon Network is in the undeniably unenviable position of having a pretty shite record when it comes to its home media releases. That’s not to say they doesn’t release anything, they do. However, while the initial effort (read: season one) is decent, things quickly come unhinged (for reasons unknown) and subsequent seasons fail to appear.

It’s really quite sad that I can choose almost any of Cartoon Network’s shows and say that season one is available but nothing else is. In the case of a show like Ed, Edd and Eddy, it might be permissible since that show ran for six seasons over 10 years, and that’s a huge cost hurdle right there. But in the case of say, Chowder, which ran for 49 episodes over three seasons, it’s kinda unforgivable that all the fans have are a two DVDs with 5 episodes each.) It’s why I gave up buying Cartoon Network DVDs for the most part, my collections would never, ever be complete.

The one and only consolation throughout all of this was the mammoth boxset that the Powerpuff Girls were afforded on that show’s 10 year anniversary in 2008. It’s a fine set, but did nothing for the fans out there who had already purchased the initial boxset releases that were never completed.

To add further insult to injury, nothing from the libarary of shows is available on the likes of Netflix or Amazon Prime; a situation that Nickelodeon is currently cleaning house with its older shows.

Need Further Proof?

What prompted today’s post in the first place was one by the animated svengali that is Mr. Warburton. Tom was posting pictures of the special book that Cartoon Network put together for its 20th anniversary and featuring original artwork inspired by its shows. It’s a nice book and you should hit up the link to see the pictures, however Tom noticed something was terribly amiss, his show!

Codename: Kids Next Door ran on Cartoon Network for a not inconsequential six seasons and 78 episodes from 2002 to 2008 and yet was completely absent from a book celebrating such shows! Tom also noted that Ed, Edd ‘n’ Eddy were similarly absent.

What does that say about how a network treats its shows? If it’s willing to sideline them entirely for its official history then it can’t think very highly of them can it?

The current methods are almost certain to continue, at least for the older shows. Newer ones like Adventure Time and Regular Show seem to have spurred the network to take its properties more seriously. DVDs of both shows are available (although only the former as a season boxset) and both can be streamed through Amazon up to the current season. Both shows have also seen much more (and higher quality) merchandise than previous shows, Adventure Time in particular.

Not all shows are treated equally though, with a lot of the criticism over the cancellation of Symbionic Titan levelled at a lack of available merchandise.

All of this is rather depressing from both a fan and a business standpoint. Cartoon Network shows are popular, but it seems that the dunderheads withing the Time Warner corporate monolith are determined that they should be treated like unwanted children once they’ve fulfilled their initial runs.

Do think Cartoon Network have done a poor job of handling their shows? Let us know in the comments!

UPDATE: It would appear that Cartoon Network has started to see the error of their ways. From March 2013, a whole host of content (both new and old) will be available on Netflix. The deal also includes a load of Warner Bros. content although no details are available at the time of writing.

This is most certainly a great positive step in the right direction for the network. Hopefully it’s not the only one.

Does Cartoon Network Disrespect Its Old Shows? Read More »

Only 14 Months Late, ‘A Monster in Paris’ Finally Reaches America

4 Comments / Business Models /
Amazon_A Monster in Paris BR cover
Via: Amazon.com

You may or may not be familiar with A Monster in Paris. It’s an animated film produced by Luc Besson that never seemed to make it to American shores despite a limited release in Canada (and a proper English dub too.) It was first mentioned on this blog nearly two years ago, and Irish animater Nichola Kehoe was exceedingly generous in providing a guest review when the film was released there in February 2012. Now, fourteen months after its premiere, A Monster in Paris finally gets an official US release.

The Facts

With thanks to Mike Bastoli over at Big Screen Animation, we learn that the film gets its release through the good people at Shout! Factory. They’re not being picky either, with both a 3-D Blu-Ray/DVD/digital copy combo pack and a plain ol’ vanilla DVD being your choices come April 16th.

I’m excited for this film, and have been ever since the I saw the trailer above (and even more so since Katie Shanahan,  a.k.a. Kt Shy gushed about it after a Toronto screening). It looks fantastic and Luc Besson being the experienced director that he is, the story is sure to be at least competent in concept as well as execution.

Why The Heck Did it Take 14 Months?

Unfortunately, the film did not do great business at the box office despite being a hit with the critics (isn’t that always the case). Yours truly was even admonished by Digital Domain founder Scott Ross for suggesting the film was a model to follow. (It lost ~$10 million.)

In any case, no US partner was involved in the production. This alone would have made getting into that market a lot tougher. Yes, GKids has been known to take on independent foreign films with success. Why they did not do so in this case remains unknown, but their 2012 slate was quite a full one so it’s a possibility that A Monster in Paris simply didn’t get the luck of the draw.

Without a theatrical release, DVD sales are a steep uphill battle (no pre-existing public exposure). Shout! have a bit of a knack for precisely this kind of thing though (they released, and I have, DVD boxsets for the DIC series Sonic Undergound if that’s any indication). Discussions take a while and so finally, more than 14 months after its premiere, we’ll finally be able to see A Monster in Paris in the US without having to resort to ‘special imports’ or The Pirate Bay.

The Questions This Debacle Raises

From a fan’s point of view, it’s ludicrous that we’ve had to wait so long for a film. OK so there aren’t that many of us (or maybe there are, if Google search recommendations are anything to go by), but we do have money that we’d gladly give to see the film. I’m a patient man, but plenty of others are not, and by waiting so long, the producers may well have forgone some revenue. A $10 million deficit is a large amount, but getting some money back is better than none at all, right?

Secondly, what exactly has been going on in those 14 months? I doubt that the producers have been searching for a US distributor all that time. All signs seem to indicate that none was lined up before the film’s completion and all mentions of a US release end around the time of the film’s premiere.

Lastly, how does this delay benefit the studio that produced it? Not being in the US market until now will undoubtedly have hurt their revenues, and not just in the obvious ways. Yup, CGI filmmaking technology continues to develop a rapid pace, and a film released last year (let alone more than a year ago) is going to look outdated no matter how well it was made. By releasing so long after its production, it will run the risk of appearing to those unfamiliar with it (read: the general public) as an inferior, cheaper production than it really is. All told, it hurts the studio’s chances and opportunities for creating another feature film.

How To Ensure It Doesn’t Happen Again

Europe remains a productive creator of animation (both theatrical and otherwise), but I fear that in the case of A Monster in Paris, not enough effort was put into making the film available in other parts of the world. That’s not to say they didn’t try; the film was lip-synched to the English script, not the French one, but of course that won’t bring in revenue on its own.

The US market is massive, and complicated to boot. Unfortunately it is also dominated by a few large chains; chains that are cozy with the large US studios and would far rather show a film from one of those than a foreign, independent one. GKids has so many issues with them, that they almost always avoid them; favouring independent cinemas instead.

This situation is where a service like Tugg would come in useful, allowing independent players the ability to reach mainstream audiences without the cost of a traditional blanket marketing campaign.

Until then, April can’t come soon enough.

Would you have seen A Monster in Paris in the cinema in the US? Why or why not? Let us know below!

Only 14 Months Late, ‘A Monster in Paris’ Finally Reaches America Read More »

What An Analyst Sees In DreamWorks…And What They Missed

Analysis, DreamWorks /

DreamWorks_Animation_SKG_logopng

DreamWorks Animation is a public company. Its stocks are sold on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and have been since it was spun off from the original DreamWorks LLC in 2004. Since then, it has existed as an independent entity producing its own films in partnership with a distributor (formerly Paramount, now FOX). As a public company, it is subject to how various ‘analysts‘ think the company is doing. Today I’m going to look at one so that we can all see what Wall Street sees in Dreamworks, and also what they miss.

For the analysis, we’re going to use a recent one by Buffett Junior on Seeking Alpha, a website devoted to analysing stocks in all sorts of ways. It’s a fairly straightforward article with no big surprises but that doesn’t mean its all-inclusive.

What The Article Got Right

DreamWorks Success

During the last fifteen years, DreamWorks has created some of the best and most memorable CG animated films of all time.

You can’t argue with that. The studio certainly has created a string of successful CG films that are bettered only by Pixar. Disney as we all know, struggled to get their CG act together before ultimately buying the Emeryville studio to fix the problem. Other studios have also found success, but on a much more modest scale. DreamWorks specialises in big-budget blockbusters, and has so far done well by US standards.

Its Release Schedule

More recently, the company announced that it will now do three films per year from 2013-2016. I believe that this larger annual release schedule is likely to create more stable financial results for the company.

Despite the increasingly crowded marketplace, DreamWorks does need to get as many films out as quickly as possible for simple reason that as an independent company, it is dependent on its library of works. Tying into this was its recent purchase of Classic Media, which will further enable it to extract revenue without the expense of creating something new.

The Focus On Sequels

Investors might notice that a good portion of the future release schedule is comprised of sequels. The company’s long-term goal is to release at least one sequel film every year. With an entrenched fan base, sequels are inherently less risky and provide the opportunity to generate additional profits through increased home video sales, merchandising, and licensing.

You can’t argue with that logic, its right on the money but we’ll discuss it more further down.

Non-Film Activites

In recent years, DreamWorks has commenced a number of initiatives aimed at further capitalizing on its franchise film properties, such as Shrek, Madagascar, Kung Fu Panda and others. These business initiatives seek to diversify the company’s revenue streams by exploiting the film properties in other areas of family entertainment…

Slowly but surely, the studio has moved from its traditional base in feature films. the article discusses live-shows, TV shows and the various theme parks the company has either announced or already has in the works. There’s not a lot to say except that the move ensures that as the feature film division starts to play a smaller role in the revenues, it will help insulate the studio from the fluctuations of the film market.

The Managment

Under Mr. Katzenberg’s leadership, DreamWorks became the first studio to produce all of its feature films in 3D and in 2010 became the first company to release three CG feature films in 3D in a single year. It would be difficult to name anyone better suited for this job than Mr. Katzenberg.

My admiration for Jeffrey Katzenberg has been noted before and to say he is the best person suited to the job is a fair assessment of his value to the studio. His experience with Disney during its 90s renaissance has proven very valuable to DreamWorks, especially so since the company was spun off from its parent.

Risks

Because of the company’s limited release schedule, a box-office flop could significantly impair annual earnings and cash flows. It is extremely difficult to forecast a movie’s performance before its release, especially for non-sequel movies.

…

Animated films typically take longer and are more expensive to produce than live-action films, which increases the uncertainties inherent in their production and distribution. The typical DreamWorks animated film takes three to four years to produce after the initial development stage, as opposed to an average live-action film, which can be produced in less than one year. Additionally, the average budget for a DreamWorks film is $150 million, which is much higher than even that of a big-budget live action film.

A more near-term risk that investors should consider has to do with the company’s most recent theatrical release Rise of the Guardians, which so far has been a huge disappointment. The film cost about $145 million to make, and it has generated $260 million in global box office ticket sales since its debut in late November, well below that of a typical DreamWorks Animation movie. Before DreamWorks can make a profit on the movie, its distributor needs to recoup all its expenses plus pocket 8% for itself. That is the hurdle a DreamWorks movie has to clear before it even reports any revenue. Since the entire undertaking shared by the studio producing the movie and the distributor is approximately $300 million, DreamWorks will most likely be forced to record a large write-down next quarter. In other words, the company will report lower earnings than investors expect and the share price will most likely suffer because of it.

All of these can be evenly applied to any animation studio, although they are again more pronounced because DreamWorks is independent with no corporate parent to pick up the difference if they make a loss. There’s not much to add to these, but other risks are discussed below.

The rest of the article deals with the financials and valuation, neither of which is of interest to me and is unlikely to be of interest to you either, so we’ll ignore them.

What the Article Missed

The article provides a very comprehensive overview of the DreamWorks Animation organisation. The items above are totally worthy of inclusion, but they are not in and of themselves the entire story when it comes to a studio like DreamWorks. Here’s what it missed.

DreamWorks (Relative) Success

Yes, the article does include this, but it does only look at CG films and in although it notes that the studio’s films make up almost half of the top 20 highest grossing CG animated films, it’s not quite as simple as that. Why? Well quite simply, the entire list is made up of films from DreamWorks and, uh, Pixar. In other words the only other CG studio in existence for much of the time.

OK, so the revenues look good, but it’s like being in 1939 and saying Fleischer Brothers is a successful animated feature studio when there’s really only Disney to compare it to, and the market hasn’t fully developed.

The Animated film market is a bit more complicated than that, especially when you realise that DreamWorks began with traditional 2D animation and has faced competition from the same ever since.

The Focus On Sequels

Again, the article makes light of the sequels and notes that they are safer than original material. However, DreamWorks has been known for being extremely sequel-happy. (Remember Jeffrey Katzenberg’s comments about there being five Kung Fu Panda films after the original’s success?)

What the article doesn’t look at is how restricting that outlook can be. Yes, sequels are a financial safe bet but that argument flies out the window when you look at Pixar. They somehow manage to get a good story out [almost] every time and to be fair, their case of sequelitis has more than likely been acquired from Burbank than from within.

Original films do carry more risks, and this is something that animators and those unfamiliar with the way stock markets work can find tough to understand. Yes, it would be great if DreamWorks released original films constantly (and got great revenues for it), but when the odd dud does get through, that regrettably puts a squeeze on the studio’s ability to borrow money (and thus operate); an ability that is sadly regulated by the stock market and its skittish ways.

Alas DreamWorks needs sequels, at least for the foreseeable future as it funds its expansion plans. Until then, we can expect to see regularly recurring franchises. Let’s just hope they don’t reach Ice Age levels of ridiculousness.

The Non-Film Activities

The article doesn’t dwell too long on these anyway, but it completely neglects to mention two things, namely the studio’s digital strategy and its gradual shift to a technological focus.

Firstly, DWA has proven to be a bit of a pioneer in the digital media market. Although it remains a very traditional Hollywood studio in its home video dealings (there’s still plenty of money in DVDs), it was the first major studio to give Netflix the early rights to films. In other words, from 2014, their films will be available on Netflix before they are broadcast on television networks. Although it’s a fairly minor detail, it is indicative of the seismic shift that the media market is currently undergoing.

Secondly is the studios not-so-advertised shift to technological development. Besides the Ptch app the studio has developed, on the enterprise side, its tools and systems have become models for others to follow. That is something that many analysts seem to gloss over despite the fact that it his rapidly becoming a critical factor in the companies operations.

‘Piracy’

Piracy and shifting consumer preferences could severely weaken DVD sales, a major source of profits for all movie studios for the last decade.

Although that’s a common argument, there are many, many more factors at play when it comes to DVD sales. Illegitimate downloading is only one factor. DreamWorks appears to be already addressing the issue with the aforementioned Netflix deal, but you can be sure that the studio is well aware of what will happen as DVD sales slide. It’s a risk, but not as substantial a one as it normally made out to be.

Revenue Sources

The company currently derives substantially all of its revenue from a single source, the production of animated family entertainment, and the lack of a diversified business could adversely affect the company.

Such a statement appears to imply that the animation market is a non-diversified one. It’s the classic “animation is a genre” outlook. There is plenty of diversity within animation itself and the studio has done quite well to diversify itself within it. The article even discusses its move into other industries like theme parks and so on.

I don’t think it’s a fair assessment to proclaim DreamWorks content model as a risk. Would it be nice to see some more mature content from the studio? You bet, but the US is regrettably far behind the likes of Japan where animation is almost as much of an adult’s movie-watching experience as a child’s. Until that fact changes, DWA will have to stick with aiming content at younger consumers for the time being.

Conclusion

Apologies for the super long post. If you hung in until now, you’ll know that sometimes a studio’s health is dependent on a wide variety of factors that analysts can sometimes skip because they aren’t as important to the bottom line as they initially appear. Secondly, you’ll have garnered an idea about how a studio can get the cold shoulder from stock markets when an artistically great film does below “expectations”.

What would you add to the above? Is there something that DreamWorks could be doing in your mind to grow its business but isn’t? Let us know in the comments!

What An Analyst Sees In DreamWorks…And What They Missed Read More »