Animation

Comparing Brad Bird and Andrew Stanton’s Risk Tolerance

Animation, Opinion /

Mark Mayerson recently posted (with apologies for the delay, I’ve been without my RSS reader for the past fortnight) about the contrast between he efforts of two first-time live-action Pixarian directors. While the post does not go into much detail, the comments which follow raise a number of points in regards to risk and the nature of it.

As Mark points out, Brad Bird went with a familiar face and an existing franchise in stark contrast to Stanton who went for an unfilmed, 100 year-old book. Were either one of them right, or wrong?

No. Both took on a level of risk that they were comfortable with. Bird clearly wanted to have more certainty whereas Stanton was clearly comfortable loading all his reputation eggs in one basket.

That risk was of course shared by the studios. FOX (or whoever it was) that did Mission Impossible were clearly risk-averse. I mean, why else would they greenlight the fourth film in a series that has had the same star for dangerously close to 20 years. Disney on the other hand thought they had the man with the golden touch in Stanton, previous director of cash cows Wall-E and Finding Nemo. Both studios’ decisions are evidence of their relative tolerance of risk.

Animated films are just as susceptible to such risk, perhaps even more so, given their long lead times and inability to simply “do another take”.  Both Bird and Stanton have proven themselves with multiple successful animated films. A switch to live-action was obviously going to contain a certain amount of risk for both of them. It’s probably safe to say that one had a better idea than the other about what they were getting into; I don’t have to tell you who that is.

The only problem with all of this is that the public and critics constantly complain about repetition in Hollywood movies but at the same time clamour to strike down an effort to do something else. Is John Carter a terrible movie? I don’t know as I haven’t seen it. But for his efforts I would give Stanton the benefit of the doubt, for now.

Brand Bird on the other hand, received a gimme in Mission Impossible. Now that he has proven himself to Hollywood and the public/critics, he will hopefully advance to more innovative live-action features, or return to animation. Either way, he is the one to keep and eye on.

Comparing Brad Bird and Andrew Stanton’s Risk Tolerance Read More »

Derivative Animated TV Shows

3 Comments / Animation, Announcements /

You may have read the LA Times article from the other day that talks about a shift that’s currently underway at the Disney Channel. The interesting thing is that it included (all the way at the end) this quote from Jerry Beck:

“Before Eric got there, [Disney Channel] had a couple of mild hits, like ‘Kim Possible.’ They were doing derivative things. They were following trends,” Beck said. “Now, they’re leading trends.”

Now I don’t necessarily agree that Kim Possible was derivative, perhaps as a kind of show it was, but there’s been nothing like it since, and it still remains a rare, female-protagonist, show.

That notwithstanding, Jerry hits the bullseye with his point that creating derivative shows will not get you very far. We’ve seen it time and time again when a show get big and a whole host of imitators follow. It happened with The Simpsons and the only shows to last more than a season or two were FOX’s own.

So when it comes to animated TV, do networks tend to follow trends rather than make them? The answer is emphatically, yes. That is by far the less risk option. However, as SpongeBob SquarePants proves, creating a trend can lead to a very long (and insanely profitable) property.

Derivative Animated TV Shows Read More »

Animation: Knowledge or Trade?

2 Comments / Animation /

In lieu of the usual Monday list post, I thought it would be interesting to debate whether or not animation is a knowledge or trade-based form of education.

What I mean is, in life you generally have two forms of education: knowledge-based and the more vocational trade-based. The difference between the two is that one is taught primarily in a classroom and based on theory whereas the other one favours a more hands-on approach and acquiring knowledge through practice.

  • Does animation fall primarily into one or the other?
  • Do different types of animation fall into either one?
  • Is there an emphasis on one to the detriment of the other?
  • Would animation education improve if things were changed?

I’m curious to hear your thoughts, so please leave a comment below! 🙂

 

Animation: Knowledge or Trade? Read More »

Michael Sporn Needs To Kickstart An Animated Film on Edgar Allan Poe

2 Comments / Animation, Independents /

Independent animator and widely respected blogger, Michael Sporn announced on Wednesday his plan to use Kickstarter to fund a feature-length film on Edgar Allan Poe. Michael is hoping to raise $21,500 and in the space of only a few days has manged to raise almost a quarter of that!

This project serves as a reminder that animation is much more than just the big boys. Independent projects like this are (in my opinion) the future as traditional channels become obsolete thanks to the internet. The connection of creators and fans is becoming ever stronger and the best way to show your support for a project like this is to fund it, and for as low as $5, for a lot of folks, that’s less than a Starbucks coffee!

Embedded below is the video on the Kickstarter site. Watch it before heading over and pledging to a great project.

Michael Sporn Needs To Kickstart An Animated Film on Edgar Allan Poe Read More »

Vote Bender B. Rodriguez for DC School Board!

Animation, Futurama /

Via: Nerd Bastards

Such a slogan may not be as outrageous as it sounds.

Via Techdirt, researchers testing an electronic voting system in Washington DC were able to breach the system’s security arrangements and above all, install fictional candidates on the ballot, one of whom happened to be Bender.

Choice comments from Slashdot include:

Why not Zoidberg?

If elected I promise to KILL ALL HUMANS! Hey, you said there’d be hookers at this convention.

Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?

 

Vote Bender B. Rodriguez for DC School Board! Read More »

Analysing Animation With My Little Pony

2 Comments / Animation /

YouTube user gbaudette has been posting analysis of scenes from, er, My Little Pony. While some may deride the show and its concept, the fact remains that there are more than a few industry veterans either behind or formerly behind it, so it does make sense to look at it from a technique perspective.

Thus far, gbaudette has posted videos on walk cycles, camera moves and the one below, a complex throw shot.

The nice thing about these videos is that they break things down into their elements, and prove that complexity is not necessarily all that it appears.

The series is relatively new, but has racked up over 50,000 views in just two weeks and is well worth checking out if you’re a budding animator.

Analysing Animation With My Little Pony Read More »

12 Years of Putin in 2 Minutes

Animation /

We generally try to stay away from politics on this blog (there’s plenty of time for that down the pub), but I couldn’t resist posting this video by egorhzhgun which takes Vladimir Putin and mashes the last 12 years of his political career with the Simpsons and the original “Noah Takes A Picture of Himself video). At almost 1.4 million views, it’s proving pretty popular.

12 Years of Putin in 2 Minutes Read More »

Why FOX Can’t Seem To Get Animation Right Again

2 Comments / Animation, FOX /

FOX is well known for being the only consistent purveyor of animation on broadcast TV. Ever since 1989 when The Simpsons burst onto our screens, the network has been the only maintream network where animation has found success. The others do not lack for want of trying however, they’ve just never been able to crack the nut in the same way that FOX has.

It’s also well known that FOX has had problems over the years moving outside it’s traditional animation strongholds. Besides the Simpsons, the network has had only two other bona fide animated hits in King of the Hill and Family Guy. There were other shows, better shows, but none managed to last more than a few seasons (we’ll get to the McFarlane spin-offs in a minute).

Naturally, FOX hasn’t been resting on its laurels but has been actively searching for potential replacements for its incumbent shows. Its success in that regard has been lackluster to say the least. Family Guy is the only show to have come close to toppling the Simpson’s strangelhold on the network, and even then it was canned before it was brought back to life after a year and half.

Since then it has become a massive success, which has lead to the two spin-off shows in American Dad and The Cleveland Show. However, all three shows and the Simpsons are essentially the same formula in that they revolve around a family. Now that’s not to say its a bad thing, but it does tend to limit your audience if you do that. Besides, the McFarlane children exist only because of Seth’s midas touch and his accute wisdom to stay within his safety zone; unlike Matt Groening, who went beyond with Futurama and got burned because of it.

Secondly, FOX is broadcasting shows whose formulae are well out of date. The Simpsons is 20+ years old, Family Guy is almost a teenager. Yes, the shows have kept ‘up-to-date” but they are still rooted in those eras. Things just aren’t the same as they were back in the day. Styles and tastes have moved on. Admittedly FOX has attempted to catch up but its efforts with Futurama and Sit Down, Shut Up were pathetic to say the least.

Lastly, we need to ask ourselves if big-budget scripted animated shows of the caliber of the Simpsons and Family Guy are even worth creating any more? The historical context is that broadcast networks drew a much larger audience than cable. But everyone and their wife knows that broadcast ratings for even the highest shows are perilously close to those of cable. The fractitous nature of the viewing audience has resulted in a proliferation of networks that cater to more nuanced tastes. Thankfully some of those tastes have included animation.

So the question is not really why can’t FOX get another animated hit so much as should it even bother trying?

My position is that it should not, at least not on the scale that it currently produces. If animated shows are to survive in “broadcast” TV they need to be leaner and smarter and sadly FOX is searching for neither.

Why FOX Can’t Seem To Get Animation Right Again Read More »

When Chris Rock Pissed Off Some Real Voice Actors

3 Comments / Animation /

So you may have seen Chris Rock present the Best Animated Feature at last week’s Academy Awards (I did not, sleep was more important to me at that stage of the day), and you may have noticed that he apparently loves doing voice work in animation. If you didn’t see it, the clip is here, but before you click, please take a moment to admire the idiocy of the Academy for putting it online but disabling embedding.

What I’m sure Chris meant by all of this was to slag off the live-action folks who go into animation thinking that it’s an easy gig. We’ve all seen it before, where in the “making of” you hear said actor gush about how they can show up to work in jeans or shorts or hotpants or whatever. The only problem is that Rock comes off as a bit self-congratulatory when he mentions he earns a million dollars.

What you may not have seen or heard was the aftermath of his speech, which took place over on twitter in the days following the awards, when respected voice-actor Maurice LaMarche had this to say:

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/MAURICELAMARCHE/status/174532519457329154″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/MAURICELAMARCHE/status/174732544145764352″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/MAURICELAMARCHE/status/174752694488154112″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/MAURICELAMARCHE/status/174834448792158208″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/MAURICELAMARCHE/status/174839487661228033″]

So Maurice was pretty pissed, but how about Tara Strong? She decided to take the humorous route instead:

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/tarastrong/status/173979076258832386″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/tarastrong/status/173989067535564800″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/tarastrong/status/173992141775839232″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/tarastrong/status/174003560881725440″]

When Chris Rock Pissed Off Some Real Voice Actors Read More »

Wired’s Geekdad on Mo-Cap

Animation /

The article may be a week old, but I can’t help writing about it.

It’s a regrettably misguided article that makes a few presumptions about animation and motion-capture while simultaneously rounding on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for failing to see technological advancements when it’s staring them in the face.

Let’s start with this paragraph:

Ever since the Lord of the Rings films, it seems the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences doesn’t quite know what to do with this technology, which translates an actor’s movements into the digital realm. Is it animation? Special effects? Trickery? Do performances have to be “live” to qualify as acting? And what exactly defines animation?

Well, let’s see, performance is generally defined as including much more than just movement. It is the expression, tone of voice, the setting. All of it goes into a performance, whether it is live-action or animated.

What mo-cap purposes to do is take live actions and transfer them into a “virtual” space where they can be dressed in layers of clothing, settings and yes, movement.

The article continues:

I’d argue that most voters in the animation category probably find something intrinsically fake or cheap about motion-capture-generated cartoons, that they’re a shortcut compared to old-school, animate-each-frame-of-movement cartoons.

Well, yes, they are! Traditional animation depends on the animator to create movement. Now you could argue that rotoscoping is no different. And you would be right, except that even rotoscoping was done frame by frame. Mo-cap is not; the entire performance is transferred intact to the virtual space.

Lastly, we get to the final paragraph:

The only question is, when the Oscar is someday awarded for a motion-capture performance — and some day, it will be — does the actor accept the award solo? Or, accompanying him or her onstage, should there also be the team of animators, artists and technicians who made the entire performance possible?

Let’s put it in simple terms. The Academy does not recognise animation as it currently exists as being “acting”. That just isn’t the way it is. And as for having any animators up on stage? Forget it. The only way for an animator to get on stage at the Oscars is to do a short film.

That is where the whole idea of including mo-cap falls short. The Oscars (and awards in general) are all about individuals. Individual actors, directors, technicians, etc. Yes, they all worked as part of a team and they had a multitude of people supporting them, but in the end, they had a degree of responsibility that enabled them to take the credit.

You simply cannot assume that an actor using mo-cap is any more deserving of the performance than the entire team that worked with them. On the other hand, animators can be more deserving because they can assume the degree of responsibility necessary to take credit.

Mo-cap as a technology is fascinating, but to infer that it is deserving of inclusion into an existing category or even a category of its own is a false belief. Until mo-cap can be distilled into a single talent, it is likely to remain on the fringes of performance recognition.

Wired’s Geekdad on Mo-Cap Read More »