Fox dumps Zombie College
Marshall Mathers
honest, isn't funny at all, maybe if you're drunk...and go to college...
Mozeman wrote in message ...
>From Variety. Any comments?
>
>INSIDE MOVE: ICEBOX GETS COLD FOX REPLY
>
>Netco's 'Zombie' skein dies due to too much hype
>
>By JOSEF ADALIAN
>
>Memo to Internet companies looking to move into the TV production biz:
Don't
>piss off the people at the network.
>That's the lesson Icebox.com has learned the hard way in its dealings with
>Fox regarding the Icebox Web toon "Zombie College."
>
>Netcaster last week made a huge deal over the fact that Fox was interested
>in turning the Web property into a live-action half hour -- even though the
>network wasn't willing to order anything more than a script. Indeed,
there's
>some dispute over whether Fox ever officially committed to even a script.
>
>But Icebox's decision to heavily tout the possible Fox pact -- on the same
>day the company was announcing huge layoffs -- didn't sit well with execs
at
>the network, which was caught off guard by the sudden flurry of press
>interest in the project. Fox also didn't like being used as a cushion
>against negative publicity surrounding the layoffs.
>
>As a result, Fox execs have now told Icebox that "Zombie College" is toast
>at the net.
>
>It's not yet clear if Icebox will try to resurrect "Zombie" elsewhere.
>Netcaster is still developing "Starship Regulars" at feevee cabler
Showtime.
>
>Reps for Fox and Icebox declined comment.
>
>
>
Mozeman
Hilandhall
John Beauchemin
hilan...@aol.com wrote on 12/7/00 11:57 AM:
> good that show sucks anyways.
well, this isn't good news. We need ICebox to make some money so they can
buy more Spumco 'toons...
Marshall Mathers
John Beauchemin wrote in message ...
Icebox needs to make good cartoons, before they expect to make money, and
buy more Spumco 'toons. Mr. Wong is easily the best show.
>
neathery
this just an unfounded rumor? Icebox has been going through a serious
shake-up recently.
"John Beauchemin" <z0m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:B6565708.629E%z0m...@home.com...
John Beauchemin
wrote on 12/8/00 1:40 PM:
No, Spumco did not nix their deal with Icebox. To prove that, George Liquor
should be premiering on Icebox December 11th. What happened was Icebox ran
out of money, and put WPH on hiatus until they could get some more cash.
Baron Calamity
<jell...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Icebox needs to make good cartoons, before they expect to make money, and
>buy more Spumco 'toons. Mr. Wong is easily the best show.
Mr Wong is easily my favorite Web Toon on the net.There isn't really
anything else on icebox that excites me. Well SuperHero room mate had
a few good shows.
Baron Calamity
http://rcmerritt.homestead.com
"I'm not lost, I'm just misplaced." - unknown
What is this, some kind of flying hippie?
Marshall Mathers wrote:
> or maybe they realised Zombie College, when you get right down to it, to be
> honest, isn't funny at all, maybe if you're drunk...and go to college...
>
and are a zombie.
--
Jolly, Patrick
"So, what has Fred Savage been up to lately?"
John Beauchemin
hippie? at drsp...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/12/00 1:39 AM:
I thought it was funny in a kind of simpsons'y kind of way, which is the
exact type of humor I try to avoid...but...oh well.
John
http://www.z0mbi.net
<--hey...I'M a zombie.....-->
Mozeman
> I thought it was funny in a kind of simpsons'y kind of way, which is the
> exact type of humor I try to avoid...but...oh well.
>
Avoid Simpsons' humor? Yeah, god forbid it accidentally be funny :)
I liked Zombie College. It had a clear story line and it had some funny
stuff. Among the Icebox comedies, it was one of the smarter ones. Queer
Duck is pretty good also. My favorite, tho', has to Hard Drinkin' Lincoln.
Now THAT'S funny.
Moze
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/12/00 12:43 PM:
Queer duck and Hard drinkin Lincoln have to be the two worst cartoons I have
ever been privy to witnesss. I am ashamed for the creators. Bad, bad
creators!
jus' my two cents.
John M. Beauchemin
<><><>
http://www.z0mbi.net
http://www.cafepress.com/z0mbinet
http://www.portfolios.com/johnbeauchemin
John Beauchemin
but I try to avoid shows that have absolutely crap artistic content and try
to make up for it with clever writing.
Like the only way you'd watch seinfeld is because of the 'clever' writing,
certainly not because everyone is ugly.
I like cartoons with less of a joke---*click*--punchline type of humor. Like
ren&stimpy. It didn't make any sense whatsoever. Thats why it was so great.
*----------------*
John M. Beauchemin
<><><>
http://www.z0mbi.net
http://www.cafepress.com/z0mbinet
http://www.portfolios.com/johnbeauchemin
*----------------*
Mozeman
> I like cartoons with less of a joke---*click*--punchline type of humor.
Like
> ren&stimpy. It didn't make any sense whatsoever. Thats why it was so
great.
>
I guess it's a matter of personal taste. I love the art of Ren & Stimpy,
but I don't think it's well written or particularly funny. It's gross out
humor.
I'm not saying that Queer Duck or Hard Drinkin' Lincoln are as sophisticated
as the Simpsons, but I'll take good writing and bad animation over bad
writing and good animation.
Moze
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> I'll take good writing and bad animation over bad
> writing and good animation.
You must not care much for Pinocchio then.
See ya
Steve
--
Visit Spumco's Wonderful World of Cartoons:
http://www.spumco.com alt.animation.spumco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Learn about animation art (without going BROKE!)
Vintage Ink & Paint http://www.vintageip.com
John Beauchemin
> writing and good animation.
>
> Moze
>
>
I'm sorry for you.
Mozeman
> > but I'll take good writing and bad animation over bad
> > writing and good animation.
> >
> > Moze
> >
> >
>
>
> I'm sorry for you.
>
Why?
jtb...@yahoo.com
Fnord,
Jimmy T. Brain
-------------------
See Jimmy The Brain's bad writing and bad animation!
http://jimmythebrain.com
Stephen W. Worth
<jtb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Generally, I prefer bad writing and bad animation...
You are lucky! There are lots of shows for you to enjoy!
I bet your shelves are full of Dilbert and Family Guy tapes,
along with the classics from the golden age of Filmation!
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/13/00 2:23 PM:
because you're in the animation business, yet you appreciate the writing
more than the art. I'm sorry for you, and I'm sorry for this world if that
is the direction things are heading in.
Mozeman
> Generally, I prefer bad writing and bad animation...
>
Hee.
Actually, John's the first person I've seen that thought animation was more
important than story. Without an interesting story, the best animation in
the world is boring. Fantasia is a perfect example. The most advanced
beautiful animation in the world, but audiences have a hard time sitting
through it. On the other hand, the crudest animation with a solid or funny
story can be a huge hit. Southpark is good example there. I don't think
good animation saves a bad story. But a good story can save bad animation.
Moze
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/13/00 4:48 PM:
Actually, you mis-quoted me. I didn't say animation was more important than
the story, I said it was more important than the WRITING. You can tell a
story with pictures, you know. Oh wait, isn't that what animation IS? Heheh.
Seriously. What about all the roadrunner and coyote cartoons? Great
animation. Great story. NO WRITING whatsoever. Thats why they were great. It
focused on the art and NOT the overpaid writers who all drive porches while
the animators drive 1987 Ford Taurus'.
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> Actually, John's the first person I've seen that thought animation was more
> important than story.
John doesn't say that. He says that the best cartoon stories are
written by cartoonists. He believes that ALL elements of a
cartoon are important, and shortchanging any of them is cheating
the audience.
Mozeman
news:bigshot-1312...@pm01-06.ktb.net...
> In article <R8SZ5.47262$58.68...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "Mozeman"
> <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> John doesn't say that. He says that the best cartoon stories are
> written by cartoonists. He believes that ALL elements of a
> cartoon are important, and shortchanging any of them is cheating
> the audience.
Hi Steve;
I agree that both are important. But do you think the audience would rather
sit through a bad story and beautiful animation or bad animation with a good
story. Evidence seems to point to the latter and there are countless
examples.
I must be misinterpreting this line from John: "I try to avoid shows that
have absolutely crap artistic content and try
to make up for it with clever writing." I take that to mean that good
writing does not make up for bad animation. Again, Southpark is an
excellent example of crap artistic content and clever writing (at least some
of it).
I don't think that the best cartoons are written by cartoonists. I think
that writing and animating are two differenent disciplines. Being good at
one does not make you good at the other. I think that both are important,
obviously, but getting both in one show is rare. Too often, cartoonists
leave the story or writing by the wayside and try to cover it up with fancy
artwork. That might work if your only audience is other artists, but
general audiences quickly lose interest. The writing should come first, not
as an afterthought. If, as too often happens, you have to devote limited
resources to one or the other, I chose better writing.
Moze
John Beauchemin
big...@spumco.com wrote on 12/13/00 5:37 PM:
> In article <R8SZ5.47262$58.68...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "Mozeman"
> <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, John's the first person I've seen that thought animation was more
>> important than story.
>
> John doesn't say that. He says that the best cartoon stories are
> written by cartoonists. He believes that ALL elements of a
> cartoon are important, and shortchanging any of them is cheating
> the audience.
>
> See ya
> Steve
actually, Steve, you're right on the money, but i think he was referring to
me, John B., not John K. :)
John Beauchemin
> I must be misinterpreting this line from John: "I try to avoid shows that
> have absolutely crap artistic content and try
> to make up for it with clever writing." I take that to mean that good
> writing does not make up for bad animation. Again, Southpark is an
> excellent example of crap artistic content and clever writing (at least some
> of it).
>
Well, some may argue that the art in Southpark has its own 'Charm'.
Whatever. My point is, why do it with piss-poor animation? Why not do it
with good animation? why can't it have good animation AND good writing? I'm
trying to say that in todays cartoons, the ART is fallen by the wayside and
the writing takes precedence, which is WRONG. Either give them both, or
niether.
The other point I made about the best cartoons being driven visually, still
stands. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you SHOULD be able to
tell a story using only animation and no words. You arent a good animator
unless you can master this ability. Its the basic fundamentals of movie
making, comic book creation, animation, and every visual entertainment
medium on the planet. You should be able to turn the sound off and still
understand what is happening. If 90% of the show is flapping gums and crappy
animation, when you turn the sound off, you are completely lost immediately.
> I don't think that the best cartoons are written by cartoonists. I think
> that writing and animating are two differenent disciplines. Being good at
> one does not make you good at the other. I think that both are important,
> obviously, but getting both in one show is rare. Too often, cartoonists
> leave the story or writing by the wayside and try to cover it up with fancy
> artwork. That might work if your only audience is other artists, but
> general audiences quickly lose interest. The writing should come first, not
> as an afterthought. If, as too often happens, you have to devote limited
> resources to one or the other, I chose better writing.
>
> Moze
I disagree. At least not in ALL cases. I believe animation is a visual
medium and should be treated as such.
Man, we really whore on these Usenet groups, eh?
Mozeman
> in article 41QZ5.46866$58.67...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, Mozeman at
> tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/13/00 2:23 PM:
>
> more than the art. I'm sorry for you, and I'm sorry for this world if that
> is the direction things are heading in.
>
Sorry for this world? Isn't that overstating it just a bit? I'm not sorry
for this world if audiences prefer a good story over self-indulgent
animation. That's just the way it is and I'm not that interested in telling
the audience they're wrong in prefering story over art. Animation that
doesn't appeal to an audience will lose that audience. And when the
audience is gone, so is the industry. Look at Fox, look at Dreamworks, look
at Disney. L.A. is a bloodbath for animators because of bad stories.
Writing is as much a part of animation as the series of drawings. Animation
without a story to tell is pretty boring. It may be nice to look at, but
that isn't enough. As an animator, I appreciate some animation for
animation's sake, but it there's more to it than my personal interests. Not
everyone is in the animation industry. There's an audience to consider.
Moze
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> I agree that both are important. But do you think the audience would rather
> sit through a bad story and beautiful animation or bad animation with a good
> story.
I think audiences would rather sit through a good cartoon than
half of a good cartoon on either side.
> Evidence seems to point to the latter and there are countless
> examples.
Not lately. Most all animation currently has bad visuals and bad
story. The reason for this is that the story people are no longer
people who draw cartoons. They're hack sitcom writers cranking out
crappy scripts with the hopes that animators will "work their
magic" and fix it. The artists do their best making a silk purse
out of a sows ear. They get the blame from people who love cartoons
if the film looks bad, and they get the blame from people who
assume that they wrote the story if it looks good. Either way,
the hack writer has picked up his check and laughed all the way
to the bank years before the film is even released.
It's common for people to say that story is the most important
thing, but it isn't. The model that people follow, the classic
Disney feature of the 40s and 50s is a perfect example of great
design, pacing and animation covering for the thinnest of plots.
Cartoons don't need complicated plots. They need engaging
characters, and a well paced flow. This is more a result of
good direction and visual storytelling than it is good writing.
Good Direction is the most important thing.
> I don't think that the best cartoons are written by cartoonists.
Then you must not like any animation prior to 1960. All cartoons
prior to the TV age were drawn by the cartoonists themselves.
Just about any cartoon from the mid forties is better than the
best we produce using scripts (Simpsons, Rocky & Bullwinkle,
etc.) as far as I'm concerned.
> I think that writing and animating are two differenent disciplines.
Writing has no place in animation. Writing is for novels and
short stories. I'm talking about STORY ARTISTS, like Warren
Foster and Mike Maltese, not writers who sit at typewriters.
Story artists are writers who draw. They make the best cartoon
stories.
> Being good at one does not make you good at the other.
Unless you are good at both, you can't be a good story man.
A good story artist is better than any scriptwriter when it comes
to animation.
> Too often, cartoonists leave the story or writing by the wayside
> and try to cover it up with fancy artwork. That might work if your
> only audience is other artists, but general audiences quickly lose
> interest. The writing should come first, not as an afterthought.
I think you just don't understand the process of creating animation.
The story is not separate from the drawing. In good cartoons, they
are done together. Most of the cartoons with bad story and good
visuals that you are thinking of were probably written in script
form. The only exception I can think of is Don Bluth, who is a
brilliant animator and probably should have stayed doing that.
His problem is in his direction, not just the story. But if you
look at his most successful film, Secret of NIMH, you'll find the
same bad story that all of his other films have suffered from.
The difference is that film is better directed than any of his
other films.
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> Look at Fox, look at Dreamworks, look
> at Disney. L.A. is a bloodbath for animators because of bad stories.
Guess what? Those studios write scripts first! The cartoonists
don't write the stories there. You're blaming the wrong people
if you blame animators for the story in films like Prince of
Egypt or Dinosaur.
> Writing is as much a part of animation as the series of drawings.
Those two elements are one and the same. I don't think you are
really wrong about what you see as a viewer. I think you just
don't know enough about the process to know where the fault
really lies.
Mozeman
> In article <F1UZ5.47555$58.69...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "Mozeman"
> <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
>
> > Look at Fox, look at Dreamworks, look
> > at Disney. L.A. is a bloodbath for animators because of bad stories.
>
> Guess what? Those studios write scripts first! The cartoonists
> don't write the stories there. You're blaming the wrong people
> if you blame animators for the story in films like Prince of
> Egypt or Dinosaur.
>
I'm not blaming the animators. I'm just saying the films have bad writing
and that turns audiences off. It doesn't matter to the audience why the
story doesn't work, just that it doesn't.
> I think you just
> don't know enough about the process to know where the fault
> really lies.
>
My only argument has been that good writing is more important than good
animation. It's that simple. This isn't even about the "process." The
audience doesn't care about the process. They don't care if you used the
latest technology or the best artists in the world. I work in animation and
I know the process. I just don't confuse what other animators think with
what the audience thinks.
Story is important; we both agree on that. I think you're creating
disagreement where none exists. The argument is not about who writes and
who doesn't, as long as a good story is there.
Moze
Mozeman
> In article <yaTZ5.47278$58.68...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "Mozeman"
> <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
>
> I think audiences would rather sit through a good cartoon than
> half of a good cartoon on either side.
>
I agree.
> > Evidence seems to point to the latter and there are countless
> > examples.
>
> Not lately. Most all animation currently has bad visuals and bad
> story. The reason for this is that the story people are no longer
> people who draw cartoons. They're hack sitcom writers cranking out
> crappy scripts with the hopes that animators will "work their
> magic" and fix it. The artists do their best making a silk purse
> out of a sows ear.
I think El Dorado had beautiful visuals. But the story was a mess. That
was due in large part to interference from the suits (his name rhymes with
Batzenberg). Audiences stayed away. Good visuals, bad story, audience not
interested. Same with Dinosaur, the film you mentioned. Why are we still
debating this?
>They need engaging
> characters, and a well paced flow. This is more a result of
> good direction and visual storytelling than it is good writing.
> Good Direction is the most important thing.
I think that we're saying the same thing two different ways. None of the
things you mentioned have to do with the quality of the animation itself,
but with the story-telling. This is what I've been saying all along. Is
the "engaging character" a product of the outstanding quality of the
animation. Not really.
> Writing has no place in animation. Writing is for novels and
> short stories. I'm talking about STORY ARTISTS, like Warren
> Foster and Mike Maltese, not writers who sit at typewriters.
> Story artists are writers who draw. They make the best cartoon
> stories.
Again, we're agreeing with each other without agreeing. But as you say,
story artists are writers, and therefore writing has a place in animation.
> The story is not separate from the drawing. In good cartoons, they
> are done together. Most of the cartoons with bad story and good
> visuals that you are thinking of were probably written in script
> form.
Yes, but how does that contradict what I've been saying, which is that good
visuals will not save bad writing?
As another example, I think Powerpuff Girls is very clever but not
particularly well drawn. It is what it is. But what makes people watch
certainly isn't the beautiful visuals. Is the writing there done by the
animators, story artists, or writers? I don't care. But if you took away
the writing and made the animation on the level of Snow White or Pinnochio,
it wouldn't make it better.
Mozeman
> in article R8SZ5.47262$58.68...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, Mozeman at
> tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/13/00 4:48 PM:
>
than
> the story, I said it was more important than the WRITING. You can tell a
> story with pictures, you know. Oh wait, isn't that what animation IS?
Heheh.
>
> Seriously. What about all the roadrunner and coyote cartoons? Great
> animation. Great story. NO WRITING whatsoever. Thats why they were great.
It
> focused on the art and NOT the overpaid writers who all drive porches
while
> the animators drive 1987 Ford Taurus'.
I still consider that writing. Writing doesn't always involve dialogue.
What often happens in the newsgroup environment is that we all argue and
disagree when we're all trying to say the same thing. I think that's what's
happening here. So other than Steve's suggestion that I don't know the
process of creating animation, I think we all agree for the most part.
Moze
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> Yes, but how does that contradict what I've been saying, which is that good
> visuals will not save bad writing?
I guess the source of my confusion is that I don't see
how to separate the visuals from the visual storytelling.
If you are saying that a lot of inbetweens and fancy
effects won't fix a bad cartoon, then I agree with you.
The problem, as I see it is that non-artists, like the
executive you mentioned, are calling the shots. Creative
visual storytellers, (read: cartoonists) should be in
charge of story.
Even though it may not sound right on the surface, the
solution to cartoons with bad writing and good visuals,
is to turn *all* of it over to the artists, not to hire
better scriptwriters.
As for cartoons with poor visuals and good scripts...
Well, I don't see them as any better than cartoons with
bad story and good visuals. They both suck. Cartoons
should be engaging eye candy. Ugliness is no more engaging
than non-engaging eye candy.
Mozeman
> how to separate the visuals from the visual storytelling.
> If you are saying that a lot of inbetweens and fancy
> effects won't fix a bad cartoon, then I agree with you.
I think that a good screenwriter can write a story visually. You see this
most often in live action, but it is certainly not uncommon (among good
screenwriters). I guess I view animation as a means to the story-telling
and not the end.
> The problem, as I see it is that non-artists, like the
> executive you mentioned, are calling the shots. Creative
> visual storytellers, (read: cartoonists) should be in
> charge of story.
Don't confuse the bad decision making of execs, however, with the writing.
Writers can be as much the victims as the animators of confusing and eradic
suits.
>
> Even though it may not sound right on the surface, the
> solution to cartoons with bad writing and good visuals,
> is to turn *all* of it over to the artists, not to hire
> better scriptwriters.
Since I view writers as artists, I agree with you in the sense that the
execs should step out of it and leave the creation to the creators.
>
> As for cartoons with poor visuals and good scripts...
> Well, I don't see them as any better than cartoons with
> bad story and good visuals. They both suck. Cartoons
> should be engaging eye candy. Ugliness is no more engaging
> than non-engaging eye candy.
>
This is just personal preference. Like the examples I used, I'd rather
watch the Simpsons than Fantasia. One puts the emphasis on the writing, the
other on the visuals. That's just my preference.
Moze
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
Wow! In your last post, we were agreeing in concept... Now
it doesn't seem at all like that.
> I think that a good screenwriter can write a story visually.
Without drawing? How do you tell a story visually *in words*?
How do you describe how animation *looks*. Even simple stuff
like the design of The Simpsons is indescribable!
> You see this most often in live action, but it is certainly
> not uncommon (among good screenwriters).
In live action, it makes sense. If you say "They sit under an
old oak tree" you can picture what that looks like in the real
world. If you do that in animation, it could be an Earle tree
from Sleeping Beauty, or a Mary Blair one from Johnny Appleseed,
or a threatening one like the sequence where Snow White escapes
through the forest, or a stylized UPA tree. You can't describe
pictures with any sort of accuracy. That's why they say a
picture is worth a thousand words.
Here is an easy way to prove that. Bob Clampett's cartoons
are among the best cartoons ever made. Choose any one of them
and write it in script form. You have the luxury of knowing
EXACTLY how it looks after it's animated. All you have to do
is *describe* it. That doesn't even take real talent!
Now, take your script and let someone who has never seen
the cartoon read it. Ask them if they think that is the
story to one of the best cartoons ever made.
Show them the cartoon and ask them if they pictured it
correctly in their head while reading the script.
If they fail to get much out of the written description,
it isn't because you are a bad writer. It's because only
a tiny fraction of the entertainment value of the cartoon
can be written in words. When you let a scriptwriter's
description define what an artist can draw, ALL YOU GET
IS THAT TINY FRACTION. The rest of the magic of cartoons
is wasted.
All you can write in words is the general plot beats and
dialogue. Most animated films written with scripts have overly
complicated plot beats, and tons of clever dialogue that
doesn't come naturally out of the character the way it would
if it was storyboarded first. I agree with you that a lot
of current films are poorly written. When we started this
thread, you were blaming that on the animators. Then you
pulled back and said that wasn't your point. Place the
blame where it really lies.
> I guess I view animation as a means to the story-telling
> and not the end.
Ye gods! Why make a cartoon if you aren't setting out to
make a cartoon? Walt Disney explored *the medium* and found
stories that grew out of the art of animation. He didn't
just write stories and then use animation simply as a tool
to turn them into films. That is completely backwards
thinking! How can you criticize Katzenberg when you are
talking EXACTLY the same way he would talk! Anyone can
second guess something after it's made and give tons of
revision notes. But to make it in the first place, you
have to be a master of the MEDIUM. The medium of animation
is DRAWING.
> Don't confuse the bad decision making of execs, however,
> with the writing. Writers can be as much the victims as the
> animators of confusing and erratic suits.
Are we talking about story people who draw, or those that
don't? Because those are two different things. Storyboard
artists are always at the mercy of executive meddling. Most
scriptwriters work directly with the execs, not the artists.
They're in bed with the execs, they sure as heck aren't
victims.
> Since I view writers as artists, I agree with you in the
> sense that the execs should step out of it and leave the
> creation to the creators.
You mentioned that you work in animation... Do you draw?
> This is just personal preference. Like the examples I used,
> I'd rather watch the Simpsons than Fantasia. One puts the
> emphasis on the writing, the other on the visuals. That's
> just my preference.
We aren't talking about preferences. We're talking about
the METHOD of making good cartoons. Besides, Fantasia doesn't
put its emphasis solely on visuals. It's was an experiment
in movement, color and music. Those are *basic elements* of
animation. Fantasia could NEVER have been done as a live
action film without being an entirely different animal. Why?
Because it was designed within the MEDIUM.
Fantasia wasn't devoid of story either. It didn't have an
overall plot, because it was a compilation of shorts created
around existing pieces of music. Shorts don't require a
complicated plot, any more than a short story needs chapters
or a overture needs movements... Whether or not it was
entertaining or successful to you doesn't mean that another
film that explores the same medium in a different way *won't*
be successful or entertaining to you. Someone could do a jazz
Fantasia, or a rock Fantasia that *would* appeal to you. The
problem you have with Fantasia doesn't have anything to do
with how it's made (unless you just don't like cartoons.)
The Simpsons is a different story. It represents the *absolute
best* that has been achieved by putting all of the emphasis on
dialogue at the expense of any visual expression. The characters'
acting is ALL in the voices. The expressions on the characters
faces are all cookie cutter... no real visual acting at all.
To make it worse, the colors aren't subtle or expressive.
They are gaudy and arbitrary. The drawings aren't well drawn.
There is no musicality to the timing. If you removed the
stylishness of Matt Groening's original design from it,
there would be no style at all! All you would have is hand
puppets and funny dialogue.
The Simpsons isn't a good cartoon because it doesn't exploit
*any* of the elements that make animation unique. It would be
just as funny as a live action sitcom... Funnier in fact,
because the live actors might bring some degree of comedy
acting to it.
Funny dialogue is funny the first time you hear it. A
funny drawing makes you laugh forever. If I tell you a joke
today, and then come back and tell you the same joke
tomorrow, you won't laugh. If I show you a drawing today
that makes you crack up, you will still crack up at it
every time I show you. Visual expression has lasting power.
The animation business today is involved with cranking out
cheaply made, disposable time wasters. That may be good
enough for someone who doesn't particularly care much about
the medium of animation... someone who sees animation as
no different than live action. But for someone who *truly
loves* the magic of seeing funny drawings come to life, it's
not too different from anal rape. The fact that The Simpsons
has funny dialogue makes no more difference to a cartoon
lover than a "reach around" would help the anal rape. You
can ask the cartoon fans around here if I'm overstating it.
I bet they'll back me up on that.
The Simpsons is a cartoon for people who don't really
like cartoons. For a person who loves cartoons like me,
just *made wrong*... if it's not visually engaging, it's
no better than what Chuck Jones calls illustrated radio.
It certainly ISN'T a cartoon.
You don't have to be able to draw to love real cartoons.
But you sure as hell have to be able to if you want to
create them. That isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
I have no idea why modern studios keep trying to shoehorn
animation into live action production methods when a
perfectly suited production process already existed.
What is this, some kind of flying hippie?
"Stephen W. Worth" wrote:
> ALL elements of a
> cartoon are important, and shortchanging any of them is cheating
> the audience.
>
And the main problem is that writers and animators work separately. In order to
write a good story that is to be told in animation, you have to know animation,
or be an animator.
Or at least work directly with an animator, instead of just writing the script
and sending it to whoever's in charge of the storyboards, who then sends that to
the animator.
--
Jolly, Patrick
"So, what has Fred Savage been up to lately?"
Marshall Mathers
Mozeman wrote in message ...
>"Stephen W. Worth" <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
>news:bigshot-1312...@pm01-06.ktb.net...
>> In article <R8SZ5.47262$58.68...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "Mozeman"
>> <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
>> John doesn't say that. He says that the best cartoon stories are
>> written by cartoonists. He believes that ALL elements of a
>> cartoon are important, and shortchanging any of them is cheating
>> the audience.
>
>
>Hi Steve;
>
>I agree that both are important. But do you think the audience would
rather
>sit through a bad story and beautiful animation or bad animation with a
good
>story. Evidence seems to point to the latter and there are countless
>examples.
>
>I must be misinterpreting this line from John: "I try to avoid shows that
>have absolutely crap artistic content and try
>to make up for it with clever writing." I take that to mean that good
>writing does not make up for bad animation. Again, Southpark is an
>excellent example of crap artistic content and clever writing (at least
some
>of it).
>
I think South Park is non-stop eye candy, it isn't done poorly.
Mozeman
> in article bigshot-1312...@pm01-06.ktb.net, Stephen W. Worth at
> big...@spumco.com wrote on 12/13/00 5:37 PM:
>
> > In article <R8SZ5.47262$58.68...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "Mozeman"
> > <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, John's the first person I've seen that thought animation was
more
> >> important than story.
> >
> > John doesn't say that. He says that the best cartoon stories are
> > written by cartoonists. He believes that ALL elements of a
> > cartoon are important, and shortchanging any of them is cheating
> > the audience.
> >
> > See ya
> > Steve
>
> actually, Steve, you're right on the money, but i think he was referring
to
> me, John B., not John K. :)
>
Erps. I guess I should have been more specific. :) Yes. John B, AKA
z0mbie.
Moze
Mozeman
> Well, some may argue that the art in Southpark has its own 'Charm'.
> Whatever. My point is, why do it with piss-poor animation? Why not do it
> with good animation? why can't it have good animation AND good writing?
In the case of Southpark, the animation is as good as it needs to be. Would
the show be any better served if the animation were full cel or clay?
Probably not, so why spend the extra bucks. It may have "charm" but the
animation still sucks; I love it.
>I'm trying to say that in todays cartoons, the ART is fallen by the wayside
and
> the writing takes precedence, which is WRONG. Either give them both, or
> niether.
I agree with you here, but it's largely a matter of expense. Writers are
expensive, but so are animators and you need a lot more of them. Before you
jump all over me for saying this, I'm not agreeing with the system, just
explaining the practicality of it. Producers must be realistic. Given the
choice between not making the show or making it with mediocre animation,
they will almost always choose the latter.
>
> The other point I made about the best cartoons being driven visually,
still
> stands. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you SHOULD be able to
> tell a story using only animation and no words. You arent a good animator
> unless you can master this ability. Its the basic fundamentals of movie
> making, comic book creation, animation, and every visual entertainment
> medium on the planet. You should be able to turn the sound off and still
> understand what is happening. If 90% of the show is flapping gums and
crappy
> animation, when you turn the sound off, you are completely lost
immediately.
>
I agree with you here.
> I disagree. At least not in ALL cases. I believe animation is a visual
> medium and should be treated as such.
>
Emphasize "not in all cases." Film in general is a visual medium. But I
disagree that all of it should be told through the visuals. The story is
the story. If it dictates dialogue, then use dialogue; if it doesn't, then
don't. From JUST an animation perspective, the acting of the characters and
the scenes should be clear without dialogue or lip sync. To tell a whole
story visually with no words is a little idealistic, but a good ideal to
keep in mind.
> Man, we really whore on these Usenet groups, eh?
>
I think we should make no apologies for actually discussing SOMETHING of
substance in a newsgroup. How rare is that?
Moze
Mozeman
> <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
I think the difference here is that you only define writing as the words
written by a screenwriter with a typewriter or word processor and I don't.
Story sketch artists who tell the story visually and write in dialogue are
writers. Gag cartoonists are writers.
Another difference of opinion is that your view (seemingly) is that there is
only a single legitimate way of making cartoons. I totally disagree. The
method and process should serve the story. Sometimes there's an emphasis on
the dialogue, other times the visuals. Sometimes it's plot drive, other
times character driven. Sometimes it is purely visual (as in the case of
Fantasia).
>When we started this
> thread, you were blaming that on the animators. Then you
> pulled back and said that wasn't your point. Place the
> blame where it really lies.
Where in this whole thing did I blame animators? I said that animators
aren't necessarily good at story, which I still believe is true. In the
case of the current feature films, the animators didn't write those stories,
so how could I possibly blame them for it?
> How can you criticize Katzenberg when you are
> talking EXACTLY the same way he would talk!
Katz is not good at story, but he thinks he is. I'm saying that he should
stay out of it. I don't think that's something that he would say.
Writers are disposable tools in the eyes of execs. There seems to be a real
"us vs. them" mentality lately with animators. The notion that all of the
writers and execs are racing around in Ferarris while the animator's are
sleeping under newspapers is a little exagerated. Execs use everyone as
tools and treat them as such.
> You mentioned that you work in animation... Do you draw?
Yes.
> The Simpsons is a cartoon for people who don't really
> like cartoons. For a person who loves cartoons like me,
> just *made wrong*... if it's not visually engaging, it's
> no better than what Chuck Jones calls illustrated radio.
> It certainly ISN'T a cartoon.
>
This is the heart of the disagreement I think. Not only is the Simpsons a
cartoon, it's one of the best cartoons out there (among modern cartoons).
I think it's unfair to proclaim that if the show isn't made by your exacting
standards that it isn't a cartoon. It redefines the argument somewhat
because it removes nearly all of modern animation from the equation, but I
think it does injustice to some of the better stuff out there.
Is it your contention that there hasn't been a real cartoon made since Bob
Clampett (and now John K.)? That's fine. But like I said before, I don't
narrowly define cartoons and animation in that way; no more than a painting
is only a painting if it follows what I believe to be the proper method for
creating it. Cartoons are more than the process. They are also the
audience reaction. Audiences love the Simpsons. They love Ren and Stimpy.
They love the Rugrats. To say that only one of those is a legitimate
cartoon does a disservice to the creators of the others. Yes, the Simpsons
is writer-centric. In my view, that doesn't make it less of a cartoon.
But we'll just have to disagree on that.
Mozeman
I found this topic so interesting, that I posted a similar topic to the
Animation Nation. I hope that you will swing over there to express your
view on this topic and see what others thing about it. It's a great hang
out for animation professionals.
http://www.animationnation.com/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=
General+Discussion&number=1&DaysPrune=20&LastLogin=
Moze
"Stephen W. Worth" <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
news:bigshot-1312...@pm01-26.ktb.net...
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> In the case of Southpark, the animation is as good as it needs to be. Would
> the show be any better served if the animation were full cel or clay?
Of course it would! Good animation adds a whole new dimension
to comedy, and provides for visual acting. When you are talking
with a funny person, their personality comes through their
facial expressions. Watching South Park is like watching a
cartoon over the phone.
Take an episode of the funniest sitcom ever made... The
Honeymooners. If you just read the script, you would wonder what
was so great about the show. If you heard the dialogue without
the picture you might be amused at Norton's goofiness and Ralph's
blustering. But when you see them physically acting with the
voices, the impact squares. That is true of animation as well.
Visual acting improves a vocal performance and gives the
characters life and personality. That is exactly what South
Park lacks.
> I agree with you here, but it's largely a matter of expense. Writers are
> expensive, but so are animators and you need a lot more of them.
It's always cheaper to sluff off on a whole aspect of the medium.
"Nothing" costs a whole lot less than "something".
> "John Beauchemin" <z0m...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:B65D6B80.6A45%z0m...@home.com...
> > The other point I made about the best cartoons being driven
> > visually, still stands. I've said it before and I'll say it
> > again, you SHOULD be able to tell a story using only animation
> > and no words.
I don't know about having to be able to tell the whole story, but you
should at least be able to tell the personalities of the characters
and the emotions they are feeling. Dialogue should be a natural
outgrowth of the action. It just shouldn't BE the action.
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> I think the difference here is that you only define writing as the words
> written by a screenwriter with a typewriter or word processor and I don't.
OK. I use the old time meaning of the words. In cartoons, story men
were NEVER called "writers". The writers of live action had a union,
and no one wanted story artists to be mixed up with that guild.
> Story sketch artists who tell the story visually and write in dialogue are
> writers. Gag cartoonists are writers.
All right. Whenever I said writer, you can read "scriptwriter" and
where ever I said story artist, you can read "writer".
> Another difference of opinion is that your view (seemingly) is
> that there is only a single legitimate way of making cartoons.
Well... The process of producing cartoons was refined and
perfected over a period of fifty years by people like Walt
Disney, Tex Avery, Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones. I've talked
to a lot of old timers, and it doesn't matter if they worked
at Disney, MGM or Warners, they all used the same process.
That carefully designed system was perfectly suited to the
medium, and was responsible for every cartoon produced prior
to 1964. It was only when *non-cartoonists* started to take
responisibility for creating cartoons away from cartoonists
that this production system was abandoned. Since then, the
executive/writer driven cartoons have predominated. You
agree that executive meddling is responsible for messing
up cartoons. I'm just pointing out that the whole system
of producing cartoons now is designed for the convenience
of the execs, not the artists who actually make the cartoons.
Can you think of a single writer-driven cartoon produced in
the past forty years that comes even *close* to the impact of
a Bob Clampett Daffy Duck or a Tex Avery Droopy cartoon produced
the old way? The absolute BEST produced using the writer/exec
method doesn't even approach the average of the cartoonist
created cartoons. The golden age didn't die because of old
age, or because it didn't work any more. It was murdered by
executives who wanted to take control of creating themselves.
> Katz is not good at story, but he thinks he is. I'm saying
> that he should stay out of it.
Katzenberg isn't just bad at story. He has no concept of
animation as a medium. He should stick to live action. He
probably has a better handle on that.
> I don't think that's something that he would say.
I've seen quotes where he said basically what you said. He
creates film stories, and animation is just the vehicle for
bringing them to the screen.
> > You mentioned that you work in animation... Do you draw?
>
> Yes.
Good! We need more people who can draw well.
> Not only is the Simpsons a cartoon, it's
> one of the best cartoons out there (among modern cartoons).
That is exactly what I said... I believe that the Simpsons
is the absolute best that can be accomplished by means of
the backwards script-dominant method of creating cartoons
that we use now. I think it would be a million times better
if it was created by story artists.
Look at the old Tracy Ullman Simpsons shorts. They were
funnier, more expressive and completely unpredictable. The
first couple of seasons at Klasky Czupo were a step down,
but great directors like David Silverman were able to get
some stuff through. Now at FilmRoman, it's cranked out like
sausages. The only expression is in the dialogue. The rest
is all stock and reuse. That's sad.
> I think it's unfair to proclaim that if the show isn't made
> by your exacting standards that it isn't a cartoon. It redefines
> the argument somewhat because it removes nearly all of modern
> animation from the equation, but I think it does injustice to
> some of the better stuff out there.
My argument isn't against the cartoons, it's against the
backwards methods used to produce them. Shows that have used
the artist/writer model are consistently better than ones
that use scriptwriters even today. Unfortunately, these shows
are few and far between. Some studios use scripts, and then
allow story artists to modify the scripts to suit their
needs. This is better than the alternative, and it produces
a better product. If they went a little further and followed
the Disney model of Concept Artist/Story Artist created
films, they would probably be even better.
> Is it your contention that there hasn't been a real cartoon
> made since Bob Clampett (and now John K.)?
Nope. I think the Felix the Cat show on CBS started out
right. Toy Story was largely written by story artists. Some
of the recent Disney features are heavily worked out in
storyboard form. I think all of these could have been a
lot better if they went further and abandoned scripts
altogether. It might cut down the quantity produced, but
it would make for films that would play in reruns forever,
just like the classic Warner cartoons.
> Cartoons are more than the process. They are also the
> audience reaction. Audiences love the Simpsons. They love
> Ren and Stimpy. They love the Rugrats.
Well, there isn't a heck of a whole lot other than that to
love on TV. The irony is that the classic Warner Bros shorts
were made to be disposable. They never expected them to play
again once they left theaters. But they've gone on to rerun
for the past half century. Odds are, they will continue to
play for hundreds of years. It's hard to stretch your mind
far enough to imagine the Rugrats still being rerun in fifty
years. Even fifty years later, Bugs Bunny kicks the Rugrats
ass when it comes to audience loyalty.
Audiences respond to expressiveness. The more levels of
expressiveness in a cartoon, the more they will respond.
Dialogue, Timing, Acting, Voices, Color, Design, Cutting
and Story are all vitally important to the medium. A
good cartoon Director should exploit all of the aspects.
That isn't saying there is only one way to make cartoons,
it's just saying that cartoons should be true to the
medium.
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/13/00 6:57 PM:
you are constantly mis-interperating what I say. The words you keep mixing
up are 'writing' and 'story'. A cartoon can have a great story with no
dialogue whatsoever. This is what I like. I do not know if I can make this
any more clear.
If its a dialogue driven toon, and the writing sucks, well, then obviously
the cartoon will suck. It will suck because they invest so much into the
writing, guaranteed the animation sucks as well.
remember dude, story -does not equal- writing
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/13/00 9:19 PM:
No, I dont believe writing and story are the same thing. When you say
'writing' I think 'dialogue' 'talking heads' all that jazz. Ask Steve W.
about how they produce a cartoon at Spumco. Ask him if they make a detailed
ooutline of the scipt and dialogue before they start drawing. I'm going out
on a limb here by saying i bet most of the stories that Spumco produces are
NOT laid out neatly on paper beforehand.
John Beauchemin
hippie? at drsp...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/14/00 12:02 AM:
I agree 100%. They should have the animators write the damn things. WE'RE
the creative ones. Not the stupid writers. Anyone can write. sheesh.
John Beauchemin
>> actually, Steve, you're right on the money, but i think he was referring
> to
>> me, John B., not John K. :)
>>
>
> Erps. I guess I should have been more specific. :) Yes. John B, AKA
> z0mbie.
>
> Moze
>
>
Close. No 'e' on the z0mbi dude. :)
Don't worry. throws everyone off. At least you got the zero. Most people are
incredibly confused by that.
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 3:19 AM:
> "John Beauchemin" <z0m...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:B65D6B80.6A45%z0m...@home.com...
>> Well, some may argue that the art in Southpark has its own 'Charm'.
>> Whatever. My point is, why do it with piss-poor animation? Why not do it
>> with good animation? why can't it have good animation AND good writing?
>
> In the case of Southpark, the animation is as good as it needs to be. Would
> the show be any better served if the animation were full cel or clay?
> Probably not, so why spend the extra bucks. It may have "charm" but the
> animation still sucks; I love it.
>
>> I'm trying to say that in todays cartoons, the ART is fallen by the wayside
> and
>> the writing takes precedence, which is WRONG. Either give them both, or
>> niether.
>
> I agree with you here, but it's largely a matter of expense. Writers are
> expensive, but so are animators and you need a lot more of them. Before you
> jump all over me for saying this, I'm not agreeing with the system, just
> explaining the practicality of it. Producers must be realistic. Given the
> choice between not making the show or making it with mediocre animation,
> they will almost always choose the latter.
>
Ok. I got the problem. I know why we're arguing and don't see eye to eye. I
think that animation is an ART FORM. You think (correct me if I'm wrong)
that animation is a 'marketable product'. I know where you're coming from
with that...I mean, that is the only way to make money in the industry as of
right now. But call me an idealist. I want the two to go hand in hand.
Animation as it should be (an art form) + making tons of cash. I guess thats
why I idolize Spumco so much. They're really the only ones doing what they
WANT to do, rather than what someone else tells them to do.
John Beauchemin
> In article <fo%Z5.132768$vc3.26...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "Mozeman"
> <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
>
>> In the case of Southpark, the animation is as good as it needs to be. Would
>> the show be any better served if the animation were full cel or clay?
>
Why would you want to settle for mediocrity, man?
> I don't know about having to be able to tell the whole story, but you
> should at least be able to tell the personalities of the characters
> and the emotions they are feeling. Dialogue should be a natural
> outgrowth of the action. It just shouldn't BE the action.
>
> See ya
> Steve
Steve, you ever seen the Monk and the Fish? (its something like, "la Monk et
el Poisson" or something french that wasn't what I just made up back there).
I'm sure you have, and, isn't that the perfect example of storytelling with
the absence of dialogue? I agree with your above statement, but I wanted
your opinion on this.
Mozeman
> in article X6WZ5.131403$vc3.26...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, Mozeman at
> tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/13/00 9:19 PM:
> Ask Steve W.
> about how they produce a cartoon at Spumco. Ask him if they make a
detailed
> ooutline of the scipt and dialogue before they start drawing. I'm going
out
> on a limb here by saying i bet most of the stories that Spumco produces
are
> NOT laid out neatly on paper beforehand.
>
Spumco's approach is not necessarily everyone else's. In fact, I believe
Steve's philosophy echoes John K. almost to the letter. However, not
everyone shares John K's views about what a cartoon is. It's a little too
convenient to define a cartoon as only what you do.
John Beauchemin
big...@spumco.com wrote on 12/13/00 7:25 PM:
<---snip-->
Steve.....will you marry me?
Mozeman
> in article 3A3853DC...@hotmail.com, What is this, some kind of
flying
> hippie? at drsp...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/14/00 12:02 AM:
> > Or at least work directly with an animator, instead of just writing the
script
> > and sending it to whoever's in charge of the storyboards, who then sends
that
> > to
> > the animator.
>
> I agree 100%. They should have the animators write the damn things. WE'RE
> the creative ones. Not the stupid writers. Anyone can write. sheesh.
>
I agree that writers should work directly with animators. I do not agree
that writers are not creative or that anyone at all can write. If that were
true, they're would be a bonanza of good scripts out there and there isn't.
Moze
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/13/00 9:04 PM:
>
>> They need engaging
>> characters, and a well paced flow. This is more a result of
>> good direction and visual storytelling than it is good writing.
>> Good Direction is the most important thing.
>
> I think that we're saying the same thing two different ways. None of the
> things you mentioned have to do with the quality of the animation itself,
> but with the story-telling. This is what I've been saying all along. Is
> the "engaging character" a product of the outstanding quality of the
> animation. Not really.
>
You bet your ass it's a product of outstnding quality of animation. You got
a barbie doll, with a team of the best, highest paid writers behind her, and
film her wiggling around spouting out brilliant dialogue for an hour and a
half, you gonna go see that? Cause you can have my ticket, Im staying home
and watching cartoons.
>> Writing has no place in animation. Writing is for novels and
>> short stories. I'm talking about STORY ARTISTS, like Warren
>> Foster and Mike Maltese, not writers who sit at typewriters.
>> Story artists are writers who draw. They make the best cartoon
>> stories.
>
> Again, we're agreeing with each other without agreeing. But as you say,
> story artists are writers, and therefore writing has a place in animation.
>
You never said anything about story artists. They create the story by
drawing the story. Writers never even MEET the animators. Writers have
NOTHING in common with story artists.
>> The story is not separate from the drawing. In good cartoons, they
>> are done together. Most of the cartoons with bad story and good
>> visuals that you are thinking of were probably written in script
>> form.
>
> Yes, but how does that contradict what I've been saying, which is that good
> visuals will not save bad writing?
>
You're right. In most cases, good visuals will not save bad writing. that
really hasnt been the crux of the argument though.
> As another example, I think Powerpuff Girls is very clever but not
> particularly well drawn. It is what it is. But what makes people watch
> certainly isn't the beautiful visuals. Is the writing there done by the
> animators, story artists, or writers? I don't care. But if you took away
> the writing and made the animation on the level of Snow White or Pinnochio,
> it wouldn't make it better.
Matter of opinion. I like the style that Powerpuff girls is drawn in. I like
it alot actually.
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/13/00 10:15 PM:
>>
>> Even though it may not sound right on the surface, the
>> solution to cartoons with bad writing and good visuals,
>> is to turn *all* of it over to the artists, not to hire
>> better scriptwriters.
>
> Since I view writers as artists, I agree with you in the sense that the
> execs should step out of it and leave the creation to the creators.
>
The artist that creates the drawings should also write the story. Some guy
that has nothing to do with the characters creation or sublimation to the
screen should not be doing the writing.
Mozeman
> in article F1UZ5.47555$58.69...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, Mozeman at
> tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/13/00 6:57 PM:
> remember dude, story -does not equal- writing
>
>
Writing is more than the dialogue. Can that be any more clear, dude?
Given the lack of respect you show writing as an art form, I wonder how you
can demand that people show more respect for animators. Maybe they feel
about animators the way you feel about writers (and many execs do).
Moze
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 10:50 AM:
>
> I think the difference here is that you only define writing as the words
> written by a screenwriter with a typewriter or word processor and I don't.
> Story sketch artists who tell the story visually and write in dialogue are
> writers. Gag cartoonists are writers.
>
Be careful...you're turning around here. Your description becomes more
flexible with each posting.
> Another difference of opinion is that your view (seemingly) is that there is
> only a single legitimate way of making cartoons. I totally disagree. The
> method and process should serve the story. Sometimes there's an emphasis on
> the dialogue, other times the visuals. Sometimes it's plot drive, other
> times character driven. Sometimes it is purely visual (as in the case of
> Fantasia).
>
There is one single legitimate way of making cartoons. That involves GOOD
ART. The medium is all about ART. Who wants to look at shitty art? Not me.
Do you go out of your way too buy prints or posters of stick figures that
truck drivers drew on the back of a coffee napkin? No. No one WABTS to look
at shitty art. Since animation is an art form, it should, therefore, not be
shitty in order to be good. Am i right, or am i right?
>
> This is the heart of the disagreement I think. Not only is the Simpsons a
> cartoon, it's one of the best cartoons out there (among modern cartoons).
> I think it's unfair to proclaim that if the show isn't made by your exacting
> standards that it isn't a cartoon. It redefines the argument somewhat
> because it removes nearly all of modern animation from the equation, but I
> think it does injustice to some of the better stuff out there.
The simpsons has shitty art. For this reason, and this reason alone, the
simpsons is NOT a good cartoon. How can you say that good animation + shitty
writing = bad cartoon, but bad animation + good writing = good cartoon?????
It doesnt make any sense! in fact, I think that very way of thinking might
be ripping a hole in the space/time continuum as we speak!
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 7:37 PM:
Of course Spumco's approach isnt everyone elses'. However, their approach is
the RIGHT way. Its the same way cartoons have been made since the first
cartoon, until (correct me if Im wrong) sometime in the 50's , 60's.
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 7:40 PM:
I was being kind of light-hearted when i made that statement. I thought it
was obvious. Guess Im just not a good enough writer. :)
However, in order to write for a cartoon, you need to know about timing. The
written joke has to work correctly for the visual timing of the gag.
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 7:49 PM:
DUDE...no need to make fun of me. Yer getting hostile, and I did not show
any lack of respect to writers. It was a JOKE that you did not GET
apparently. I view writing as an art form. Not a VISUAL art form though, so
that whole argument is right out. I dont have anything against writers in
general. The problem i do have, is someone writing a SCRIPT for a cartoon
that they do not have a hand in creating VISUALLY. That is my final point on
that.
Im sorry you misunderstood me. As an artist, i would never dis-credit
another art form. I'm kind of insulted, actually. *sniff*
jtb...@yahoo.com
z0m...@home.com wrote on 12/14/00 8:02 PM:
> The simpsons has shitty art.
I think the Simpsons has incredible art.
If you want to see UGLY art, look at George Liquor...
Different strokes, you know?
Jimmy T. Brain
John Beauchemin
jtb...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/14/00 8:24 PM:
oooohhh... now THAT'S hittin' below the belt, Jimmy boY! AGHHH!!! YOU
DIIIEEEE!!!!
Mozeman
> in article 8Jd_5.135425$vc3.26...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, Mozeman at
> tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 7:37 PM:
> Of course Spumco's approach isnt everyone elses'. However, their approach
is
> the RIGHT way. Its the same way cartoons have been made since the first
> cartoon, until (correct me if Im wrong) sometime in the 50's , 60's.
>
The right way? The argument that Spumco's way is the only right way is not
an argument that I'm going to partake in. It's just stupid.
Moze
Mozeman
> in article fo%Z5.132768$vc3.26...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, Mozeman at
> tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 3:19 AM:
>
I
> think that animation is an ART FORM. You think (correct me if I'm wrong)
> that animation is a 'marketable product'.
Nope. I think animation is and can be both an art form and a business. I
applaud Spumco's work and I like it, but I don't extend that to say that
Spumco is the only one doing it right and the only studio doing what they
want. I don't say that because it isn't true.
Moze
Mozeman
news:Bwe_5.135508$vc3.27...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
I mean that the argument would be stupid, not your opinion about Spumco.
Moze
Mozeman
> > In article <fo%Z5.132768$vc3.26...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
"Mozeman"
> > <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In the case of Southpark, the animation is as good as it needs to be.
Would
> >> the show be any better served if the animation were full cel or clay?
> >
>
>
> Why would you want to settle for mediocrity, man?
>
It's not a matter of settling for mediocrity. It's a matter of the
animation serving the story. In the case of Southpark, those guys just
couldn't do it any better. But now the style is set. Making the art and
animation more complicated or better than it needs to be is just
self-indulgence. It's animation for animation's sake and showing off just
to show how good you are.
I have limited threshold for that type of ego-stroking and I find it boring
for the most part.
But not always. :)
Moze
Stephen W. Worth
<z0m...@home.com> wrote:
> DUDE...no need to make fun of me. Yer getting hostile, and I did not show
> any lack of respect to writers.
I'm happy to take on that task. Scriptwriters are to animation
what tits are to a bull hog. Does that do it?
Stephen W. Worth
<z0m...@home.com> wrote:
> Ask him if they make a detailed
> ooutline of the scipt and dialogue before they start drawing.
The first step is a story meeting where a bunch of artists get
together with note pads and throw out funny situations. Clampett
called this a "No No Session", meaning no idea is to be said no
to. Any idea is fair game. The artists doodle up funny drawings
of their ideas, and each others' ideas and these are all gathered
together in a folder.
The next step is to come up with basic themes from all the ideas.
Related ideas are grouped together. Eventually, premises are
arrived at... A premise is a one or two sentence description of
what the story is about.
Next comes another story meeting where a bunch of artists riff
on the specific premise, fleshing out the ideas from the "No No
Session". Eventually these ideas form a continuity which is
written into an outline. The outline is a list of the major
story beats... beginning, middle and end.
Then the outline is given to the storyboard artist along with
all of the gag ideas from the story sessions. Working with the
director, the storyboard artist begins establishing the continuity,
starting with ideas that are more developed. The sketches are
pinned up in order on bulletin boards so the director can see
how the story is shaping up. The story artist and director work
out the story visually, adding dialogue and designs to fit the
action. When the staging, pacing and cutting are perfect, and
the story flows well with no dead spots or undeveloped ideas,
the storyboard is locked down, and the dialogue is transcribed
off for the recording session.
The voice artist gets the board pitched to him by the
director, filling him in with instructions on attitude and
characteristics as he goes through the story. The dialogue
is then recorded.
----
That process is *completely* different on most TV shows.
A lead scriptwriter called a story editor comes up with
premises and runs them by the network to see if any are
"approved".
These approved premises are then assigned to different
scriptwriters who work with the story editor. Together,
they work out any sticking points the network might have,
and come up with a narrative plot and lots of dialogue.
Once the network approves the script, it is recorded. The
voice actors work with a Dialogue Director who makes sure
they don't mispronounce any words, or miss a line.
Then, the finished dialogue tapes and script are given
to an animation director, who assigns a storyboard artist,
just like the story editor assigned the script to a
scriptwriter. The storyboard artist is told to "stick
to the script" because it is 1) Already recorded, and
bringing the actors back to record more lines would
cost a lot of money; and 2) The script is network
approved. Getting the network to approve changes would
involve sending the script back to the story editor to
negotiate. This is NEVER done. Basically, all the
storyboard artist can do is illustrate the script. He
has no input on story at all.
Can you see where the problem is in script-driven
cartoons? The artists aren't brought in until the whole
story is finished! Their input is discouraged. They
can't even direct the voices of the characters they
are animating!
Pretty obviously backwards if you ask me. But network
executives love it this way because they get to play
like they are a "creative".
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> Spumco's approach is not necessarily everyone else's. In fact,
> I believe Steve's philosophy echoes John K. almost to the letter.
I've worked on script-written shows and I've worked on
storyboarded shows. Guess which ones were more fun to
work on and turned out a heck of a lot better? When I
first worked with John, he was amazed at how I already
knew the process. He was used to producers who didn't
understand their purpose. There were two reasons for
that...
First, I'm an animation historian, and I've interviewed
dozens of animation greats to find out how they did their
stuff. I quickly found out that Grim Natwick's process at
Fleischer, Mike Lah's process at MGM, and Art Babbitt's
process at Disney and UPA were all *almost identical*.
Secondly, I worked for a year with Ralph Bakshi. He is
one of the last remnants of the "old guard" still in
the business. He was crazy and disorganized at times,
but he knew how to create and he knows how to teach and
bring out the best in young people.
When I went to work with John, I found someone with
creative talent, drawing skill and procedural
organization. He didn't make up this system. He got
it the same way I did... from the old guys.
Too many of the people in animation today have *no
concept* of the history of the medium. Interestingly
enough, computer animators seem much more open to applying
established production techniques to their work than
many traditional animators.
But there's one thing I can tell you for sure... All of
the good current cartoons have an artist/creator at the
core. All the really great cartoons have a strong animator
at the lead. The animation director is the key. The
stronger he is, the better the cartoon will be.
> However, not everyone shares John K's views about what
> a cartoon is. It's a little too convenient to define a
> cartoon as only what you do.
You say that John K is unique in how he makes cartoons?
How about this quote from the Disneyland TV show, "Tricks
of Our Trade":
"The difference between live action movies and cartoon
pictures is that none of our cartoon stories are written
in script form... our stories are worked out visually
using the Storyboard." - Walt Disney
And this quote from Chuck Jones:
The difference between what we did at Warner Brothers and
what's on Saturday morning is the difference between
animation and what I call illustrated radio. - Chuck Jones
So in the spirit of accuracy, when you say...
> ...not every one shares John K's views about what
> a cartoon is..."
you will want to amend that with...
> ...except for Walt Disney and Chuck Jones.
But that wouldn't exactly make the point you are trying
to make.
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> The right way? The argument that Spumco's way is the only
> right way is not an argument that I'm going to partake in.
> It's just stupid.
You can say that drawing with your feet, or singing with rocks
in your mouth is an equally valid way of doing things too, but
that would be even more stupid.
The animation production process I outlined is every bit as
much the right way to make cartoons as Henry Ford's production
line is the right way to produce cars.
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> I agree that writers should work directly with animators.
And you've said that you define "writers" as storyboard artists,
so I agree with you.
> I do not agree that writers are not creative or that anyone at
> all can write.
I think he means that we are taught to write in school. Everyone
has at least a basic grasp of the skill. Not everyone has a basic
grasp of drawing. I can show you plenty of portfolios from
professional animators and a plethora of hideous looking web
cartoons to prove that!
Word-writers (as opposed to story artists) are indeed creative.
The magic created by words in novels and short stories is a
wonderful thing. Word-writers have no place in animation though.
At best, they are inert. At worst, they ruin perfectly good
ideas and act as an obsticle to creativity.
Stephen W. Worth
<z0m...@home.com> wrote:
> However, in order to write for a cartoon, you need to know about
> timing. The written joke has to work correctly for the visual
> timing of the gag.
One of the worst things about timing in modern cartoons is
directly related to script-driven production.
In the old days at Disney, Warner and MGM, the Director would
time his cartoon on bar sheets. These were musical sheets
broken up by metronome beats. The Director would time action
to a musical beat, figuring out how many beats it took to
perform a specific action. This gives older cartoons that
nice flow and syncopation. You can feel the music even without
hearing it.
Today, all of the timing is based on the dialogue. The voice
recordings are edited into what is called a "natural pause
track". This is all of the lines in the show with a normal
space between lines. They subtract the length of the natural
pause track from the length of the whole show, and tell the
animators that's how much time they have to do everything
inbetween the dialogue. (I'm not making this stuff up folks!)
So if a scriptwriter has fallen in love with his own words
and padded up the natural pause extra long, the storyboard
artist and director are forced to cut all the transitions
and introductory scenes out. If that isn't enough, they
cut on the action to avoid showing anything happening on
screen.
If the script is short because the writer wanted to go
play golf instead of write, the director is told to extend
transitions and pad the show out with scenes of the
characters walking from one place to the next. They can't
add new action, because the network already approved every-
thing, and they can't add new dialogue because the show
is already recorded. All they can do is pad out the filler.
That's why the timing of cartoons seems so arbitrary
sometimes.
Stephen W. Worth
<z0m...@home.com> wrote:
> Ok. I got the problem. I know why we're arguing and don't see eye to eye. I
> think that animation is an ART FORM. You think (correct me if I'm wrong)
> that animation is a 'marketable product'.
Walt Disney, Chuck Jones and even Winsor McCay didn't have any
problem thinking of it as both. Why should we have a problem
with that?
Stephen W. Worth
<z0m...@home.com> wrote:
> Steve, you ever seen the Monk and the Fish? (its something like, "la Monk et
> el Poisson" or something french that wasn't what I just made up back there).
No I haven't, but I think Frederic Back's "Crac!" would be a
good example too.
Stephen W. Worth
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
> It's not a matter of settling for mediocrity. It's a matter of the
> animation serving the story. In the case of Southpark, those guys just
> couldn't do it any better.
Uh-oh! That last sentence doesn't exactly sound right! But
you are absolutely right, the guys who make South Park CAN'T
do any better... They aren't animators OR artists. They don't
care at all about animation. If you ask them their influences,
they won't list a single cartoon or cartoonist. They aren't
making a cartoon, they're just making a cheap comedy show.
As we said before... "animation is just the vehicle to make
the film".
That's fine if you don't particularly care about cartoons.
If you're lucky, it might even be financially successful.
But if you are an animator, you better not be using THEM
as a model of how YOU should do things!
I think a lot of young animators are looking for the shortcut
to avoid knuckling down and improving their drawing skills.
They are all looking for the magic computer program that will
make drawing easy, or the formula for success without having
to go to the trouble of actually drawing. Those crutches are
dead ends. If they took the time they spent searching for these
shortcuts and applied it to study of their craft, they
might accomplish something productive.
It's the guys with the passion for the medium that make the
marks... the guys who HAVE to draw. They have no choice...
their hand naturally hold a pencil and never stop moving.
When I go out to lunch with John, or when I sit chatting
with Bakshi, they don't just sit there. They have paper and
pencil in their hand. They never stop drawing. It's as
natural to them as breathing.
I know lots of artists who are competent draftsmen... but
the spark isn't there. Drawing is laborious for them. It's
an effort. I've seen John draw with other artists looking
over his shoulder, good ones and mediocre ones. Every one
of them thinks the exact same thing: "Damn! Why can't *I* draw
like that?" A lot of the criticism of John that you hear is
nothing more than professional jealousy. All you have to
do is watch someone like John or Ralph draw, and you are
forced to realize that there's a lot of skill acquired
by years of study and practice. But that isn't what makes
them great artists. They have something they were born with.
The South Park guys don't have diddly. All they have is
a TV contract. If a *real* cartoon was running in the same
time slot on another network, you would never have heard
of South Park. The networks know this. They don't necessarily
program the best show they can. They program the most
efficient show they can. If they raise the bar too far,
they might be forced to raise their overall standards.
> But now the style is set. Making the art and animation
> more complicated or better than it needs to be is just
> self-indulgence.
How good does a cartoon have to get to be "better than it
needs to be"? When is the line crossed between "room for
improvement" and "self indulgent"?
> It's animation for animation's sake
> and showing off just to show how good you are.
Man! Improving the visual expressiveness of South Park
is a heck of a long way from "animation for animation's
sake"! It is more like remedial animation 101!
If you want an example of animation for animation's sake,
just look at Prince of Egypt. When I first saw it, my jaw
hit the floor at the sheer complexity of some of the scenes.
They had 360 degree "fly arounds" synchronized to rotoscope
reference footage, hand drawn character animation, CGI
backgrounds and bi-pack travelling mattes... all in a single
scene! I sat there in the audience stunned at the goddamn
complexity of the scene planning involved.
The rest of the audience saw a camera move that they have
seen in a million different live action films. They had
*no idea* how difficult that scene was to execute in
animation!
Now, THAT is a waste of money and talent. Making South
Park look a little better than "butt ugly" is NOT "animation
for animation's sake" by any stretch of the imagination.
Mozeman
> in article fUd_5.135498$vc3.26...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, Mozeman at
> tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 7:49 PM:
>
> DUDE...no need to make fun of me. Yer getting hostile, and I did not show
> any lack of respect to writers. It was a JOKE that you did not GET
> apparently.
Your tone seemed condescending and I reacted to that. We'll go get some
beers when all this is over.
> Im sorry you misunderstood me. As an artist, i would never dis-credit
> another art form. I'm kind of insulted, actually. *sniff*
>
>
I did misunderstand you. No hard feelin's.
moze
Stephen W. Worth
<z0m...@home.com> wrote:
> Steve.....will you marry me?
I'm faithful to Li'l Pal!
Stephen W. Worth
<z0m...@home.com> wrote:
> The artist that creates the drawings should also write the story.
There is a lot of truth in that. Whenever I've seen script-writers
working along side storyboard artists, the storyboard artists
were doing a lion's share of the work (and not getting a lion's
share of the credit for it!)
Stephen W. Worth
<jtb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think the Simpsons has incredible art.
> If you want to see UGLY art, look at George Liquor...
You are a troublemaker, aren't you? You must be the one pitting
one sibling against another or dad against the kids at the dinner
table!
Good job! Keep it up.
What is this, some kind of flying hippie?
>
> cartoons? The artists aren't brought in until the whole
> story is finished! Their input is discouraged. They
> can't even direct the voices of the characters they
> are animating!
>
Is there a single recent cartoon that any of you know of, other than
spumco's, that wrote their story "the right way"?
I don't know about the creative process of every cartoon that I watch,
but absolutely none of them feels like it.
Except maybe...
Have you ever seen oggy and the cockroaches?
--
Jolly, Patrick
"So, what has Fred Savage been up to lately?"
--
Jolly, Patrick
"So, what has Fred Savage been up to lately?"
What is this, some kind of flying hippie?
John Beauchemin wrote:
>
> The simpsons has shitty art. For this reason, and this reason alone, the
> simpsons is NOT a good cartoon.
I absolutely agree with you and steve on just about every point you have made in
this thread, except for this. It depends on your view of art. Take painting, for
example. Until I began to know a little more about art history, I thought that
impressionism was shitty art. And when you study that painting history long
enough, you realize that style is what defines the quality of an art. Neo
classicism and baroque paintings are totally astounding in every aspect, but when
you've seen a lot of them, you realize that all look the same. Now you may not
like a certain style, the simpsons has crude, flat, schematical characters which
have absolutely no appeal, but then again so do most paintings from Bosch.
Yes, the simpsons is more of a sitcom than a cartoon, but I wouldn't say that it
has shitty art. It's just a different style.
Stephen W. Worth
flying hippie?" <drsp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a single recent cartoon that any of you know of, other than
> spumco's, that wrote their story "the right way"?
The first season of FilmRoman's Felix The Cat show was boarded
and supervised by the animation directors. The quality of the
cartoons varied from director to director, but they were at
least interesting to watch. In the second season, Don Oriolo
hired a story editor to "fix" the show. It sunk so far so fast
that even a last ditch attempt to go back to the previous
method couldn't save it.
> Except maybe...
> Have you ever seen oggy and the cockroaches?
That looks like it's boarded. I can't understand the French
mindset on that show, but it sure is weird!
Stephen W. Worth
flying hippie?" <drsp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John Beauchemin wrote:
>
> >
> > The simpsons has shitty art. For this reason, and this reason
> > alone, the simpsons is NOT a good cartoon.
>
> I absolutely agree with you and steve on just about every point you
> have made in this thread, except for this.
Actually I agree with you on that. At the very least it has
Matt Groening's simple, but cartoony style. The Simpsons isn't
a shitty cartoon because it has bad art. It's a shitty cartoon
because it has bad animation.
If you take a remote and still frame through a recent episode,
you'll find that the layout artists and animators are TRACING
heads and expressions right off the model sheet. Every time
Homer frowns, it's *exactly* the same frown. When he smiles,
it's the exact same drawing every time. This connect the dots
approach to cartoon acting belongs dead and buried along with
the Filmation studios. Once you've seen the 12 or 13 expressions
on the model sheet, you might just as well turn the picture
off. You aren't going to see any more.
ali assa seen
<z0m...@home.com> wrote:
> Ok. I got the problem. I know why we're arguing and don't see eye to eye. I
> think that animation is an ART FORM. You think (correct me if I'm wrong)
> that animation is a 'marketable product'. I know where you're coming from
> with that...I mean, that is the only way to make money in the industry as of
> right now. But call me an idealist. I want the two to go hand in hand.
> Animation as it should be (an art form) + making tons of cash. I guess thats
> why I idolize Spumco so much. They're really the only ones doing what they
> WANT to do, rather than what someone else tells them to do.
>
>
> *----------------*
> John M. Beauchemin
Actually, you've all got *two* problems. One is that someone needs to
come up with more precise terminology for this discussion - every time
this argument comes up on the net, it bogs down under the weight of
everyone's attempts to get across their own personal definitions of
"writing" and "story."
Second, while monetary budgets have been referred to as mitigating
factors, throughout this thread little distinction is being made
between cartoons with different amounts of the luxury of time. "Hard
Drinkin' Lincoln" at two minutes long per episode is not going to be
able to be anything other than a gag-fest. That's the format. "Akira"
wouldn't make any sense doing that for three hours. Are twenty-minute
"sitcom" type cartoons like "Duckman" and "The Simpsons" bad because
they are scripted in the way they are? Would they work better as seven
minute full-animation Tex Avery-style shorts? I say no - they aren't
made to follow that format. All this has to be taken into account as to
whether a cartoon is "good" - as opposed to what really seems to be the
true focus of this chatter - whether it is "pure."
- Alley Assassin
Stephen W. Worth
<dan...@ausNOTTHISchron.com> wrote:
> Actually, you've all got *two* problems. One is that someone needs to
> come up with more precise terminology for this discussion
I've tried to do that by making the distinction between
"script-written" and "storyboarded" cartoons.
> Second, while monetary budgets have been referred to as mitigating
> factors, throughout this thread little distinction is being made
> between cartoons with different amounts of the luxury of time.
You are right that the type and format os stories differ,
depending on the length of the film. A short film can be
structured with a simple "Establishing Theme / Variations /
Payoff of Theme" format, while a feature length cartoon
needs more of a narrative structure.
But the most efficient process for *making* cartoons of
various lengths is essentially the same. Disney used the
exact same concept/story process to make the Silly
Symphonies and Mickey Mouse cartoons as he did to make
Snow White and Peter Pan.
> Are twenty-minute "sitcom" type cartoons like "Duckman" and
> "The Simpsons" bad because they are scripted in the way
> they are?
Yes.
> Would they work better as seven minute full-animation Tex
> Avery-style shorts?
That's an entirely different question. The Tracy Ullman show
shorts are better, but they aren't better because they are
shorter. The same approach could have been taken in a half
hour, or even feature length format. The Tracy Ullman shorts
are better because they are *well animated*, with attention
paid to the visual possibilities of the medium.
> All this has to be taken into account as to whether a
> cartoon is "good" - as opposed to what really seems to be
> the true focus of this chatter - whether it is "pure."
I think you are mistaking "style" with "format". There could
be serious shorts and cartoony features. A seven minute
cartoon doesn't have to be a Tex Avery cartoon. Disney made
"The Old Mill" which is a very serious short, and they made
"Bambi" which isn't very cartoony. They used the same production
method to make these serious cartoons as they did to make
"Great Piggy Bank Robbery", "Dumbo" and "Red Hot Riding Hood",
all of which are "funny-cartoony" cartoons.
The thing that Disney, Chuck Jones, Tex Avery and Bob
Clampett NEVER made was a cartoon that was all dialogue with
formulaic stock animation. They were great because they
exploited every aspect of the medium to its fullest.
I'm not saying that if you use the traditional production
process for creating cartoons, you will automatically come
up with a classic. All of these creators made their share
of klunkers. What I am saying is, if you ignore the principle
aspect of animation that sets it apart from other kinds of
filmmaking, you will never create anything as good as the
best that can be created by exploiting it fully. That
seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?
Mozeman
> in article C%5_5.133143$vc3.26...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, Mozeman at
> tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 10:50 AM:
>
> Be careful...you're turning around here. Your description becomes more
> flexible with each posting.
>
I've BEEN flexible. In fact, I've been marveling at the narrow-mindedness
and elitism of certain individuals here that define "real" cartoons so
narrowly. In my book, if it's animated, it's a real cartoon. How much more
flexible can I be? I do not make the distinction between "real" cartoons
and not real, I make the distinction between good cartoons and bad. Of
course, how we define "good and bad" is another difference of opinion, but I
wouldn't be so presumptuous to dismiss other's work as not "real".
> There is one single legitimate way of making cartoons.
Listening to both you and Steve define the only "right" way of making
cartoons as John K's way of making them (based on the methods of Bob
Clampett, Chuck Jones, Walt Diz, etc) and how cartoonists are the only ones
who should be creating the story for cartoons, would lead me to believe that
Spumco's cartoons have the best stories of the current generation of
animation. I don't believe that is the case. In fact, of Spumco's
cartoons, the story is the weakest element.
I enjoy the beautiful artwork, but I'd rather watch the Simpsons. (shrieks
of horror!)
Based on that opinion, Steve will now tell me that I don't truly love
cartoons. On the contrary, I love ALL cartoons, not just the ones that
follow an incredibly narrow definition of what a cartoon is. If the show is
script-driven, so what. If the show is entertaining, the show is
entertaining. If a painting is good, does it matter if it was done with
oils or watercolors or if the artist used his feet or his hands? Is the
process that important? It's important, but not as much as the final
product.
> It doesnt make any sense! in fact, I think that very way of thinking
might
> be ripping a hole in the space/time continuum as we speak!
>
That would be cool! I forget that I'm in a Spumco newsgroup :) It's a
little like walking into a church and discussing the merits of Hinuism.
Moze
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 9:48 PM:
gotcha.
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 11:24 PM:
Animation to serve the story is not a philosophy that i agree with. Thats
why we are arguing. Two people with two different views on the industry.
Being a good artist is NOT stroking your ego. Doing the best you can at what
you do is COMMENDABLE and I wish that more people did that. To tell you the
truth, I am quite sick of pushing my views on this thread, so I don't think
I'm going to be responding much. Not that I'm giving up, mind you :) Just
that I think it's hopeless. What am I trying to do? Change your opinion?!
Thats impossible.
John Beauchemin
big...@spumco.com wrote on 12/14/00 11:47 PM:
> In article <B65EDBA0.6BDF%z0m...@home.com>, John Beauchemin
> <z0m...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> DUDE...no need to make fun of me. Yer getting hostile, and I did not show
>> any lack of respect to writers.
>
> I'm happy to take on that task. Scriptwriters are to animation
> what tits are to a bull hog. Does that do it?
>
> See ya
> Steve
Ouch. I'm not going there. Not up to making any enemies today, Steve. :)
John Beauchemin
> In article <B65ED179.6BCB%z0m...@home.com>, John Beauchemin
> <z0m...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve, you ever seen the Monk and the Fish? (its something like, "la Monk et
>> el Poisson" or something french that wasn't what I just made up back there).
>
> No I haven't, but I think Frederic Back's "Crac!" would be a
> good example too.
>
> See ya
> Steve
You should really check it out. I cant really think of where you would find
it though...might have been a spike and mikes thing. Not sure. Anyways,
amazing storytelling, amazing timing, and great animation. The animator has
squash and stretch and fast actions down to a 'T'.
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/15/00 1:37 AM:
I'm only 22 man. I say "dude" "awesome" "rock on" and "man" all the time.
I'm from the east coast! I can't help it!
At least I don't say "Ya'll"
well...not TOO much anyway...
Beers sound good. I'll have a Molson Canadian. What State? :)
John Beauchemin
big...@spumco.com wrote on 12/15/00 5:55 PM:
>
> But the most efficient process for *making* cartoons of
> various lengths is essentially the same. Disney used the
> exact same concept/story process to make the Silly
> Symphonies and Mickey Mouse cartoons as he did to make
> Snow White and Peter Pan.
>
>
> See ya
> Steve
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "The Old Mill" the first animation
Disney did with the Multi-plane camera? Man, that was impressive stuff.
Very 'moody'
John Beauchemin
hippie? at drsp...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/15/00 3:17 AM:
> the simpsons has crude, flat, schematical characters
> which
> have absolutely no appeal,
<snip>
> .... but I wouldn't say that
> it
> has shitty art. It's just a different style.
>
> --
> Jolly, Patrick
If crude, flat, schematical, unappealing art is your idea of 'good art', I'm
never watching cartoons over YOUR house. :)
John Beauchemin
> In article <3A39D380...@hotmail.com>, "What is this, some kind of
> flying hippie?" <drsp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John Beauchemin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The simpsons has shitty art. For this reason, and this reason
>>> alone, the simpsons is NOT a good cartoon.
>>
>> I absolutely agree with you and steve on just about every point you
>> have made in this thread, except for this.
>
> Actually I agree with you on that. At the very least it has
> Matt Groening's simple, but cartoony style. The Simpsons isn't
> a shitty cartoon because it has bad art. It's a shitty cartoon
> because it has bad animation.
Ahhh. I often mix my meanings when I say 'art' and 'animation'. I kind of
hold the two hand in hand most of the time. I realize my mistake.
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/16/00 12:26 PM:
> "John Beauchemin" <z0m...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:B65ED7E8.6BCF%z0m...@home.com...
>> in article C%5_5.133143$vc3.26...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com, Mozeman at
>> tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/14/00 10:50 AM:
>>
>> Be careful...you're turning around here. Your description becomes more
>> flexible with each posting.
>>
>
> I've BEEN flexible. In fact, I've been marveling at the narrow-mindedness
> and elitism of certain individuals here that define "real" cartoons so
> narrowly. In my book, if it's animated, it's a real cartoon. How much more
> flexible can I be? I do not make the distinction between "real" cartoons
> and not real, I make the distinction between good cartoons and bad. Of
> course, how we define "good and bad" is another difference of opinion, but I
> wouldn't be so presumptuous to dismiss other's work as not "real".
>
You have been flexible. However, not in the area of your belief that:
Good animation + Bad story = Bad cartoon
Bad animation + good story = Good cartoon
Doesnt make sense. No flexibility on that one. (im one to talk)
>> There is one single legitimate way of making cartoons.
>
> Listening to both you and Steve define the only "right" way of making
> cartoons as John K's way of making them (based on the methods of Bob
> Clampett, Chuck Jones, Walt Diz, etc) and how cartoonists are the only ones
> who should be creating the story for cartoons, would lead me to believe that
> Spumco's cartoons have the best stories of the current generation of
> animation. I don't believe that is the case. In fact, of Spumco's
> cartoons, the story is the weakest element.
>
I rather sound like an animation Nazi up there, dont I? HEhE.
See...you see Spumco's stories as their weakest element, however, I do not.
I see it as having the best stories out of any cartoon I have seen in recent
memory. Its just that simple. neither of us are right or wrong. it's all a
matter of opinion. A matter of what you like to see. what floats yer boat.
Yanks yer chain. Whets your whistle. Smacks yer nuts. jerks your... ok.
> Is the
> process that important? It's important, but not as much as the final
> product.
>
It is the process that defines the outcome of the final product. It is
apparent that different process' churn out different product. So, yes. I say
that the process is the MOST important aspect. If the simpsons were made
using the old way, with story-artists, then the outcome would be RADICALLY
different, do you agree?
>> It doesnt make any sense! in fact, I think that very way of thinking
> might
>> be ripping a hole in the space/time continuum as we speak!
>>
>
> That would be cool! I forget that I'm in a Spumco newsgroup :) It's a
> little like walking into a church and discussing the merits of Hinuism.
>
> Moze
Absolutely. However, I am not Spumco biased for some silly reason like "i
like their cartoons. everyone else sucks.". I am an animator who sees that
the way Spumco creates, is the only 'creatively free' way to do things. That
is the way I want to do things, because that iis the only way that I can
have FUN. I don't have fun animating stuff from someone elses script. That,
to me, is work.
John Beauchemin
z0m...@home.com wrote on 12/16/00 3:24 PM:
>
> You have been flexible. However, not in the area of your belief that:
>
> Good animation + Bad story = Bad cartoon
> Bad animation + good story = Good cartoon
>
> Doesnt make sense. No flexibility on that one. (im one to talk)
>
>
aaahhhhhh shit. I didnt mean to write 'story'. I meant to write 'writing'.
sorry.
What is this, some kind of flying hippie?
John Beauchemin wrote:
>
>
> If crude, flat, schematical, unappealing art is your idea of 'good art', I'm
> never watching cartoons over YOUR house. :)
>
Aw. I had nachos!
You misquoted me. I didn't say it was good art. I just said that it wasn't
shitty art. Because it has style. Anything that has style or any kind of
creativity whatsoever in it is to be considered, according to most art critics
and teachers that I have come across (Not that they're right on everything, but
this time I think they are) should be considered as acceptable art. It can be
crude and unappealing, but that's not necessarly a bad thing. So it can still
be "good art".
(I don't know if this was clear, I'm not all that good in english and I
sometimes have a hard time clearly expressing my thoughts.)
John Beauchemin
hippie? at drsp...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/17/00 2:59 AM:
I don't know man. 'unappealing art' just doesn't seem to appeal to me. I
appear to be having trouble understanding how you think unappealing art
would appeal to anyone, seeing as how the direct definition of unappealing
kind of contradicts the appeal a piece of art would need to attract fans.
Richard Anderson
string to the bottom. man. Its good stuff. Heavy stuff.
i just like drawing.
and using my powers of make believe.
are there any jobs for me in Washington? Oregon? California?
wildbrain seemed kind of cool, they did the super mom coke comercial.
sierra online would be cool back in the space quest 3- 4 days. my teacher
is the one who told me about spumco but John K sounds scary. what the hell
is in oregon? Microsoft in in washington. they have good benifits.
hmmm. theres always alaska. and alaska southeaster magazine.
RRA
Mozeman
I don't think that the discussion is necessarily meant to change anyone's
opinion. It has been very interesting to see someone express so
passionately a view that I disagree with. And I still disagree with you,
just as you disagree with me.
I would hope that you would expand what you appreciate about cartoons along
with acceptance of other kinds of animation. I'm not suggesting that you
have to like everything; Lord knows I don't. But not liking a particular
show or genre is vastly different from dismissing other artists and their
work out of hand because the method they use is different than what you
describe as the only "right" way of doing something. Given that a show like
the Simpsons follows a different method and still appeals to an audience is
enough proof that there is more than one way to make a cartoon that works.
If John K's religious devotion to that particular way of making cartoons
resulted in the greatest cartoons of the modern era, I might be more
inclined to agree with him. But his arguing that the cartoonists are the
only legitimate story writers and the resulting weakness of the story in his
shows leads me to believe that there are other equally valid ways of doing
things.
Like I said, perhaps that results in sacrificing the art (though the lack of
art is more a result of limited schedules and budgets than of the process in
this case) but I'd rather watch the Simpsons than George Liquor. And so
would most people.
Moze
"John Beauchemin" <z0m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:B66131CB.6CD3%z0m...@home.com...
John Beauchemin
tmo...@moserbrothers.com wrote on 12/17/00 4:12 PM:
> Hey John;
>
> I don't think that the discussion is necessarily meant to change anyone's
> opinion. It has been very interesting to see someone express so
> passionately a view that I disagree with. And I still disagree with you,
> just as you disagree with me.
>
> I would hope that you would expand what you appreciate about cartoons along
> with acceptance of other kinds of animation. I'm not suggesting that you
> have to like everything; Lord knows I don't. But not liking a particular
> show or genre is vastly different from dismissing other artists and their
> work out of hand because the method they use is different than what you
> describe as the only "right" way of doing something. Given that a show like
> the Simpsons follows a different method and still appeals to an audience is
> enough proof that there is more than one way to make a cartoon that works.
>
> If John K's religious devotion to that particular way of making cartoons
> resulted in the greatest cartoons of the modern era, I might be more
> inclined to agree with him. But his arguing that the cartoonists are the
> only legitimate story writers and the resulting weakness of the story in his
> shows leads me to believe that there are other equally valid ways of doing
> things.
>
> Like I said, perhaps that results in sacrificing the art (though the lack of
> art is more a result of limited schedules and budgets than of the process in
> this case) but I'd rather watch the Simpsons than George Liquor. And so
> would most people.
>
> Moze
>
yeah, well, you see theres more than one way to look at it. The way I see
it, the majority is wrong, because the majority knows absolute dick about
art. I can show someone the shittiest drawing in the world, and they would
love it. However, if I show them the best drawing in the world, they would
love that just as much. So basically, yeah, my viewpoint is people are
fucking morons.