The Thief , a correction
ELurio
to
really get touchy feely Eric, where did this person call Kroyer or Bluth
"cheapo
Koreans". No one ever actually made that statement. >>
Groannnnnnnn....okay, here's the quote in question AGAIN.....Okay, here's the
original quote from Michael A. Crawford:
>>Well, kinda. Arabian Knights was the kidnapped, butchered version with
cheapo Korean inserts released after the film was seized by the bond
company. TatC is the original, unreleased masterpiece.<<
Let's see that quote one more time: <<butchered version with cheapo Korean
inserts>>
The inserts were done by Bluth and Kroyer, who were neither cheapo or Korean.
eric l.
ELurio
actually named Kroyer or Bluth as the "chepo Koreans".
Did Calvert not do ALL the clean up and some of the animation as well as
directing ? Perhaps the writer knew this and was not far from wrong. >>
Actually, the songs were done by Kroyer and Bluth and the rest was done by the
taken-over Williams studios. ALL the animation was done in either London or LA.
William's people were determined to make sure there was the least amount of
adulteration as possible, so pretty much everyone, including Williams' kids,
stayed on under Calvert, who was trying his damnedest to keep Williams'
original vision intact while the head of Completion Bond was going nuts over
the whole thing.
<< You know as well as I do no one was actually named. Just saying the inserts
were
cheap or Korean looking wont insult Bill or Don. They had no control over it.
The
songs were cheesy enough to be considered "cheapo". >>
Yeah, but they were the only ones who did any of the animation outside of
Williams' studio.
<< They had no control over it. The
songs were cheesy enough to be considered "cheapo". >>
The guy who wrote the songs won an Oscar, not for Thief, however.....
<< The writer was
obviously just commenting on Calverts "cheapo" history and had nothing but
sympathy for Kroyer/Bluth. >>
I sincerly doubt that the original poster, that would be Michael A. Crawford,
BTW, even knew who Calvert was much less that Kroyer and Bluth had worked on
it. Which is what my point was. I don't know that he even saw "THIEF" or could
tell the difference between the Williams stuff and the Kroyer/Bluth stuff. All
he knew was that the film was taken away from Williams and that it finished
without him.
I was just commenting that the comment was WAYYY off base.
eric l.
Stephen W. Worth
(ELurio) wrote:
> Actually, the songs were done by Kroyer and Bluth and the rest was done by the
> taken-over Williams studios.
Calvert was handing out scenes here in Los Angeles to local freelancers
for both layout and animation.
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
ELurio
for both layout and animation. >>
Yeah, the stuff with the songs in them. Most of the Williams version, about an
hour's worth or more was still in the finished Calvert version. Aside from the
musical numbers, there wasn't all that much which was to be done.
eric l.
ELurio
the whole discussion is about.....
eric l.
Stephen W. Worth
(ELurio) wrote:
> Many, if not most, animators are very proud of some of the commericals
>they do. If they didn't care about the work they did for others, then
>they wouldn't have gotten any work.
All work is ultimately for someone else. A commercial is no different
than a feature in this respect. The difference is that as nice of a
guy as Calvert is, as a director he was in way over his head. Bluth,
Kroyer and Bakshi were smart enough to see a no-win situation when
it was offered to them.
thun...@ix.netcom.com
ELurio wrote:
> << The real point is the weak filler that was dumped in was handled as badly as
> the
> mindless decisions to give both Tac and the Thief a voice. >>
>
> The Thief never had a voice until Miramax ripped out the entire soundrack.
> Calvert had nothing to do with it.
Still as badly handled.
>
> << I
> assert not only is he not wayyyy off but that the end result of such bad
> decisions
> lead to films that little difference could be made of. >>
>
> The bad decisions began with Williams. He had a good script and ignored it.
What was the last feature you directed ? I mean, you seem to know a good script
right ?
> The
> dragon scene was cut by WILLIAMS. The ten to fifteen minutes left when they
> fired him were, if the show reel is an accurate version of what was shown to
> Warner Bros., was entirely focusing on the plot. There was NO animation of
> Princess Yumyum which wasn't at the time at least ten years old.
Who cares. Williams financed the entire thing himself up till going for a
completion deal. The reason that footage was that old was because the film was
self financed over many years and as to YumYum there was only the shots watching
the parade that NEEDED to be done so how old shots were is totally and completely
unimportant.
What is important is that after having seen the reels years before that instead of
just finishing the film on bond they paid to have additional animation forced in.
If they were not willing to complete the film as it was then they shouldn't have
invested. The fault lies one hundred percent with the bond company.
>
>
> << The fact it was being
> prepped for 2 year olds is clear of the lack of understanding of what Williams
> was
> doing . >>
>
> The fact that the original film was a BAD MOVIE had more to do with it.
Oh bullshit. Unless you saw Williams final reel you haven't a clue. Not a clue
.Films change in the final edit Eric and unless you have some brilliant
supernatural abilty to predict exactly what films are going to be from rough cuts
you are taking out your butt. Calverts version was a final cut and reeked . I'm
not going to argue your lack taste in film you haven't seen finished.
>
>
> << Film making is illusive and no matter what money is dumped on workers the
> film will always be as obviously lost without artistic vision. >>
>
> There was artistic vision: bringing at least SOME of the Williams animation to
> the public.
Well let me make you a cake with just a drop of mouse excrement in it. It's only a
tiny poopoo so I'm sure you will still find the cake appetizing. Right ?
The film was better dead then being butchered and released . The worst part being
they stuck Williams name in as director when it is a total lie. That wasn't the
film Williams directed.
>
>
> << Who cares Eric ? It's not about whether it was an Oscar winning song writer.
> When
> you change a director's vision you change the film. >>
>
> It's been done lots of time and many a film has been saved because of it.
And destroyed many because of it. As in this case. Gezus. Meyer was arguing with
the studio over the final cut of Kahn till the final screening.
>
> Calvert was brought in because Warner Bros. saw the story reel and HATED it.
So what else is new. If you knew the company you would understand why. You do know
that these are the same people who hadn't a clue Iron Giant was any good and
thought Q4C was?
>
> They had a negative pick up, which means that they didn't have to pay for it if
> they didn't want to. The film then destroyed the Completion Bond insurance
> company.
Thank god. Reactionary and ignorant of what "completion" means. There were many
ways to get the film properly done without completely pulling the plug .
>
> << The addition of the songs had NOTHING to do with
> finishing the original at all. That was totally on their own. Get it ? It wasn't
> about finshing the film, it never was. It was about them trying to take over the
>
> direction. >>
>
> WHO taking over the direction? The fact was was that if Warners' liked the
> film,
Yeah, and pigs have wings.
> there wouldn't have been a problem with the alleged ten to fifteen
> minutes.
The idea that you think that they ever would have let it just be finished is
beyond me. Distribution companies are not groups of filmmakers making rational
decisions.
>
>
> << The lie that it was on the pretense of him not finishing on time rings false
> in the case of the totally new additions. >>
>
> That wasn't the case at all. The only issue was the quality of the story and
> that of the movie AS a movie.
A rough cut reel filled with pencil test. If they had an issue with the story then
they shouldn't have distributed it. Oops , you mean they HAD to ? !?!? Explain
that. They wanted to leave their mark on the legend any yooooooouuu know it. Since
they only had the Disney formula to go by (gee it doesn't have songs for my
fricken THREE YEAR OLD like Mermaid boohoo). Charlie Chaplin would have had
redubbed with Robin Williams voice overs if it was up to them Eric.
> Yeah, Warners has released lots of turkeys in
> it's time, but usually, they don't have to pay tens of millions of dollars for
> the privilage if they don't have to.
Then why do it ? Well because they even make money and the turkeys, that is why.
The producer may blow his brains out or have to sell his children on the street
but the distributor always gets paid.
> They didn't pay a cent for the production
> of "Battlefield Earth" for example. They just did the distribution and actually
> made back their costs for that. It was the producer who took the bath.
Lets you and I talk a little bit about distribution. The distributor ALWAYS gets
paid first . Always ! They take huge amounts upfront and assume no risk. Of course
they made money. That thing about net gate/gross gate, well the distributor is
your prime creditor. Nobody gets a cent untill they are paid off in full. Do you
know why Disney started Buena Vista ? That's right , because all the distributors
were vampires.
>
> << From Alex I got there was a mere ten minutes still to do when the plug was
> pulled
> and the bond company was rigid. >>
>
> Remember, Warners had pulled out. They were stuck with a very expensive movie
Thats not true. This was a completion deal not a total finance. Williams had been
working on it self financed over 25 years.
> ,
> a director with a reputation of not being able to finish major projects
> [He was fired from 'Raggedy Anne'
That was a service job. It was clear from the beginning he wasn't interested in
doing the job.
> and 'Ziggy's Gift'
> and nearly was off 'Roger Rabbit'] and had to find some way to recoup their
> expenses.
Ziggys was a TV special not a major motion picture (I can't comment but I will ask
Tom Sito about any trouble) and he DID finish Roger. He won an Oscar for it as
well not to mention his incredible commercial and film awards (not to mention
feature titles). Trying to paint Williams as some kind of failure at finishing is
completely unfair in the light of his huge body of completed work. You don't know
what happened on Ziggys or Raggedy Anne but in an incredible history of success
you are bound to have failures. Tell me Eric, have you ever had any "failures" and
how do they stack up to your successes ?
>
> << It had nothing to do with
> "preserving" the original. >>
>
> ....but it had everything to do with getting the movie out in some form.
NO! It had everything to do with someone getting credit for "fixing" Williams work
on a film that was already legend. If Warners "HATED" the film they could have
dropped it with no loss to them as you said they had nothing invested.
>
>
> << I know both Alex and Claire. From Alex you get a completely different story
> and he would never have worked for Calverts. Ever. >>
>
> If that is so, why DID he?
>
> eric l.
He didn't. Being liason to get the artwork here to reassemble in LA isn't "working
for" Calverts Eric. It's protecting the original. You have a lot of nerve trying
to make out like Alex sanctioned the butcher job. I sat through an interview Alex
gave on Thief to a writer. Nice twist but you are dreaming. Hehehehee. Now tell me
Eric, ever worked for Calvert ?
ELurio
it
himself, the bond company only was dealing with completion money because
Williams
wanted to get it finished) being a day late on the final loan to finish the
car. >>
No, we're not. less than fifteen minutes of the film had been completed by
1990, and the thing was in full production for two whole years. The millions
dollars loan from the japanese banks was gotten in '89.
None of the money had been paid back and the loan had been defaulted on for all
intents and purpouses when the film was rejected by Warners.
cars have been reposeessed with 90% of the payments made. BTW.
What happened to Williams was his own damn fault.
eric l.
ELurio
than a feature in this respect. The difference is that as nice of a
guy as Calvert is, as a director he was in way over his head. Bluth,
Kroyer and Bakshi were smart enough to see a no-win situation when
it was offered to them. >>
When it came to commericials, Williams knew that, which is why he got those
awards. But he forgot that with Thief. Had he treated the project as a
commerical, and stuck to the entire script, instead of improvising all over the
place, he'd have had the thing finished on time.
eric l.
ELurio
it.
What was the last feature you directed ? I mean, you seem to know a good script
right ? >>
I've been a professional film critic for three years and had been writing about
animation in such publications as "animato" for seven. I did an article on
"thief" for premier magazine and spent two months talking with everyone
involved with the project except for williams himself. He wouldn't talk. That's
how I know Williams' son worked with Calvert on the film. He TOLD me. I've seen
all three versions, several times.
I've also seen around six hundred films in the last three years, so yes I do
know a good script when I see one.
eric l.
thun...@ix.netcom.com
ELurio wrote:
> << Actually we are talking about the Ferrari owner (Williams paid for most of
> it
> himself, the bond company only was dealing with completion money because
> Williams
> wanted to get it finished) being a day late on the final loan to finish the
> car. >>
>
> No, we're not. less than fifteen minutes of the film had been completed by
> 1990, and the thing was in full production for two whole years. The millions
> dollars loan from the japanese banks was gotten in '89.
The whole thing was in production for 25 YEARS Eric! The average animated feature
is was at least 30 million in 89 (and these were cheap films) at the time and in
terms of the actual cost for Thief Williams opted to finally get it done by
getting a loan. Williams investment was by far the greatest. And by the way,
what's "millions dollars loan".
>
>
> None of the money had been paid back and the loan had been defaulted on for all
> intents and purpouses when the film was rejected by Warners.
So what ?!?! Whats your point? In terms of being the owner of the Ferrari,
Williams was and in terms of a production that was 25 years long he was a day
late.
>
> cars have been reposeessed with 90% of the payments made. BTW.
That doesn't justify butchering the Thief. That doesn't justify hiring a Saturday
morning crew to finish it.
>
> What happened to Williams was his own damn fault.
>
> eric l.
And the destroyed film was the bond companys, Calverts, MiraMax and Warners.
thun...@ix.netcom.com
ELurio wrote:
> << > The bad decisions began with Williams. He had a good script and ignored
> it.
>
> What was the last feature you directed ? I mean, you seem to know a good script
> right ? >>
>
> I've been a professional film critic for three years
So exactly Mr Film Critic gives you the god damn gall to tell us what is a good
script! That assumes you would know how to turn it into a movie! Paper is one
thing, a film is another.
> and had been writing about
> animation in such publications as "animato" for seven. I did an article on
> "thief" for premier magazine and spent two months talking with everyone
> involved with the project except for williams himself.
Of course. Why talk to the only one who knows.
> He wouldn't talk. That's
> how I know Williams' son worked with Calvert on the film. He TOLD me. I've seen
> all three versions, several times.
Alex told you he spent time at Calverts reassembling the film because outside of
his father he was the only one who knew. The entire thing was in boxes and
Williams refused to help (completely understandable considering what was to
come). That isn't working for Calverts nor is it sanctioning the butchering as
you implied.
>
> I've also seen around six hundred films in the last three years, so yes I do
> know a good script when I see one.
>
> eric l.
Excuse me Eric. So , if you fly on six hundred planes , are you telling me you
would know how to fly one ? Come on. Just seeing films does not make you an expert
nor does it give you the ability to predict anything. In fact if anything it makes
you jaded and unobjective.
ErnieChan9
>
>And destroyed many because of it. As in this case. Gezus. Meyer was arguing
>with
>the studio over the final cut of Kahn till the final screening.
Can you elaborate on this? I know it's not Disney related but is there a
different version of Kahn out there somwhere?
ernie
ErnieChan9
>No thank goodness. Apparently the screening was successful. As you might
>know
>Meyer combined all the suggested story treatments dfor Kahn into one
(including
>the one Roddenberry was pushing) taking the best elements from each script.
>Brilliant move. You could tell basically everyone "oh yeah , your script
>is in
>the film".
>
Meyer is brilliant, this is definitley the best of the series, but some of the
strongest performances of the original crew. Too bad they don't use Meyer to
direct a Next Generation feature.
ernie
Michael Crawford, MBE
Mr. thunderr who is correct in this case. He seems to have realized that
this was merely a perjorative term I used to describe the industrial,
assembly line rush with which they were forced to complete (complete being
a debateable term here) the film.
Bluth and Kroyer are not Korean, and i apologise to them for any
confusion I might have caused them about their ethnic backgrounds.
c.
ps. I happened to look back at the article by Jim Hill that started this
discussion. I was amused to find this:
"You horrified yet? The story gets worse. In an attempt to turn Richard's
masterwork into a commercial viable project, the Completion Bond
Corporation hired outside animators to complete the
movie. They then chopped out whole sequences from the story, shoe- horn in
un- necessary songs, then send this new scenes overseas to be animated in
Korea."
and then there's this from Eddie Bowers' 'Thief and the Cobbler' page:
"Williams and his studio were fired and Fred Calvert was hired to finish
the film. Instead of following the work reel that William's had provided
Warners, he basically used all the pieces to make his own version of the
film. He dropped many sequences to fit in songs and had sequences animated
in Korea."
So boy do I feel dumb for thinking something so *implausible*...
----------------
Oh, would you look at the time...
Michael A. Crawford
craw...@email.unc.edu
http://www.michaelcrawford.com
"The farther one travels, the less one knows."
Mike Ventrella
I know many artists who need editors and writers and people to tell them when
they have gone too far.
In an old Animato Thelma Scumm column years ago (Spring 97) I wrote about this
"tortured artist syndrome" -- Here's what I wrote:
"Let's take three examples and for simplicity's sake, let's call them Mike
Jittlov, John Kricfalusi, and Richard Williams. There is no doubt that each of
these men has more talent than 99% of the people who make the crap that comes
out of the various animation studios, but each has yet to live up to their
potential. Why? Could it possibly be because of some flaw in their character?
No, of course not; it has to be someone else's fault! It's those damned
Hollywood money men! They are conspiring to prevent you and I from seeing the
wonderful work these men have for us!
Kricfalusi's complaints have been heard over and over again, as he has been
fired from just about every job he's ever had because he can't get the projects
done on time; Jittlov travels the country and speaks about how his film was
taken from him and why he just can't create any more; Williams shows a bit more
class and doesn't complain openly, but still blames the system for not allowing
him to finish (after 20 odd years) his masterpiece "The Thief and The Cobbler."
Give it a break, guys. Until you realize that show business is a business, you
will never reach your potential. Other people with less talent are making much
better films, and that's because they know how to deal with people, how to
compromise (not a dirty word), and how to work within the limits they have.
Most of us in the real world have limits placed on us - we have budgets too,
you know - and somehow we survive without blaming everyone else. Heck, I'd love
it if people would give me money to do whatever I wanted to, but they're not
going to unless they can see a
return on their investment."
Bottom line is that I agree with Eric here who, if anyone is qualified to be an
expert on the Williams film, he is. (To criticize the messenger because you
don't likethe message is a pretty poor way of debating, by the way.)
Mike Ventrella
thun...@ix.netcom.com
ErnieChan9 wrote:
>
> Meyer is brilliant, this is definitley the best of the series, but some of the
> strongest performances of the original crew. Too bad they don't use Meyer to
> direct a Next Generation feature.
>
> ernie
I totally agree Ernie. Myself I think it was also Nics working with Harve Bennet
as producer. It may be my misconception but I think Bennet was the one who kept
the spirit of the films intact. Something only Roddenberry seemed able to do. I
don't think the Generations movies are bad but they tend to dwell on the tech
more than the emotional storypoints.
thun...@ix.netcom.com
"Michael Crawford, MBE" wrote:
> Ah, so it's my ignorance then. I must say, however, that it is
> Mr. thunderr who is correct in this case. He seems to have realized that
> this was merely a perjorative term I used to describe the industrial,
> assembly line rush with which they were forced to complete (complete being
> a debateable term here) the film.
And you can say without fear that it was exactly that.
>
>
> Bluth and Kroyer are not Korean, and i apologise to them for any
> confusion I might have caused them about their ethnic backgrounds.
>
> c.
I'm sure they wouldn't be bothered. The illusion that it was done by a Saturday
morning company isn't far off at all. Even the final cleanup for Kroyers
freelancers work was done at Calverts, who is a Saturday morning company. That
isn't a slam at Calverts by the way. Feature even in itself is a different fish, a
Williams feature is an entirely different whale.
>
> ps. I happened to look back at the article by Jim Hill that started this
> discussion. I was amused to find this:
>
> "You horrified yet? The story gets worse. In an attempt to turn Richard's
> masterwork into a commercial viable project, the Completion Bond
> Corporation hired outside animators to complete the
> movie. They then chopped out whole sequences from the story, shoe- horn in
> un- necessary songs, then send this new scenes overseas to be animated in
> Korea."
>
> and then there's this from Eddie Bowers' 'Thief and the Cobbler' page:
>
> "Williams and his studio were fired and Fred Calvert was hired to finish
> the film. Instead of following the work reel that William's had provided
> Warners, he basically used all the pieces to make his own version of the
> film. He dropped many sequences to fit in songs and had sequences animated
> in Korea."
>
> So boy do I feel dumb for thinking something so *implausible*...
>
> ----------------
> Oh, would you look at the time...
>
> Michael A. Crawford
An easy mistake. Hey, that's life.
Stephen W. Worth
ventr...@aol.com (Mike Ventrella) wrote:
> "Let's take three examples and for simplicity's sake, let's call
> them Mike Jittlov, John Kricfalusi, and Richard Williams. There
> is no doubt that each of these men has more talent than 99% of
> the people who make the crap that comes out of the various animation
> studios, but each has yet to live up to their potential. Why?
> Could it possibly be because of some flaw in their character?
> No, of course not; it has to be someone else's fault! It's those
> damned Hollywood money men! They are conspiring to prevent you
> and I from seeing the wonderful work these men have for us!
> Give it a break, guys.
You would probably have a completely different opinion if you
*actually worked* in the animation business. You also might think
differently if you *knew the artists* you were writing about and
had an idea about the obsticles they face and where their real
talents lie.
The people who made the classic Warner Bros and MGM shorts
weren't better artists than the people making the crap you see
on TV today. The cartoons were better back then because
the artists were working under a system that ALLOWED THEM THE
FREEDOM to produce the best product they were capable of.
I've never spoken with Richard Williams and I'm not all that
familiar with Mike Jittlov's work, but I do know John K, and
I know a bit about how the animation business works after
almost twenty years working in it... Animation studios are
run by people who don't know the first thing about how
cartoons are made. That might sound crazy to you, but just
ask someone who works in the trenches and they will tell you
it's true. The goal of the executives who produce animation
isn't to produce the best quality product for the money...
The goal is to close the production/distribution loop so the
airwaves can be filled up with cheap crap that is owned lock,
stock and barrel by the network or distributor. Independent
animators like Kricfalusi and Williams who go toe to toe
with the big animation factories are considered a threat to
that system.
I was appearing on a panel at the Animation Celebration dealing
with internet animation a couple of years ago. A vice president
of a big animation company (not Disney) who was responsible for
developing content for the net was on the panel with me. A young
animator in the audience asked if a creator could pitch ideas
for shows to the studio. This exec said...
"At ------ ----, when we see an idea we like, we do one of
three things, in this order...
1) Buy the idea outright and develop it in house with our own
staff...
2) If we can't buy it, we do a look-alike version on our own...
3) If all else fails, we license the property.
When I heard that, my jaw hit the floor because I had never
heard such brutal honesty before. If they can't buy a property,
the next step is to STEAL it. ONCE THEY'VE STOLEN IT, THEY NEVER
HAVE TO BOTHER WITH NUMBER THREE.
Independent creators and studios are working at a distinct
disadvantage whether you realize that or not as a viewer.
They aren't crybabies. They're struggling to survive. Do
you know how many previously successful independent studios
have closed their doors in the past ten years? Ask thunderr.
He knows. Do you know the effect that executive interference
has had on television animation in the past ten years? Ask
Greg Duffell. He'll tell you.
The reason that John K hasn't had a lot on television since
Ren & Stimpy isn't because the show was a fluke and he's lost
his creative spark. It isn't because he is blacklisted
because no one wants to work with him. It isn't because
networks haven't offered him shows to do. The reason is,
he simply refuses to sell his creation outright to the
network as part of the deal to make the show.
John's story isn't about missed deadlines, blown budgets
or off-color humor. That's a smoke screen sent out by
the execs who grabbed R&S away from him. The Games
Ren & Stimpy Show that THEY THEMSELVES supervised had
MUCH worse examples of all three.
John's story is about an individual creator who refuses
to sell out. He refuses to end up like Chuck Jones
and Friz Freleng watching a faceless corporation make
billions of dollars off of their creations with no stake
in it themselves. You think Chuck and Friz weren't bitter
about that? It might have looked like they didn't care
when they signed your book at the Warners Store, but
believe me, they did care... A LOT.
I introduced a character designer friend of mine to Grim
Natwick once. Grim said, "You're a character designer?
I did that too. I created Betty Boop." My friend smiled
and said, "Yeah, I know that." Grim leaned forward
and grabbed my friend's wrist. "Lissen... Last year King
Features made millions and millions of dollars on
merchandise with my design on it. My advice to you as
a character designer is to NEVER GIVE UP THE RIGHTS TO
YOUR CHARACTER."
Grim didn't know how hard it is to do that in today's
business. John K. does.
John went through the *exact same experience* that Walt
Disney did with Oswald, and he came out with the same
resolution to never surrender control and ownership to the
distributor. But the animation business in 2000 is a lot
different than it was in 1928. Do you think that Disney
would have the same opportunities to create animated
features if he lived and worked today? Not bloody likely.
When I first showed John the WWW, his first question to
me was, "Who owns it?" I said, "The person who puts up the
web page." He said, "No, I don't mean who owns the page...
Who controls what is and isn't allowed on the web?" I told
him, "No one." He thought a sec and replied "That's the
place for me." On his first glance at the web, John saw
its full potential. He has a better vision of what's
possible in the future of animation than anyone I know.
You can keep looking back to Ren & Stimpy, but I can
guarantee you John isn't.
When you talk to an animator who has been in the business
a while and ask them about Spumco, regardless of whether
they care for the style, or like John K as a person or not,
they will all agree on one thing... that John's fight is
going to benefit them as well. When John succeeds as an
independent, that blazes the trail for others to follow
and makes it easier for them to succeed right along side
him.
Now you have talented artists like Darryl van Sitters and
Dave Feiss following John's lead with web cartoons. The
risks and losses that John has taken in creating the Goddamn
George Liquor Program are making it easier for them to do
what they're doing. To many animators working in the SatAM
sausage mills, the web is seen as a shining hope for the
future of animation. Animators can see past the primitive
technology of Flash to see the potential of the net as a
place where they have the freedom to do their best work.
They don't see amateurish, jerky, badly drawn characters
in web cartoons as something that discourages them from
trying it themselves, they see the big picture. The net
provides a way to bypass the network broadcast system
that has been tied up in knots by the big corporations.
Now, there's a story that is a hundred times more important
than the perpetually lame "100 Animated Films That Our
Readers Have Seen On Video Lately So We Will Call Them
The Best Of All Time Poll" you see trotted out in Animato
every year. But can you read about the future of web
animation in Animato? Nope. The last time I saw Animato
mention web cartoons, it was "Thelma Scumm" saying that
John K's web cartoons probably suck, so "she" didn't
bother to watch them before "she" wrote about them...
Now there's some real fancy journalism to be proud of!
When I read posts here in the newsgroup and articles in
animation magazines like Animato that are written by and for
fanboys, I'm always amazed at how CONSISTENT the mistaken
impressions are. One person writes something down that
seems like it might be true to them, and the next person
picks it up as fact. Just last week, a rumor was labelled
as "confirmed" in rec.arts.disney.animation based on third
hand info posted by an anonymous fan. In an earlier post,
it was argued that because Warner Bros had quoted a budget
figure in a press release, it had to be true, because they
would never lie about something like that. That's what
passes for "qualified experts" on usenet.
Those of us who actually work in the business can spot
each other here in the newsgroup a million miles away.
Even though I don't always agree with all of the opinions
and theories of people like Greg Duffell and thunderr, I
can tell in a flash that they know what they're talking
about because they've been there.
But when you say something like this...
> Until you realize that show business is a business, you
> will never reach your potential. Other people with less
> talent are making much better films, and that's because
> they know how to deal with people, how to compromise
> (not a dirty word), and how to work within the limits
> they have.
...you prove to me that you haven't a *fucking clue* about
what you're talking about. Excuse my French... no offense
meant by that, but you happen to be commenting on something
I know from first hand experience... just thought I'd share
it with you.
thun...@ix.netcom.com
Jay Allman
"Stephen W. Worth" wrote:
> In article <20000907215350...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> ventr...@aol.com (Mike Ventrella) wrote:
>
> I introduced a character designer friend of mine to Grim
> Natwick once. Grim said, "You're a character designer?
> I did that too. I created Betty Boop." My friend smiled
> and said, "Yeah, I know that." Grim leaned forward
> and grabbed my friend's wrist. "Lissen... Last year King
> Features made millions and millions of dollars on
> merchandise with my design on it. My advice to you as
> a character designer is to NEVER GIVE UP THE RIGHTS TO
> YOUR CHARACTER."
>
> Grim didn't know how hard it is to do that in today's
> business. John K. does.
>
> John went through the *exact same experience* that Walt
> Disney did with Oswald, and he came out with the same
> resolution to never surrender control and ownership to the
> distributor. But the animation business in 2000 is a lot
> different than it was in 1928. Do you think that Disney
> would have the same opportunities to create animated
> features if he lived and worked today? Not bloody likely.
This suggests an interesting parlor game. If we were to retroactively
cede cartoon characters back to their creators, who would get which
characters?
Concentrating for the moment on WB:
I guess Chuck Jones would get Wile E. Coyote, the Roadrunner, Pepe le Pew
and Marvin the Martian. Friz Freleng would get Yosemite Sam. Robert
McKimson would get Taz.
Of course, the $1 billion question is: Who would get Bugs Bunny?
Jay
MemberMe
like these people are snakes waiting to steal good ideas. You must realise
how 'precious' an artist's own creations are to him or her and to have
people take their imagination and try to turn it into money so that when (or
if) an artist finds a way to have his characters in some storyline-it will
be unoriginal. Millions of dollars on the Betty Boop character last year
alone?? Incredible. And the creator is left in the dust. Adding the fact
that pretty much every animated show sucks, this means most ideas are going
to leave most creators disappointed and pennyless. Good luck to John K
http://communities.msn.ca/PetersAwesomeArtwork
JHall wrote in message ...
>This is true of the world of business. The shame lies in the fact that
>the business world rules the daily world. Ah more is the pity.
>
>On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Stephen W. Worth wrote:
>
>> ...
>
>And the example given below is the reality. Ahh the events made possible
>because lawyers do law like minks do sex.
>>
>> "At ------ ----, when we see an idea we like, we do one of
>> three things, in this order...
>>
>> 1) Buy the idea outright and develop it in house with our own
>> staff...
>> 2) If we can't buy it, we do a look-alike version on our own...
>> 3) If all else fails, we license the property.
>>
>> When I heard that, my jaw hit the floor because I had never
>> heard such brutal honesty before. If they can't buy a property,
>> the next step is to STEAL it. ONCE THEY'VE STOLEN IT, THEY NEVER
>> HAVE TO BOTHER WITH NUMBER THREE.
>> ...
>
>JHall - Celebrities Gallery of Ottawa animation and more:
>
MemberMe
today have cruddy animation that can't hold a candle to old WB 'toons? And
why they just aren't funny at all? How come 'adult cartoons' like Simpsons,
Family Guy, etc. are funny and sucessful but no one can seem to do a kid's
show anymore? It's nice to have someone on the inside.
MemberMe wrote in message <8pba17$71a$1...@cougar.golden.net>...
>that's absolutely horrifying for me being a young artist myself. It sounds
>like these people are snakes waiting to steal good ideas. You must realise
>how 'precious' an artist's own creations are to him or her and to have
>people take their imagination and try to turn it into money so that when
(or
Stephen W. Worth
> Of course, the $1 billion question is: Who would get Bugs Bunny?
I bet the creators would have been more amicable to splitting
the profits between them than Warner would be!
heh heh
TServo2049
Jay Allman wrote:
Tex Avery.
Mike Ventrella
when they have gone too far.
>
I simply mean that some artists can't look at their own work objectively.
My wife is an artist and pieces she thinks are her greatest masterpieces are
viewed by others as just another work of art, and something she threw together
is treated like a gem. I used to play in a band and write music and songs I
would spend weeks writing, pouring my soul into and thinking it was my greatest
work would get a yawn from the audience while something I threw together became
very popular. Writers sometimes need editors. Movie directors also often need
editors. Musicians need producers. Sometimes it is good to have a muse above
you telling you when what you have done is "too much."
Stephen W. Worth
ventr...@aol.com (Mike Ventrella) wrote:
> Movie directors also often need editors.
You don't seem to understand the job of the Director. It's to
*supervise* the editor and to *tell him what to do*, not to let
him chop the film up any way he sees fit.
> Sometimes it is good to have a muse above you telling you
> when what you have done is "too much."
That's great if the person giving you the advice is better
at what you do than you yourself are. Otherwise, it only leads
to the kind of "genericality" and "blandification" we see
going on in TV today.
"If you're trying to find out what it is that made
the cartoons what they were in those days, it's easy.
The whole secret is that one man controlled it---
not a comittee-- the Director." - Friz Freleng
No one told Chuck Jones or Tex Avery when they went too far.
Back then, the Director called ALL the shots. When I watch
"Dover Boys" and "Red Hot Riding Hood" I'm very, very happy
for that.
L & G
JHall wrote:
This is true of the world of business. The shame lies in the fact that
the business world rules the daily world. Ah more is the pity.
Gerard
Stephen W. Worth
<jell...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Could you explain why most cartoon shows today have cruddy
> animation that can't hold a candle to old WB 'toons?
That's a really big question. I could write a book on that,
but ere are some of the main reasons...
1) The sheer volume of animation being produced: Networks aren't
interested in a small number of cartoons that will have a
lasting value like the classic Warner cartoons. They want large
quantities to fill time slots with acceptible ratings. They
don't care if you never want to see them again after watching
them once. They only care about today's ratings.
2) Networks would rather own a so-so show outright than to share a
partial stake in a great show.
3) The production process today is entirely different than it was
back then. The artists are no longer calling the shots.
4) The people in charge of animation don't really like cartoons.
Most have live-action backgrounds and don't understand how to
fully exploit the medium.
5) The people who make cartoons have lost touch with their audience.
The Warner directors could grab a print and screen it at a local
theater to see how audiences react. Today, networks hire quack
scientists to "focus test" cartoons.
6) Artists were free to experiment in the old days. Now if a
cartoon doesn't work, the show is cancelled and the whole crew
laid off. There is too much risk to experiment.
7) Craftsmanship isn't as much of an issue any more. A lot of
people in animation today don't have the chops that the old
guys did.
8) Cartoons are now written in script form and aside from a few
key designs, a lot of the work is done by overseas studios.
There are talented people working overseas, but the motivation
to do really good work is hard to find sometimes.
9) In the old days, there was an apprentice system to becoming
an animator. You started as a cel washer and worked your way
up. That gave you experience in the whole process. Now the
animation schools produce "Directors" who don't have the
depth of experience that someone who worked their way up might.
> How come 'adult cartoons' are funny and sucessful but no one
> can seem to do a kid's show anymore?
Today, we talk down to kids. In the old days, cartoonists made
cartoons to please a general audience. Both kids and adults
could find things to enjoy.
Paul Penna
<big...@spumco.com> wrote:
Also, kid's shows today are often obliged to contain Valuable Lessons
and to convey Approved Attitudes. Gee, I wonder how come _that's_ not
entertaining?
--
Paul Penna
MousePlanetFab
>> animation that can't hold a candle to old WB 'toons?
>
>That's a really big question. I could write a book on that,
>but ere are some of the main reasons...
1)money
2)money
3)money
4)money...
shall I go on?
Fab
The Fabulous Disney Babe at MousePlanet
http://www.mouseplanet.com
The Magic....Made Easy!
thun...@ix.netcom.com
Mike Ventrella wrote:
> >> I know many artists who need editors and writers and people to tell them
> when they have gone too far.
> >
> >Exactly what the hell do you mean by that ???????? "Too far"???
>
> I simply mean that some artists can't look at their own work objectively.
No, "too far". Explain.
>
> My wife is an artist and pieces she thinks are her greatest masterpieces are
> viewed by others as just another work of art, and something she threw togetheris
> treated like a gem.
Exacty how does that make them right ? For all you know everyone could be
completely wrong. Since hers is personal and she is judging for her own growth and
you are just comparing to existing works . Real innovation is internal and not
subject to the popular opinion.
But that is also not the incredibly communiucation heavy world of film making.
Animation personal are not just people sitting in a room turning out personal
works of art. In fact the real truth is that directors are often bombarded with so
many opinions they lose any objectivity they could possibly have. Keeping it clear
is the art of the director. It's hard to have any kind of singular vision on a
film where everyone think THEIRS is the one.
> I used to play in a band and write music and songs I
> would spend weeks writing, pouring my soul into and thinking it was my greatest
> work would get a yawn from the audience while something I threw together became
> very popular.
A directors vision is not a spontanious song . It's a huge construction of action
taking place over an entire hour or more. Everything is set to build and establish
elements that serve the story. It isn't judged by it's immediate response but by
how it builds a developes over the entire story. It's not the same at all.
And lastly while you are allowed to work out by yourself your vision for a song ,
directors aren't. They have to communicate what's in their head to their entire
crew. That is a feat that would make many people fold just by itself.
> Writers sometimes need editors. Movie directors also often need
> editors.
Animation is pre-edited. The kind of sense of shots arrangement that a live action
director counts on from a live editor is not the same. While a live director may
have muliple shots and takes to choose from by the time it comes to editing the
animation director has only one. Everything is done in the boards without the
editor or the writer. The head of story is there to help his story crew bring the
directors vision to screen and though things may be changed it is at a distance
after assembling and screening.
> Musicians need producers.
Musicians songs are over in three minutes.
> Sometimes it is good to have a muse above
> you telling you when what you have done is "too much."
A "muse" is a mythical inspiration and not an advisor. Offering a director an
opinion is not distracting, having someone who is not commited to getting HIS/HER
directors vision to the screen is destructive. There is no case in which any
director should be closed off to offered opinion ,but none where they should be
forced to accept others opinions.
Stephen W. Worth
<tter...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Also, kid's shows today are often obliged to contain Valuable Lessons
> and to convey Approved Attitudes. Gee, I wonder how come _that's_ not
> entertaining?
Here is another jaw dropper from a seminar at the most recent
World Animation Conference... The VP of Disney online said
that they were required by in-house standards to provide
"edutainment"... She said that they didn't "teach anything
really useful like grammar or arithmatic... just simplistic
concepts like sharing and getting along with other people."
Great quote.
Stephen W. Worth
dscve...@aol.comFabulous (MousePlanetFab) wrote:
> >> Could you explain why most cartoon shows today have cruddy
> >> animation that can't hold a candle to old WB 'toons?
> >
> 1)money
> 2)money
> 3)money
> 4)money...
That isn't really true. I bet that if you figured out the cost
per minute for The Simpsons and factored for inflation since
1940, you'd find that with the money spent on yellow stick
figures, you could have made a dozen classic Warner Bros cartoons.
The money is just being spent in all the wrong places... salaries
for execs, movie star wages for the voice actors, etc.
Stephen W. Worth
> In fact the real truth is that directors are often bombarded with so
> many opinions they lose any objectivity they could possibly have.
> Keeping it clear is the art of the director.
That wasn't so true of my experience with Bakshi (hehe) but John
K is a laser beam when it comes to what he wants in a scene. He
knows exactly how it should play from the first ruff storyboard.
It never changes after that, it just gets amplified as each step
improves and adds detail to the one before it.
> It's hard to have any kind of singular vision on a
> film where everyone think THEIRS is the one.
The trick is making everyone think your own vision is theirs.
A great Director can do that.
> A directors vision is not spontanious. It's a huge construction
> of action taking place over an entire hour or more.
Even more than that... it's a huge project to make a film. You
have to maintain a consistent vision for a year or more while
the film is in production.
Jay Allman
"Stephen W. Worth" wrote:
> In article <39B91EB8...@zianet.com>, jaya...@zianet.com wrote:
>
> > Of course, the $1 billion question is: Who would get Bugs Bunny?
>
> I bet the creators would have been more amicable to splitting
> the profits between them than Warner would be!
>
> heh heh
<grin> Sure. That even sounds Solomonic, in a sense of "Solomonic" that
is kind of creepily appropriate.
But I myself still feel a little puzzled. Who, in particular, are "the
creators" who would split the profits? Second, the question was "Who
would get Bugs Bunny," as in, who would also get creative control of him?
Jay
TServo2049
"Stephen W. Worth" wrote:
> Today, we talk down to kids. In the old days, cartoonists made
> cartoons to please a general audience. Both kids and adults
> could find things to enjoy.
And who started the idea that cartoons were just for kids? It wasn't
the classic Disney films, since Walt himself said his films were aimed
at the whole family.
thun...@ix.netcom.com
"Stephen W. Worth" wrote:
> In article <39B5D017...@ix.netcom.com>, thun...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > In fact the real truth is that directors are often bombarded with so
> > many opinions they lose any objectivity they could possibly have.
> > Keeping it clear is the art of the director.
>
> That wasn't so true of my experience with Bakshi (hehe) but John
> K is a laser beam when it comes to what he wants in a scene.
That is why Johns work is consistant. He has that vision that cannot be
swayed.
> He
> knows exactly how it should play from the first ruff storyboard.
> It never changes after that, it just gets amplified as each step
> improves and adds detail to the one before it.
The adding details is normal. Once you stand back from the canvas, what it
needs becomes more clear. The animators job is to get that vision .
>
>
> > It's hard to have any kind of singular vision on a
> > film where everyone think THEIRS is the one.
>
> The trick is making everyone think your own vision is theirs.
> A great Director can do that.
Part visionary, part arbitrator, part mom and part nazi. Really, it's a
bizzare job when you think of it.
>
> > A directors vision is not spontanious. It's a huge construction
> > of action taking place over an entire hour or more.
>
> Even more than that... it's a huge project to make a film. You
> have to maintain a consistent vision for a year or more while
> the film is in production.
>
> See ya
> Steve
And more , resist the constant barrage of everyone who thinks they know your
vision better than you.
gd
Do you know the effect that executive interference
> has had on television animation in the past ten years? Ask
> Greg Duffell. He'll tell you.
>
In the immortal words of Mugsy in "Bugsy and Mugsy", "What I do? What I
do????"
> Even though I don't always agree with all of the opinions
> and theories of people like Greg Duffell and thunderr, I
> can tell in a flash that they know what they're talking
> about because they've been there.
I have a scar running from the back of my left ear....down to my neck..and
all the way around to my other ear...to prove it.
In all seriousness though....an interesting post Steve, and I can honestly
say that if I've disagreed with anything you've said, I can't really
remember what it was.
Your revelations here are shocking even to me....about the executive who
openly admitted preparing outright theft. It's not that they'd steal...but
that they'd ADMIT it!! Did a gasp go through the audience? I suspect, in Los
Angeles..that no one would, for fear that if they were spotted
gasping...booing...or calling the police to have the thief apprehended, that
they'd never get another "pitch" meeting again in that town.
I remember once , a person named Catherine Winder, who some of you out
there may be familiar with
out there, sent me a letter on Hanna Barbera stationery. In the letter, and
I paraphrase, she spoke of a team of Hanna Barbera executives going across
Canada stopping in at studios, but you had to have ideas to "pitch" them for
short cartoons ("What a Cartoon" ? perhaps?). They had 48 cartoons to make,
of which only 2 or 3 would be produced at outside studios, the rest being
done in-house at Hanna Barbera. Now, I don't think I'm really bragging by
saying that I think I could make a better cartoon than Hanna Barbera with my
hands tied behind my back, cause most of their stuff looked like it had been
drawn by people who didn't have use of their arms. I wrote back saying
something to the effect that if they supplied me a budget, and a deadline,
and high expectations, I'd make them a cartoon. And if they didn't think my
studio could do that, what the hell were they doing writing me a letter in
the first place?
What they were asking the independent studios to do, was to create ideas for
them FOR NOTHING!!! Meanwhile, Bill Hanna made some atrocious duck cartoon,
at this same time, with the full resources of the studio. Meanwhile, the
touring executives fly up to Canada first class, in 5 star hotels, and on
big corporate expense accounts, while independent studios are supposed to
act like performing monkeys when they arrive.
My ideas may never have a Hanna Barbera or Time-Warner..or Disney
logo on them, and they may never get made at all, but I'm happier that
those leeches won't be profiting on my labour. But....there's a sucker born
every minute. These people are nothing but pimps and anyone who works for
them, with the kind of informational warnings that Steve is relating for our
benefit, are the prostitutes.
Now...that said....next time you see me...my nostrils might be split.
Greg Duffell
thun...@ix.netcom.com
gd wrote:
> > Even though I don't always agree with all of the opinions
> > and theories of people like Greg Duffell and thunderr, I
> > can tell in a flash that they know what they're talking
> > about because they've been there.
>
> I have a scar running from the back of my left ear....down to my neck..and
> all the way around to my other ear...to prove it.
>
> In all seriousness though....an interesting post Steve, and I can honestly
> say that if I've disagreed with anything you've said, I can't really
> remember what it was.
It was probably me he was talking about, and even that was not about actual
business but about the Annies or something. I think we pretty well all agree
on business issues exactly. By the way, you show me your scars and I'll show
you mine. It would probably be like that scene in Jaws with Hooper and Quint.
> Your revelations here are shocking even to me....about the executive who
> openly admitted preparing outright theft. It's not that they'd steal...but
> that they'd ADMIT it!!
There seems to be some joy taken by some suits in saying "I'm going to screw
you and make you keep your eyes open". It's a job perk to them.
> cause most of their stuff looked like it had been
> drawn by people who didn't have use of their arms.
I left this in because the picture it formed in my mind made me laugh pretty
loud.
> I wrote back saying
> something to the effect that if they supplied me a budget, and a deadline,
> and high expectations, I'd make them a cartoon. And if they didn't think my
> studio could do that, what the hell were they doing writing me a letter in
> the first place?
It's a test to see how much they can play with you emotionally. Real jobs come
with those specifics upfront.
>
> What they were asking the independent studios to do, was to create ideas for
> them FOR NOTHING!!!
Yup. Look, they count on trying to get as many indies begging for the jobs as
they can to make them compete amongst themselves.
> Meanwhile, the
> touring executives fly up to Canada first class, in 5 star hotels, and on
> big corporate expense accounts, while independent studios are supposed to
> act like performing monkeys when they arrive.
About the last six features were 30 million in debt before they even got
started Greg. Now tell me how the hell can you be overbudget before you even
start ?!?! Sure wasn't the crews fault. Warners eliminated the excess execs and
immediately made two features on way lower budgets (not to mention they were
better in every way). Funny huh ?
>
> My ideas may never have a Hanna Barbera or Time-Warner..or Disney
> logo on them, and they may never get made at all, but I'm happier that those
> leeches won't be profiting on my labour. But....there's a sucker born
> every minute. These people are nothing but pimps and anyone who works for
> them, with the kind of informational warnings that Steve is relating for our
> benefit, are the prostitutes.
Wanna date ? Just joking.
>
> Now...that said....next time you see me...my nostrils might be split.
>
> Greg Duffell
Naw, they would have to create an executive department and make the employees
take harrassment classes to do that. Nik Parks was a good example of doing your
own thing and holding out till they come to you. I think though it supports the
idea that to get any kind of deal that is reasonable an indie needs to be
informed and fanatical about what they want to do.
John Beauchemin
>
> But I myself still feel a little puzzled. Who, in particular, are "the
> creators" who would split the profits? Second, the question was "Who
> would get Bugs Bunny," as in, who would also get creative control of him?
>
> Jay
>
the answer is simple. Bugs Bunny was created by more than one animator. The
animators would be more likely to split the profits between themselves then
the studio would be to split it with anyone.
John
mich...@my-deja.com
mediums? The problems of creative control, independence and
ownership aren't unique to animation. The music business,
novel writing and comic book industry suffers from the same problems
and some solutions proposed seem similar-such as showcasing works
on the internet.
It'd be interesting to see if answers can be made in common
In article <bigshot-0809...@pm01-29.ktb.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
scott...@my-deja.com
I don愒 believe the Work Print version of the Thief floating around in
collectors hands is the final Wiliams version. There are a few sequences
in the Calvert version that are not in the work print version despite
the fact they were finished while Williams was in control.
I reckon that print is a good few years out of date.
The final screenplay (by Williams) from about 1990 (if memory serves) is
probably as close to a Williams Blueprint as we惻l ever get. It reads
beautifully as far as I惴 concerned.
Williams did愒 use Other Peoples Money until AFTER 1988. By which time
he悲 spent over 2million (UK)pounds on it - of his own money! I think
that gave him the right to do his film, the way he wanted to do it. Keep
in mind that the Thief was apparently only months from completion.
To some up, the film was destroyed (in almost everyones opinion) by
first Calvert and then Mirimax. The film would have been at the very
least fascinating if left alone (in my opinion). My God - an animated
feature that did愒 stick to the Hollywood formula.
Would love to go on forever but I don愒 have the time.
Scott Dunbar
Mike Ventrella
>You don't seem to understand the job of the Director.
No, I do, and I know that some can be self-indulgent. Many directors give
credit to their editors for making their films tighter and better and for
letting them know when scenes need to be cut. A good editor works with the
director to make the vision complete. I guess my point was that some directors
just aren't up to the job...
>> Sometimes it is good to have a muse above you telling you when what you have
done is "too much."
>That's great if the person giving you the advice is better at what you do than
you yourself are. Otherwise, it only leads
to the kind of "genericality" and "blandification" we see
going on in TV today.
I agree completely. Once more, I never meant to imply that any network heads
or studio heads automatically know better than the artists who create the work.
But on the other hand, not every creative person is the best judge of their
own work either.
Mike Ventrella
<<Exacty how does that make them right ? For all you know everyone could be
completely wrong. Since hers is personal and she is judging for her own growth
and
you are just comparing to existing works . Real innovation is internal and not
subject to the popular opinion.>>
Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with the original topic, which was
basically "Can an artist complain when others refuse to fund or subsidise their
work?" My original point was that animators, when their bills are being paid
by someone else, are in a sense contract workers. I didn't say it was right or
wrong. I was just tired of artists being paid to produce something, NOT
producing it, and then complaining that the people who were PAYING them to
produce something were the ones in the wrong.
>>Musicians need producers.
>Musicians songs are over in three minutes.
Certainly you don't think musicians just go into the studio and come out three
minutes later with their next single?
Stephen W. Worth
ventr...@aol.com (Mike Ventrella) wrote:
> I was just tired of artists being paid to produce something, NOT
> producing it, and then complaining that the people who were PAYING
> them to produce something were the ones in the wrong.
Who would that be? The only example of that I can think of would
be Robert Abel, except I never heard him complain.
thun...@ix.netcom.com
Mike Ventrella wrote:
> <<Exacty how does that make them right ? For all you know everyone could be
> completely wrong. Since hers is personal and she is judging for her own growth
> and
> you are just comparing to existing works . Real innovation is internal and not
> subject to the popular opinion.>>
>
> Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with the original topic, which was
> basically "Can an artist complain when others refuse to fund or subsidise their
> work?"
Actually you were saying "directors need input". Based on that you were saying
she had gone too far and that was a personal judgement and not factual. In other
words she should have the choice to ignore or accept that judgement .
There was nothing about anyone refusing to pay. It was about people who had
already paid but the item wasn't totally complete. The question was "should they
pull a film so close to completition".
> My original point was that animators,
Directors you mean.
> when their bills are being paid
> by someone else, are in a sense contract workers.
Not at all. The bond company was not paying to have the film created for them , it
was investing in finishing an existing film. They had the choice before investing
whether the film was something they wanted to invest in or not . It's totally
different than hiring someone to dig a sewer in your back yard.
> I didn't say it was right or
> wrong. I was just tired of artists being paid to produce something, NOT
> producing it, and then complaining that the people who were PAYING them to
> produce something were the ones in the wrong.
But Williams did produce ! It was only a matter of minutes left. Animation budgets
are not easy to predict purely because they are incredibly labor intensive (an
understatement in Williams case) and most of them go over by small amounts. The
last 6 animated featiures started out 30 million in debt even before starting.
Tarzan has had estimates as high as 170 million (I don't think they planned it to
cost that much) . You don't hear complaints because they don't get their films
taken away. Voila! Simple isn't it.
Again, your lack of empathy is purley a matter of the fact that for the moment,
you have no personal reference.
>
> >>Musicians need producers.
>
> >Musicians songs are over in three minutes.
>
> Certainly you don't think musicians just go into the studio and come out three
> minutes later with their next single?
You know Mike there is no way to compare a musician testing out chords and lines
with their producer for a 3 minute song and a director who has a 600 person studio
coordinating 90 minutes of sound and visuals over 2 years , No way. The only
comparison would be knitting a sweater from Burbank to Long Beach.
thun...@ix.netcom.com
JHall wrote:
> and a thunderr as well.
>
> Same question as was posed to Greg re Ottawa 00.
>
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, thun...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > ...
Too pooped. I think I will lounge arounds in my underwear.
Mike Ventrella
saying
she had gone too far and that was a personal judgement and not factual. In
other words she should have the choice to ignore or accept that judgement.>>
I agree that the conversation got sidetracked that way. Let me see if I can
restate this.
If you are hired to produce something, and the person paying the bills doesn't
like it, then you change it.
If you are hired and given artistic freedom to produce something and the person
paying the bills doesn't like it, then it it the person who is paying the bills
who has to lump it.
If you are given a deadline and you miss it, it is your fault and you cannot
complain if the person paying the bills takes it away from you.
If you are an artist, you need to acknowledge sometimes that you can either
make things to suit yourself and hope others will like it (but not complain
when they don't) or you can seek the advice of others who may have a different
view than yours and this advice may even make your art better.
Maybe I should point out here that although I am an animation fan and have
written about animation for many years, I (like Eric Costello) am actually in
real life a lawyer so my opnion and and knowledge of contracts may be skewing
my opinions.
<<There was nothing about anyone refusing to pay. It was about people who had
already paid but the item wasn't totally complete. The question was "should
they
pull a film so close to completition".>>
In the Richard Williams example, I agree that they ruined that film. I could
barely sit through the damned voice overs and obvious patches on the Thief.
That doesn't mean that the general principle behind the situation isn't valid.
Suppose they had taken the film and had actually improved upon it and had put
out a great version? Would we then be arguing about whether taking the film
away would be a good idea?
<<Not at all. The bond company was not paying to have the film created for
them, it
was investing in finishing an existing film. They had the choice before
investing
whether the film was something they wanted to invest in or not.>>
I agree with this; but it depends on the individual contract. If that is
indeed the situation in Williams' case, then it would seem that he would have a
valid argument against the company taking his film. But if that is so then why
did he just allow them to do so? If that is indeed what his contract said,
then why didn't he sue to have his contract enforced so that he could complete
his film?
Mike Ventrella
Stephen W. Worth
ventr...@aol.com (Mike Ventrella) wrote:
> If you are hired to produce something, and the person paying the bills
> doesn't like it, then you change it.
If you are a house painter and someone tells you to paint their house
blue, and then when you get all finished, they look at it and say, "No,
I think green would be nicer..." would you change it because they are
paying the bills?
You don't understand production. When an idea is storyboarded, laid out
and animated, it isn't easy to change it. If the revision changes the
structure of the story or the continuity of the cutting, you have to go
back and reanimate the whole sequence. These are called "Creative
Revisions" and they cost BIG bucks.
In the case of Ren & Stimpy, the premises, storyboards and layouts had
all been revised and approved at every step. In our office is set of
binders that are almost two feet thick with revision notes on R&S, many
of which are revisions of *previously approved* gags. There is NO WAY
that anyone could follow every one of those notes to the letter and
not spend millions of dollars beyond the budget for producing the
shows. None of these notes made the show funnier or more entertaining.
Many of them actually deleted humor and entertainment value.
In a case like this, the Director can only accommodate the changes for
so long... eventually he has no choice but to dig in his heels
and ask who is directing the show, him or the people wallpapering the
show with notes. When a network hires a Director of the calibre of
John K or Richard Williams, they are paying them for THEIR creative
decisions. That's the job of a director. Certainly both of these
artists are more than qualified.
As a lawyer, would you complain if a client told you how to do your
job, even when you know that the direction the client is taking will
destroy what you've built up? What if you had a vested interest in
the outcome of the case?
A Director is in a unique position. When a show tanks because of
incessant network interference, it isn't the network that gets
blamed by the viewers... It's the creator. This is *exactly* the
logical fallacy that you are making here.
> If you are an artist, you need to acknowledge sometimes that you can either
> make things to suit yourself and hope others will like it (but not complain
> when they don't) or you can seek the advice of others who may have a different
> view than yours and this advice may even make your art better.
"I've never seen a network revision note that ever made a show BETTER."
- Joe Barbera (qualified expert on the subject)
> Suppose they had taken the film and had actually improved upon it and had put
> out a great version? Would we then be arguing about whether taking the film
> away would be a good idea?
Please cite an example of that happening. I sure can't think of any.
Completion Bond companies and Networks shouldn't be making creative
decisions for Directors with the obvious talents of Richard Williams
and John K. They aren't qualified filmmakers. Their job is to
facilitate the production and to distribute the product. With the
business the way it is today, it's as if the paperboy is directing
the editorial content of the newspaper.
Mike Ventrella
doesn't like it, then you change it.
>If you are a house painter and someone tells you to paint their house
blue, and then when you get all finished, they look at it and say, "No,
I think green would be nicer..." would you change it because they are
paying the bills?
>You don't understand production.
What I do understand is contract law. If I paint a house blue as per our
agreement and then afterwards you want green, then YOU have broken the
contract. You cannot force me to redo the painting if I did everything we were
contracted for. I performed as contracted. You want it repainted green, we
sign a new contract or you get someone else to do it.
>In the case of Ren & Stimpy, the premises, storyboards and layouts had
all been revised and approved at every step. In our office is set of
binders that are almost two feet thick with revision notes on R&S, many
of which are revisions of *previously approved* gags. There is NO WAY
that anyone could follow every one of those notes to the letter and
not spend millions of dollars beyond the budget for producing the
shows. None of these notes made the show funnier or more entertaining.
Many of them actually deleted humor and entertainment value.
That sounds like typical corporate behavior, and I certainly am not denying
that crap like that happens all the time. The key is that as far as I can see,
if the network big shots demanded the changes but did not budget them, then
they are at fault. Did John K sue over this? He complained as he should have,
but if someone ELSE tries to change the contract AFTER it has been signed, then
the burden is on them to pay the extra costs...
<<Completion Bond companies and Networks shouldn't be making creative
decisions for Directors with the obvious talents of Richard Williams
and John K. They aren't qualified filmmakers.>>
We agree completely on that point.
I think we are closer than you may think on this. I also don't like to have
business types telling creative types how to do things. My only point was once
again: If there was a contract to produce something and that something was not
produced, then whoever stopped it from being produced is at fault.
L & G
Mike Ventrella wrote:
From Gerard
I agree with you, for fear of being jumped on. It would appear back in 1978 when
Richard Williams was interviewed for Funnyworld #19, Fall issue, he somewhat agreed
with you. This Quote was the first time I heard the "golden rule" ever mentioned.
Maybe he thought that completion bond thing was the "finishing money" he talked
about:
" The only reason I left the studio (in London] and took on the horrific Raggedy
Ann assignment was to become bankable. Because thought, if I do this
four-and-a-half-million dollar movie, that makes me bankable. And then we can
easily get money to complete The Thief: It just works that way--if you've done a
big thing, that's a credit. What happened was, I did become bankable, but the
lesson I learned was the Golden Rule: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules."
Whoever has the monetary control of the picture controls the picture. So they can
do what they like with it, they can control the story, the way you work, fire the
key people if they want, bring in idiots, lock you away in a room, do anything they
like. That isn't going to happen on The thief I won't accept the money. We're
quite powerful in London--self supportive--and we've earned our own money and we
spend very, very heavily on The Thief. We've put in well over a million dollars
already. And that would have been profit. Now if the California studio is as
strong, which it is rapidly becoming, well have two sources of income which allows
us to advance the picture. Then all I need to do is get finishing money from some
outfit or whatever, and that's not gonna screw up the picture because the real
creative work is done. All that's left is finishing production. We think we can
finish The Thief in two or three years, but I would go indefinitely rather than
have the picture wrecked. If we get finishing money, we could complete it in two.
We have 70 minutes in pencil test now. We changed the picture all around six
orseven years ago, but the Thief himself,
which we invented, was all done by Ken Harris for the past 10 years, and he's
virtually finished that character. All the good work [from the original start] we
kept. We threw out all the garbage, and the main character which I had done.
It's just a question of money now--if we sold out, we could do it quick. But
Raggedy-Ann, which I had virtually no
control over, cured me of that. The Thief and the Cobbler is my picture. If it's
gonna be good or bad, I'm going to be responsible for it. On Ann I had a very
silly contract--i was contracted only for two weeks of every month, and I was
supposed to be just a supervisor. I kind of got pushed into being the official
director. But there were very many chefs in that thing. And I was coming in and
out, trying to keep to my contract, and work on The Thief the other two weeks, and
I just got trapped, and had to work on Raggedy Ann all the time--for the same
money--and really had no control over it.
And maybe I'm naive about just how it is in America, but when I got on
Raggedy- Ann and had to go through all
these meetings all the time, I kept saying, "All this talk doesn't get you
anywhere, folks, we have to work--I have to work!" But they don't want you to work
over here, they want you to be the front man, and you have a bunch of gnomes to do
the animation. That's the pattern. And that's one reason we're so small in
California. We could have opened big, but I want to build it the way we work. I
front it, but hell, I work--i don't spend my life beating my gums."
Funnyworld 19 1978 Fall issue
Stephen W. Worth
ventr...@aol.com (Mike Ventrella) wrote:
> That sounds like typical corporate behavior, and I certainly am not
> denying that crap like that happens all the time. The key is that
> as far as I can see, if the network big shots demanded the changes
> but did not budget them, then they are at fault. Did John K sue
> over this?
Take a wild guess as to what would happen if someone producing a
show tried to sue the network that aired it...
> if someone ELSE tries to change the contract AFTER it has been
> signed, then the burden is on them to pay the extra costs...
You're beginning to understand what happened on R&S. Budget and
schedule overruns weren't the problem, they were the symptom...
The real problem was the unreasonable demands for revisions. The
dead giveaway who was at fault was when the show went even MORE
over budget and behind schedule at the NETWORK OPERATED studio
that continued the series. At Games, no one was allowed to say
no to the networks' back breaking revision notes like John was
able to on the early episodes.
> If there was a contract to produce something and that something
> was not produced, then whoever stopped it from being produced is
> at fault.
Quite true, but... and none of them are working at the network
any more.
thun...@ix.netcom.com
Mike Ventrella wrote:
> <<Actually you were saying "directors need input". Based on that you were
> saying
> she had gone too far and that was a personal judgement and not factual. In
> other words she should have the choice to ignore or accept that judgement.>>
>
> I agree that the conversation got sidetracked that way. Let me see if I can
> restate this.
>
> If you are hired to produce something, and the person paying the bills doesn't
> like it, then you change it.
No. That is totally not the discussion. Williams approached the bond company to
invest in his already existing film. He wasn't "hired". He was the owner. Get that
factory worker out of your head Mike. These people couldn't have concieved a film
like this if they had lived to a thousand. This was not a service job. It was
completing someones life work. In this kind of investment you A) do not invest
because the almost complete film is the not the way you like it or B) put your
money up to help complete a film you have faith in. It is a simple choice.
Williams wasn't exchanging money for co-directors.
Tell me, if you get money from the bank to finance your car has the bank hired you
? Are you their employee ? No and you would probably not buy the car if you
thought they were going to sit in the back and tell you how to drive. Get it ?
>
>
> If you are given a deadline and you miss it, it is your fault and you cannot
> complain if the person paying the bills takes it away from you.
Sure as hell is a good reason. It wasn't that films don't go over budget or
overtime, it's just that most companies aren't dumb enough to think they could
direct it themselves and take it away from the director. Or better yet hand it to
a company and director that has never done a god damn feature ! Films go over
everyday !
>
> If you are an artist, you need to acknowledge sometimes that you can either
> make things to suit yourself and hope others will like it (but not complain
> when they don't) or you can seek the advice of others who may have a different
> view than yours and this advice may even make your art better.
Mike, if you think for one minute you can justify the idiotoic over reaction and
blundering mindless destruction of this film by saying he needed another "opinion"
you are completely mad. The difference between this and keeping myself "objective"
as an artist on my work is the same as any artist. We seek it when we feel we need
it and not when it is delivered in the form of a forced enema.
>
> Maybe I should point out here that although I am an animation fan and have
> written about animation for many years, I (like Eric Costello) am actually in
> real life a lawyer so my opnion and and knowledge of contracts may be skewing
> my opinions.
Then as a lawyer you know that in cases of disputes like this it is far better to
arbitrate an end to the problem than to reposess a project that none of the
creditors have the ability to finish. Not only that but when you know said
creditors will indeed destroy it.
>
>
> <<There was nothing about anyone refusing to pay. It was about people who had
> already paid but the item wasn't totally complete. The question was "should
> they
> pull a film so close to completition".>>
>
> In the Richard Williams example, I agree that they ruined that film.
Thank god.
> I could
> barely sit through the damned voice overs and obvious patches on the Thief.
> That doesn't mean that the general principle behind the situation isn't valid.
You know that if you are a lawyer that answers are not written just in books. That
solutions are not always in foreclosure. There are always "other" answers.
>
> Suppose they had taken the film and had actually improved upon it and had put
> out a great version? Would we then be arguing about whether taking the film
> away would be a good idea?
No, but then you wouldn't hear Williams complaining and you wouldn't have a chance
to write about "whining artists".
>
>
> <<Not at all. The bond company was not paying to have the film created for
> them, it
> was investing in finishing an existing film. They had the choice before
> investing
> whether the film was something they wanted to invest in or not.>>
>
> I agree with this; but it depends on the individual contract.
Name me an individual that has done an animated feature on his own and we will
have a precedent to base this on. Oh by the way, my father was a lawyer.
> If that is
> indeed the situation in Williams' case, then it would seem that he would have a
> valid argument against the company taking his film. But if that is so then why
> did he just allow them to do so? If that is indeed what his contract said,
> then why didn't he sue to have his contract enforced so that he could complete
> his film?
>
> Mike Ventrella
Mike, name me an artist you think is a good businessman. Sorry Mike, wrong lobe.
gd
"JHall" <jh...@achilles.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100091...@dragon.achilles.net...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, gd wrote:
>
> >
>
> it is great to read that there is a Greg Duffell.
>
> Will Greg be a visitor to the Ottawa 00 International Animation Festival ?
I'd like to go to Ottawa...but I was suddenly lumbered with a job and it's
looking a bit dicey about me going up there.
If I do, I hope to see a bunch of comrades from this newsgroup there.
By the way..are there any vintage animation screenings or other noteable
highlights going on up there?
Greg
>
thun...@ix.netcom.com
ELurio wrote:
> Good. Then we can end this thread as friends. Have a good rest of the weekend.
>
> BTW, The first thing Calvert did was take the work print to some of the top
> editors in Hollywood to get their opinion on how much was useable....then the
> "adulteration" began....
>
> eric l.
An editor is not a director. Why they would do that is beyond me.
ELurio
Mr. thunderr who is correct in this case. He seems to have realized that
this was merely a perjorative term I used to describe the industrial,
assembly line rush with which they were forced to complete (complete being
a debateable term here) the film.
Bluth and Kroyer are not Korean, and i apologise to them for any
confusion I might have caused them about their ethnic backgrounds. >>