Pixar and Disney relationship ends
Juan F. Lara
Jay Shell
> http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/29/news/companies/pixar_disney/
Oh man, first the animators, then Roy D. and now this!
Eisner is a fool... how did the Company collapse so FAST?
--
Jay Shell
Derek Janssen
As I seem to recall, they were going along fine until Mike believed
Katzenberg and the Sinbad Swindle--
(...Well, whaddya know?:
"Shrek" really DID destroy the Disney studios!) :-D
Derek Janssen (gee, you guys were right all along!)
dja...@rcn.com
Jay Shell
> Jay Shell wrote:
> > "Juan F. Lara" wrote:
> >
> >
> >> http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/29/news/companies/pixar_disney/
> >
> >
> > Oh man, first the animators, then Roy D. and now this!
> > Eisner is a fool... how did the Company collapse so FAST?
>
> As I seem to recall, they were going along fine until Mike believed
> Katzenberg and the Sinbad Swindle--
>
> Derek Janssen (gee, you guys were right all along!)
> dja...@rcn.com
And I'll bet that crafty s.o.b. Katzenberg is on the phone with Steve
Jobs right now (why ripoff Pixar when you can own 'em?). :-P
--
Jay Shell
Derek Janssen
>
>>>Eisner is a fool... how did the Company collapse so FAST?
>>
>>As I seem to recall, they were going along fine until Mike believed
>>Katzenberg and the Sinbad Swindle--
>
>
> Jobs right now (why ripoff Pixar when you can own 'em?). :-P
Wouldn't put it past his Disney Complex to try and bargain shop--
Although, Jeff did invent the first "We don't NEED Pixar!..It's just,
like, computers 'n stuff, and we've *got* those!" third-party-hopeful
studio for others to, um...follow.
(But, then again, if "Jerry Seinfeld in 'A Bee Movie'" doesn't quite
pan out on the storyboards...)
Derek Janssen (and PLEASE tell me that was a fake rumor, btw--As a
Dreamworks gag, it's just too cheap to be real)
dja...@rcn.com
Bill Newkirk
maybe Pixar will buy Disney.
"Jay Shell" <jays...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4019A5F5...@earthlink.net...
Bill Newkirk
"Juan F. Lara" <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:bvc22p$qlq$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
DishRoom1
Juan F. Lara wrote --
>> http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/29/news/companies/pixar_disney/
>
>Oh man, first the animators, then Roy D. and now this!
>Eisner is a fool... how did the Company collapse so FAST?
>
Seems to be going that way.
Oh, and you forgot about Disney losing its abitily to keep its themeparks clean
and in tip-top shape (I know, not animation-related) and possiblely lossing the
Winnie-the-Pooh rights.
John Shughart
ELurio
Oh, and you forgot about Disney losing its abitily to keep its themeparks clean
and in tip-top shape (I know, not animation-related) and possiblely lossing the
Winnie-the-Pooh rights. >><BR><BR>
Not to mention the Gary K. Wolf's lawsuit over "Roger Rabbit" licensing.
We've known that this would happen for YEARS. Ever since the "Toy Story 2"
flap.
eric l.
Uniblab
>
> - Juan F. Lara
> http://bellsouthpwp.net/l/a/lara6281/intro.html
>
Disney for this one -- they were in a lose-lose situation. Not only did
Pixar demand total ownership of their films (which they will most likely get
when they reach an agreement with another studio), they also wanted to
renegotiate the terms of the current agreement for "The Incredibles" and
"Cars". Why should Disney give up (at least part) ownership of these two
films, which it already owns, in exchange for a straight distribution deal
from Pixar, in which Disney will only receive about 10% of the profits of
future films? Doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint and if I were a
stockholder (which I am), I would not be happy with a deal like that.
The sad thing is, Pixar could lose out, too -- the Disney name is still
strong, and I wonder if their films will perform as well without the Disney
brand name and marketing machine behind them.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Derek Janssen
>>Oh man, first the animators, then Roy D. and now this!
>>Eisner is a fool... how did the Company collapse so FAST?
>>
> Oh, and you forgot about Disney losing its abitily to keep its themeparks clean
> and in tip-top shape (I know, not animation-related)
And not Eisner-related either--
You're thinking of Paul Pressler, and don't worry, he's been LONNNG gone
for two years now (sneaked out during the first "Blame Mike for
everything" stockholder-fest)...And the Gap chain can *have* him.
Derek Janssen (still seeking to avenge "Enchanted Tiki Birds: Under New
Management")
dja...@rcn.com
DishRoom1
I wrrote --
>>>Oh man, first the animators, then Roy D. and now this!
>>>Eisner is a fool... how did the Company collapse so FAST?
>>>
>> Oh, and you forgot about Disney losing its abitily to keep its themeparks
>clean
>> and in tip-top shape (I know, not animation-related)
>
>And not Eisner-related either--
>You're thinking of Paul Pressler, and don't worry, he's been LONNNG gone
>for two years now (sneaked out during the first "Blame Mike for
>everything" stockholder-fest)...And the Gap chain can *have* him.
But has Disney made any recent effort to clean up the themeparks, and to keep
them safe and clean, after Pressler left?
>
>Derek Janssen (still seeking to avenge "Enchanted Tiki Birds: Under New
>Management")
"Enchanted Tiki Birds" sounds so weird and dirty to me. o_O
John Shughart
UncleMike
"Uniblab" <uni...@uniblab.net> wrote in message
news:401a878b$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> "Cars". Why should Disney give up (at least part) ownership of these two
> films, which it already owns, in exchange for a straight distribution deal
> from Pixar, in which Disney will only receive about 10% of the profits of
> future films? Doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint and if I were
a
> stockholder (which I am), I would not be happy with a deal like that.
Here's why: 10% of ten Pixar films, let's say, which if DFA continues at it
has (and Pixar does too), will throttle Disney product at the box office,
beats 0% of nothing at all. Eisner's unwillingness to bend on this issue has
been a problem at least since TS2. It's a classic case of killing the golden
goose.
>
> The sad thing is, Pixar could lose out, too -- the Disney name is still
> strong, and I wonder if their films will perform as well without the
Disney
> brand name and marketing machine behind them.
>
I don't. The bigs are lining up to make a deal with Pixar and they have no
shortage of clout of marketing muscle. As to the brand, ot me Pixar stands
for more than Disney these days.
Uniblab
news:TKASb.3636$GO6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Uniblab" <uni...@uniblab.net> wrote in message
> news:401a878b$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > "Cars". Why should Disney give up (at least part) ownership of these two
> > films, which it already owns, in exchange for a straight distribution
deal
> > from Pixar, in which Disney will only receive about 10% of the profits
of
> > future films? Doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint and if I
were
> a
> > stockholder (which I am), I would not be happy with a deal like that.
>
> Here's why: 10% of ten Pixar films, let's say, which if DFA continues at
it
> has (and Pixar does too), will throttle Disney product at the box office,
> beats 0% of nothing at all. Eisner's unwillingness to bend on this issue
has
> been a problem at least since TS2. It's a classic case of killing the
golden
> goose.
>
tough goal to achieve), Disney's share would only come to $300 million. Why
should they give up ownership of "Cars" and "The Incredibles" (which will
easily outgross that amount) for that? That's what Pixar's Steve Jobs was
demanding.
It's very easy to blame Disney here, but the situation is much more complex
than that. Pixar is going to find it tougher going without the Disney name
behind them (although I'm not saying they won't succeed). Warner Bros.,
Sony, etc. may have marketing muscle, but they still don't have the same
marketing cache when it comes to family entertainment than Disney has.
This whole situation sounds like a losing proposition for both Disney and
Pixar.
Jay Shell
> The bigs are lining up to make a deal with Pixar and they have no
> shortage of clout of marketing muscle. As to the brand, to me Pixar stands
> for more than Disney these days.
Didn't Time-Warner make a better offer to Pixar a few months ago?
I wonder if that deal has been in the works all this time (lawyers dotting
their i's and crossing their t's). T-W sure needs help in the animation
dept. (Was "Space Jam" their only toon movie hit? ...sheesh).
--
Jay Shell
Derek Janssen
>
>>>>Oh man, first the animators, then Roy D. and now this!
>>>>Eisner is a fool... how did the Company collapse so FAST?
>>>
>>>Oh, and you forgot about Disney losing its abitily to keep its themeparks
>>clean and in tip-top shape (I know, not animation-related)
>>
>>And not Eisner-related either--
>>You're thinking of Paul Pressler, and don't worry, he's been LONNNG gone
>>for two years now (sneaked out during the first "Blame Mike for
>>everything" stockholder-fest)...And the Gap chain can *have* him.
>
> But has Disney made any recent effort to clean up the themeparks, and to keep
> them safe and clean, after Pressler left?
Umm, yes--
They brought in Jay Rasulo, who'd gotten his reputation from cleaning up
Disneyland Paris's act.
(And if Jay could clean up EuroDisney, there was a *chance* he could
clean up what Pressler did to the parks...)
>>(still seeking to avenge "Enchanted Tiki Birds: Under New
>>Management")
>
> "Enchanted Tiki Birds" sounds so weird and dirty to me. o_O
Youuuu...don't wanna know what Paul did to it.
Derek Janssen (birds singing Gloria Estefan--'Nuff said.)
dja...@rcn.com
LordofTheBidding
>Disney for this one -- they were in a lose-lose situation. Not only did
>Pixar demand total ownership of their films (which they will most likely get
>when they reach an agreement with another studio), they also wanted to
>renegotiate the terms of the current agreement for "The Incredibles" and
>"Cars". Why should Disney give up (at least part) ownership of these two
>films, which it already owns, in exchange for a straight distribution deal
>from Pixar, in which Disney will only receive about 10% of the profits of
>future films? Doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint and if I were a
>stockholder (which I am), I would not be happy with a deal like that.
>
>The sad thing is, Pixar could lose out, too -- the Disney name is still
>strong, and I wonder if their films will perform as well without the Disney
>brand name and marketing machine behind them.
>
>
>
>
I think time will tell whether or not this was a good or bad move. I certainly
understand why Disney did what they did. Disney gets to keep part ownership of
all of the Pixar films so far, and they get to continue to make sequels to all
those films, as I understand it. I think they are allowed to make sequels even
if Pixar refuses to produce them.
We don't know whether or not the Pixar films will continue to make the type of
money they've been making. Most likely they won't. That isn't to say that
they won't continue to be profitable though. Disney does however get to keep
those Pixar franchises (Toy Story, Nemo, etc.) that have *proven* to be
profitable.
I think it's just another case of Disney trying to be shrewd and going with the
surest of sure things, and not showing a lot of initiative or foresight
regarding the future. And that's unfortunate because they never would have
become the Disney we know and love if they had always been this cautious.
If Disney decides to chose excellent material and makes wise decisions, and
takes chances concerning their upcoming in-house CGI films, then I can't be too
harsh on this decision. But most likely, Eisner will greenlight a bunch of
Nemo/Monster Inc/Toy Story wannabe junk and Disney will circle around the bowl
and get flushed like the turd it will have become.
Juan F. Lara
Jay Shell <jays...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>dept. (Was "Space Jam" their only toon movie hit? ...sheesh).
That and "Pokemon: the First Movie".
animator-boy
I think this could actually be part of a larger plan. Roy and Stan call for a
NO vote on Eisner then a few days later Pixar breaks off talks. Yeah its a bad
time to be Micheal Eisner. Thing is Pixar is in the drivers seat. They are
set for the next 2 years under the current deal and they don't need a new
distributor until 2006...which coincidently is the same year Eisner's contract
is up. By breaking off talks now and having it all be made public, it puts yet
more bad press out there about the leadership of Eisner. Also gives Roy and
Stan more ammo. And should make for an even more entertaining stock holders
metting. Thus far Pixar has not cozied up with another studio which beens that
talks could resume with Disney.....Pixar may be waiting for the winds of change
in management...and they have the time to wait....
Raymation
http://www.raymation.net
disneyfanla
The Disney Company has been in decline since the day Frank Wells died 10
years ago. That began the micro-managing, egonomical rise of that idiot
Michael Eisner. He is the single factor in the breakdown of the
company's core assets as well as the drain of the creative forces
(through both layoff and people quitting in disgust) that have led to
Disney's demise.
The single biggest investment Disney could make right now is to pay
whatever it would cost to push Eisner out the door with a swift kick in
the ass.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>>>>Oh man, first the animators, then Roy D. and now this!
>>>>>Eisner is a fool... how did the Company collapse so FAST?
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and you forgot about Disney losing its abitily to keep its themeparks
>>>clean and in tip-top shape (I know, not animation-related)
>>>
>>>And not Eisner-related either--
>>>You're thinking of Paul Pressler, and don't worry, he's been LONNNG gone
>>>for two years now (sneaked out during the first "Blame Mike for
>>>everything" stockholder-fest)...And the Gap chain can *have* him.
>>
>> But has Disney made any recent effort to clean up the themeparks, and to
>keep
>> them safe and clean, after Pressler left?
>
>Umm, yes--
>They brought in Jay Rasulo, who'd gotten his reputation from cleaning up
>Disneyland Paris's act.
>(And if Jay could clean up EuroDisney, there was a *chance* he could
>clean up what Pressler did to the parks...)
And how about the burnt out light bulbs and pealing paint? How's he going with
that, too? :-)
>
>>>(still seeking to avenge "Enchanted Tiki Birds: Under New
>>>Management")
>>
>> "Enchanted Tiki Birds" sounds so weird and dirty to me. o_O
>
>Youuuu...don't wanna know what Paul did to it.
>
>Derek Janssen (birds singing Gloria Estefan--'Nuff said.)
Ick. Kind of like how Ruby-Spears' Chimpmucks are made to sing artists' songs
without giving credit to them.
John Shughart
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
George Lucas has a similar deal with 20th C Fox on Star Wars.
Fox distributes SW and get only 10% of the theatre profits,
while Lucas get to keep control of the franchise.
Whether one likes the new SW or not, it's worth billion$.
Ticket sales, videos, merchandise, domestic and worldwide.
So Fox gets a lot back too.
Pixar wants to be the next LucasFilm Ltd.
Question is, can they pull it off?
The theatre gross may be lower than with Disney's,
but Pixar gets a bigger share of the pie.
Right now, Pixar and Disney split 50-50,
but Pixar also pays a 10% distribution fee,
so it's more like 40-60 to Disney's favor.
The new deal Pixar is looking for gives it 90% share.
Plus, they get to control their films, any sequels, etc
with not much interference from non-Pixar management.
The same freedom would allow them to create films and shorts,
should they decide to, beyond the scope of the Disney audience.
Overall less constraints to satisfy their creative juices.
(Though that's not always a good thing, depending on who;
just look at Lucas and his new Star Wars. ;) )
Yet, the greater shift in the balance of power lies in
that whoever gets to distribute Pixar's films can put it
exactly against Disney's own animated film's theatre date,
just like how Disney has done before to its competition.
Then, Disney not only will lose its profit from Pixar's film,
but they'll have to spend to create and market their own film
yet lose some of the ticket sales to Pixar's film.
It's only a question of how much?
This will be very interesting indeed, how this shake-out
will affect each's bottom line. For each side,
there are pros and cons, so it'd be difficult to predict.
They both can win, both can lose, or one win the other loses.
I guess we'll just see.
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ Stanlee stanlee[at]cif[dot]rochester[dot]edu
| ( _| | Dometita http://cif.rochester.edu/~stanlee/
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
Arklier
<disneyfa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Fast?
>
>The Disney Company has been in decline since the day Frank Wells died 10
>years ago. That began the micro-managing, egonomical rise of that idiot
>Michael Eisner. He is the single factor in the breakdown of the
>company's core assets as well as the drain of the creative forces
>(through both layoff and people quitting in disgust) that have led to
>Disney's demise.
>
>The single biggest investment Disney could make right now is to pay
>whatever it would cost to push Eisner out the door with a swift kick in
>the ass.
I think it's unreasonable to blame him personally for everything.
Disney is too large of a company for any one person to take all the
blame when things go sour.
If you can't figure out my address, you need help.
Girl gamer since 1984,
Atari/NES/Genesis/SNES/DC/GBA/GC/PS1-2/Xbox/PC gamer
Arklier
wrote:
>In article <401ADE97...@earthlink.net>,
>Jay Shell <jays...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>dept. (Was "Space Jam" their only toon movie hit? ...sheesh).
>
> That and "Pokemon: the First Movie"
That wasn't really their movie, though. They just imported and
locallized it. They didn't actually make it.
Terrence Briggs
Shrek proved that Disney has no monopoly on blockbuster CGI animation.
Heck, Ice Age suggests than anyone can do it, so long as the public
believes that they're getting a Disney-esque experience :)
Pixar has more cachet than PDI, though, and can reasonably demand the
sun and the moon from any media distibutor right now. All they have
to say in the ads is "from the makers of Toy Story and Finding Nemo",
and they're in the bag.
True, they can't afford to overplay their hand (i.e. go independent),
but they can certainly afford to be a little magnanimous.
> This whole situation sounds like a losing proposition for both Disney and
> Pixar.
Disney bled crimson with Atlantis and Treasure Planet. They are
vulnerable. Heck, the last "pure" Disney film to outgross the
lowest-grossing Pixar film (Toy Story) Lion King. Aladdin is the only
other Diz flick that they can hold up as worthy for branding, based
solely on the box office. Pixar's films were the best thing to happen
to Disney animation since The Lion King, and now their relationship is
severed. Way to go, Diz.
Terrence Briggs
Peace to you...
Crouching Jedi Hidden Sith
mrm...@peopleweb.com (Terrence Briggs) writes:
>Pixar has more cachet than PDI, though, and can reasonably demand the
>sun and the moon from any media distibutor right now. All they have
>to say in the ads is "from the makers of Toy Story and Finding Nemo",
>and they're in the bag.
Curious, will they be allowed to mention that without attracting Eisner's*
legal ire? No doubt Eisner* will want dibs to that buzz phrase (well, at least
"from the STUDIO that released...").
It'll be interesting to see what Pixar delves into after 2005, considering how
(to me) they're starting to look like the Rob Schneider of animation ("first
they were toys, then bugs, then monsters, then fish, then cars... now Pixar is
'DER-DERP-DEE-DERP-DEE-DERP'!"), but just the same, there needn't be any more
films about the subjects they portray, since the proceedings are so
comprehensive.
PS: *coughRAYGUNNLIVEScough*
* as you can tell, I'm no longer calling the company "Disney"... even the
alleged "dark prince of Hollywood" deserves better.
____ _____
V
@(^.^)@
"Music is the soundtrack to the crappy movie that is my life." -- Chris Rock
Johnny Douglas (film/TV/cartoon composer): June 19, 1920 - April 20, 2003
Derek Janssen
>
> It'll be interesting to see what Pixar delves into after 2005, considering how
> (to me) they're starting to look like the Rob Schneider of animation ("first
> they were toys, then bugs, then monsters, then fish, then cars... now Pixar is
> 'DER-DERP-DEE-DERP-DEE-DERP'!"), but just the same, there needn't be any more
> films about the subjects they portray, since the proceedings are so
> comprehensive.
And now that they've agreed that John Lasseter doesn't have to direct
*all* the movies anymore and they can let the other guys have a
chance--which they have to, now that they're a Studio with an annual
output, and not just artists doing a film they thought up--it'll be
crucial to see how directorial diversity stacks up for quality.
Monsters and Nemo were the first "other guys" movies (and whether they
were actually *better* than the "pure-blooded" Bugs Life or TS2, YMMV),
but now they're trying to bring other directors in, starting with Brad
Bird for "Incredibles"--
Which means--leaving aside the whole question of whether Iron Giant *or*
the Simpsons qualifies one for Pixar--bringing in more new outsiders who
don't have a knack for "the Pixar style" ("Incredibles" seemed to border
a little on Cartoon Network humor near the end of the teaser) could
reduce Pixar from "the Toy Story studio" artistic brand name to just a
more generic "the only CG studio still working that doesn't make CGI
features that suck".
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Steve Carras
Add "THE INCREDIBLE MISTER LIMPET" (1964) with Don Knotts from the end
of the original pre-DFE studio era.
Steve Carras
And why's that....."The bird of paradise is an elegant bird."
SC, who loves the old TR and iS GLAD he never got to see "ETB:NWM."
Walt Sellers
"S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <sta...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
> Right now, Pixar and Disney split 50-50,
> but Pixar also pays a 10% distribution fee,
> so it's more like 40-60 to Disney's favor.
> The new deal Pixar is looking for gives it 90% share.
> Plus, they get to control their films, any sequels, etc
> with not much interference from non-Pixar management.
> The same freedom would allow them to create films and shorts,
> should they decide to, beyond the scope of the Disney audience.
> Overall less constraints to satisfy their creative juices.
> (Though that's not always a good thing, depending on who;
> just look at Lucas and his new Star Wars. ;) )
Doesn't Pixar also have to reimburse Disney for marketing costs? So its
a 50-50 of profit after marketing costs and the distribution fee (so
maybe 30-70).
And I don't recall who is shouldering the development costs. Is it all
on Pixar or 50/50?
Plus Disney gets to use the characters in the themeparks for free, right?
Walt Sellers
Walt Sellers
"S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <sta...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
> Yet, the greater shift in the balance of power lies in
> that whoever gets to distribute Pixar's films can put it
> exactly against Disney's own animated film's theatre date,
> just like how Disney has done before to its competition.
> Then, Disney not only will lose its profit from Pixar's film,
> but they'll have to spend to create and market their own film
> yet lose some of the ticket sales to Pixar's film.
> It's only a question of how much?
I don't think anyone would deliberately do this against a Disney movie.
Why dilute your own earnings? And that would be kind of a personal
shot. And its doubtful that anyone could, or would, out-market Disney.
On the subject of marketing, if anyone over-hypes their movie to the
point that it can't deliver, they've just hurt themselves. (Star Wars
Episode 1 and Disney's Hercules are cases in point.) This might be a
big danger should these companies face off in a time slot.
Walt Sellers
Walt Sellers
"S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <sta...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
> This will be very interesting indeed, how this shake-out
> will affect each's bottom line. For each side,
> there are pros and cons, so it'd be difficult to predict.
> They both can win, both can lose, or one win the other loses.
> I guess we'll just see.
It does beg the question, "what will Disney do to fill the gap in 2006?"
Walt Sellers
Walt Sellers
Arklier <you...@gettinit.bla> wrote:
> I think it's unreasonable to blame him personally for everything.
> Disney is too large of a company for any one person to take all the
> blame when things go sour.
In a big company its hard to figure out who to accurately pin blame on.
Eisner is often blamed somewhat directly in Katzenberger's departure.
And wasn't it Katzenberger who kept Treasure Planet in the reject pile
for 10 years?
Walt Sellers
Walt Sellers
"Bill Newkirk" <wnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> it's been in small steps for many years --
>
> maybe Pixar will buy Disney.
Not yet. Not enough money. They only have $500 million in the bank.
Comcasts hostile offer is on the order of $66,000 million.
However, I argued to a friend that we may see Pixar buy Disney one day
in Feb 2003.
Walt Sellers
Walt Sellers
Jay Shell <jays...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Oh man, first the animators, then Roy D. and now this!
> Eisner is a fool... how did the Company collapse so FAST?
It didn't collapse fast. It just seems that way, probably because we
didn't notice the damage until it was mostly done.
Walt Sellers
Jay Shell <jays...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> And I'll bet that crafty s.o.b. Katzenberg is on the phone with Steve
> Jobs right now (why ripoff Pixar when you can own 'em?). :-P
It'll be a little tougher to take over Pixar than Disney. Steve Jobs is
(or at least was) THE majority shareholder. (something like 80% after
the IPO if my numbers are correct.)
And don't forget, Pixar was plenty ticked off that Katzenberg's new
company shipped a CGI movie about ants just 2 weeks before Pixar's movie
about ants.
Pixar might go with a partner who does NOT make CGI movies. So there
won't be a conflict of interest in marketing should the companies ship
movies near the same date.
Walt Sellers
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
I believe Pixar and Disney split in the middle
the production and marketing costs.
>
> Plus Disney gets to use the characters in the themeparks for free, right?
>
Of course. They do own the rights to use them.
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
Disney already had a deal with another 3DCG studio
just in case the Pixar deal fell through.
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
Last year?
Walt Sellers
"S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <sta...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Walt Sellers wrote:
>
> > In article <Y2lSb.68925$lh3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Bill Newkirk" <wnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > it's been in small steps for many years --
> > >
> > > maybe Pixar will buy Disney.
> >
> > Not yet. Not enough money. They only have $500 million in the bank.
> > Comcasts hostile offer is on the order of $66,000 million.
> >
> > However, I argued to a friend that we may see Pixar buy Disney one day
> > in Feb 2003.
> >
>
> Last year?
>
Better stated:
In Feb 2003, I argued to a friend that we may see Pixar by Disney one
day.
Walt
Walt Sellers
"S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <sta...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
> > It does beg the question, "what will Disney do to fill the gap in 2006?"
> >
>
> Disney already had a deal with another 3DCG studio
> just in case the Pixar deal fell through.
>
I figured they would, but I hadn't heard that they did. It sounds like
playing a formula (and I should know, I've been accused of doing that.)
But who did they get? Pixar was a unique combination of a great
director in John Lasseter and great computer minds in Loren Carpenter,
Rob Cook and Ed Catmull.
I've heard that Disney's few remaining animators were all sent to 3D
school. Perhaps they intend to try Toy Story 3 in-house? (Hopefully
they don't farm it out overseas.)
Walt
Walt Sellers
"S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <sta...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
> > Plus Disney gets to use the characters in the themeparks for free, right?
> >
>
> Of course. They do own the rights to use them.
They own 50% of Monsters, Bugs Life and Nemo. Disney is making some
kind of money in using them in the parks.
Sounds like a few extra percentage marks to Disney to me.
Walt Sellers
DishRoom1
S.t.A.n.L.e.E.
>> > It does beg the question, "what will Disney do to fill the gap in 2006?"
>> >
>>
>> Disney already had a deal with another 3DCG studio
>> just in case the Pixar deal fell through.
>>
>
>I figured they would, but I hadn't heard that they did. It sounds like
>playing a formula (and I should know, I've been accused of doing that.)
>
>But who did they get? Pixar was a unique combination of a great
>director in John Lasseter and great computer minds in Loren Carpenter,
>Rob Cook and Ed Catmull.
>
>I've heard that Disney's few remaining animators were all sent to 3D
>school. Perhaps they intend to try Toy Story 3 in-house? (Hopefully
>they don't farm it out overseas.)
>
Disney earlier announced among the inhouse CG films (such as "Chicken Little"
and "Rapunzel Unbraided") the in-house animators will make will indeed be a
"Toy Story 3", with no involvement with the any of the Pixar guys.
I still wish these guys were still doing hand-drawn films and the stupid bosses
that mircomanage them would leave instead of the hand-drawn ways. The CGers may
have become Eisner's rave due to making the Disney animations more rushed and
cheaper in production, but such movies have such great shoes to fill, no matter
that there may still be the same great animation personalites behind the
creations.
John Shughart
Walt Sellers
dish...@aol.com (DishRoom1) wrote:
> Disney earlier announced among the inhouse CG films (such as "Chicken Little"
> and "Rapunzel Unbraided") the in-house animators will make will indeed be a
> "Toy Story 3", with no involvement with the any of the Pixar guys.
TS3 with no John Lasseter? What will that be like? Any predictions?
> I still wish these guys were still doing hand-drawn films and the stupid
> bosses
> that mircomanage them would leave instead of the hand-drawn ways.
Even the might of Termite Terrace could only stand so much interference
from management.
Someone once told me that most of the good video games out there were
created by the same small group of people. They moved from company to
company so it looked like companies grew, peaked, then died. Perhaps it
is the same with animation?
>The CGers
> may
> have become Eisner's rave due to making the Disney animations more rushed and
> cheaper in production, but such movies have such great shoes to fill, no
> matter
> that there may still be the same great animation personalites behind the
> creations.
Walt Sellers
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> Disney earlier announced among the inhouse CG films (such as "Chicken
>Little"
>> and "Rapunzel Unbraided") the in-house animators will make will indeed be a
>> "Toy Story 3", with no involvement with the any of the Pixar guys.
>
>TS3 with no John Lasseter? What will that be like? Any predictions?
I'm guessing not too good, if Eisner and the thugs still stick around.
>
>> I still wish these guys were still doing hand-drawn films and the stupid
>> bosses
>> that mircomanage them would leave instead of the hand-drawn ways.
>
>Even the might of Termite Terrace could only stand so much interference
>from management.
I heard of such stories. One story was over how a group of animators were
laughing over the jokes in one of their shorts, and then a studio executive
came unhappily asking how there can be any laughter in making cartoons, or
something to that extent.
>
>Someone once told me that most of the good video games out there were
>created by the same small group of people. They moved from company to
>company so it looked like companies grew, peaked, then died. Perhaps it
>is the same with animation?
Who knows?
>
>>The CGers
>> may
>> have become Eisner's rave due to making the Disney animations more rushed
>and
>> cheaper in production, but such movies have such great shoes to fill, no
>> matter
>> that there may still be the same great animation personalites behind the
>> creations.
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
Walt Sellers wrote --
>>like? Any predictions?
>I'm guessing not too good, if Eisner and the thugs
>still stick around.
Magic 8-Ball says: "Outlook not so good." ^_^
>>Even the might of Termite Terrace could only
>>stand so much interference from management.
>I heard of such stories. One story was over how a
>group of animators were laughing over the jokes in
>one of their shorts, and then a studio executive
>came unhappily asking how there can be any
>laughter in making cartoons, or something to that
>extent.
(In my Paul Harvey schtick) "and that man's name... was Eddie Seltzer!"
>>Someone once told me that most of the good
>>video games out there were created by the same
>>small group of people. They moved from company
>>to company so it looked like companies grew,
>>peaked, then died. Perhaps it is the same with
>>animation?
>Who knows?
Pretty much the truth there. Much of the animation industry was very
much like the way the video game industry is in the past where workers
would go on to other jobs with different companies and churn out more
interesting productions that many of us didn't even know where created
by the same people who worked on previous projects before.
From the Master of Car-too-nal Knowledge...
Christopher M. Sobieniak
--"Fightin' the Frizzies since 1978"--
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>Walt Sellers wrote --
Well, it does seem like the future of American animation would be carried forth
by smaller studios without Hollywood. Already the studio formed by
ex-Disney-Flordia animators, Legacy Animation, is on its toes with "Lucky", a
short centering on a four-leaf clover. A company called Raven is forming a new
animation arm with other former Disney animators. Ralph Bakshi is said to be on
work on an animated World War II epic, but haven't heard anything more about it
since. Don Bluth is also jumping back in the game to make movies based
"Dragon's Lair" and "Space Ace", but acording to DonBluth.com is having a hard
time finding a distributor.
John Shughart
Invid Fan
<dish...@aol.com> wrote:
> Walt Sellers wrote --
>
> I wrote --
>
> >> Disney earlier announced among the inhouse CG films (such as "Chicken
> >Little"
> >> and "Rapunzel Unbraided") the in-house animators will make will indeed be a
> >> "Toy Story 3", with no involvement with the any of the Pixar guys.
> >
> >TS3 with no John Lasseter? What will that be like? Any predictions?
>
> I'm guessing not too good, if Eisner and the thugs still stick around.
There's also the question of voices. Many may not come back, either due
to loyalty to Pixar or traditional Disney low pay.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>animation industry was very much like the way
>>the video game industry is in the past where
>>workers would go on to other jobs with different
>>companies and churn out more interesting
>>productions that many of us didn't even know
>>where created by the same people who worked
>>on previous projects before.
>Well, it does seem like the future of American
>animation would be carried forth by smaller studios
>without Hollywood. Already the studio formed by
>ex-Disney-Flordia animators, Legacy Animation, is
>on its toes with "Lucky", a short centering on a
>four-leaf clover.
I've heard about that one. I hope the short will be as impressive as
they say.
>A company called Raven is forming a new
>animation arm with other former Disney animators.
>Ralph Bakshi is said to be on work on an animated
>World War II epic, but haven't heard anything more
>about it since.
Glad to hear he's back where the action is again! Hope he'll have
better luck this time.
>Don Bluth is also jumping back in the game to
>make movies based "Dragon's Lair" and "Space
>Ace", but acording to DonBluth.com is having a
>hard time finding a distributor.
>John Shughart
I wish I could have my own distribution company, I"d love to release
this movies if I know the right channels. I preferably like to deal
mostly with animation, and to find ways to get it out to the public in
any manner possible.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>>Pretty much the truth there. Much of the
>>>animation industry was very much like the way
>>>the video game industry is in the past where
>>>workers would go on to other jobs with different
>>>companies and churn out more interesting
>>>productions that many of us didn't even know
>>>where created by the same people who worked
>>>on previous projects before.
>>Well, it does seem like the future of American
>>animation would be carried forth by smaller studios
>>without Hollywood. Already the studio formed by
>>ex-Disney-Flordia animators, Legacy Animation, is
>>on its toes with "Lucky", a short centering on a
>>four-leaf clover.
>
>I've heard about that one. I hope the short will be as impressive as
>they say.
According to Legacy's website, the plot is that the clover would bring goodluck
to others but itself. We'll see as it goes along.
>
>>A company called Raven is forming a new
>>animation arm with other former Disney animators.
>>Ralph Bakshi is said to be on work on an animated
>>World War II epic, but haven't heard anything more
>>about it since.
>
>Glad to hear he's back where the action is again! Hope he'll have
>better luck this time.
Maybe, unlike "Cool World", he couls scout for a better script.
>
>>Don Bluth is also jumping back in the game to
>>make movies based "Dragon's Lair" and "Space
>>Ace", but acording to DonBluth.com is having a
>>hard time finding a distributor.
>>John Shughart
>
>I wish I could have my own distribution company, I"d love to release
>this movies if I know the right channels. I preferably like to deal
>mostly with animation, and to find ways to get it out to the public in
>any manner possible.
>
That is a nice goal. :-)
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>as impressive as they say.
>According to Legacy's website, the plot is that the
>clover would bring goodluck to others but itself.
>We'll see as it goes along.
Hopefully it will be fulfiling.
>>Glad to hear he's back where the action is again!
>>Hope he'll have better luck this time.
>Maybe, unlike "Cool World", he couls scout for a
>better script.
That would be a perfect idea (and perhaps to limit the use of
rotoscoping too).
>>I wish I could have my own distribution company,
>>I"d love to release this movies if I know the right
>>channels. I preferably like to deal mostly with
>>animation, and to find ways to get it out to the
>>public in any manner possible.
>That is a nice goal. :-)
>John Shughart
It would be, I would also not deal with TV as I've seen the sorry state
of where it could go to, rather just stick to theatrical and home use
venues instead.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>>I've heard about that one. I hope the short will be
>>>as impressive as they say.
>>According to Legacy's website, the plot is that the
>>clover would bring goodluck to others but itself.
>>We'll see as it goes along.
>
>Hopefully it will be fulfiling.
>
>>>Glad to hear he's back where the action is again!
>>>Hope he'll have better luck this time.
>>Maybe, unlike "Cool World", he couls scout for a
>>better script.
>
>That would be a perfect idea (and perhaps to limit the use of
>rotoscoping too).
Me too. His earlier films ("Heavy Traffic" as an example) looked better when
the characters were drawn straight from the animators' hands.
>
>>>I wish I could have my own distribution company,
>>>I"d love to release this movies if I know the right
>>>channels. I preferably like to deal mostly with
>>>animation, and to find ways to get it out to the
>>>public in any manner possible.
>>That is a nice goal. :-)
>>John Shughart
>
>It would be, I would also not deal with TV as I've seen the sorry state
>of where it could go to, rather just stick to theatrical and home use
>venues instead.
>
I understand. I wouldn't want to deal with television, myself, especailly when
it comes to animation. They try to force you to be squeaky-clean and
ed-yu-ka-shun-al and hold back any creative ideas that might be "dangerous",
even something as innocent as a sneeze. The animation gets donw at some cheap
labor Asian company, which means you would not work closely with the animators
as you would like to in theater cel animation. And I don't think I could handle
well doing several cheap 22-minute cartoons almost immediately in a six-month
period.
Having been growing up watching TV as a child. I had a fantasy about being on
TV and having my own show, and would daydream a lot about it. But hearing all
the ugly stories concerning television, both live action and animated, such as
how making a great television show isn't always too easy, killed that.
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>the use of rotoscoping too).
>Me too. His earlier films ("Heavy Traffic" as an
>example) looked better when the characters were
>drawn straight from the animators' hands.
It did! I still find the animation in that quite well done given the
budget they had to work with (at least we get the slow-motion bullet
scene that still impresses me).
>>It would be, I would also not deal with TV as I've
>>seen the sorry state of where it could go to,
>>rather just stick to theatrical and home use
>>venues instead.
>I understand. I wouldn't want to deal with
>television, myself, especailly when it comes to
>animation. They try to force you to be
>squeaky-clean and ed-yu-ka-shun-al and hold back
>any creative ideas that might be "dangerous", even
>something as innocent as a sneeze.
I know how the BS&P rules and what-not can affect even the best
animation out there.
>The animation gets donw at some cheap labor
>Asian company, which means you would not work
>closely with the animators as you would like to in
>theater cel animation. And I don't think I could
>handle well doing several cheap 22-minute
>cartoons almost immediately in a six-month period.
For something like this to be done, I'd be wanting to de-unionize my
business and pay the animators who I feel is the rightful amount for
their work. It's rather hard to really draft this kind of proposal out
as it's quite radical in thinking and one mess-up could spell terror
down the road.
If there's one part of TV I wouldn't mind, it might be VOD, or "Video on
Demand". Although I have yet to try it out, it sounds rather convenient
and much easier to watch than a normal broadcast on TV with it's ability
to pause, fast-foward or other VCR-like commands you can make while
watching a movie or TV show.
>Having been growing up watching TV as a child. I
>had a fantasy about being on TV and having my
>own show, and would daydream a lot about it.
I did too! Somehow I have faint memories of standing in front of a
hallway mirror, and speaking out to the "audience" on the other side,
doing Johnny Carson monologues or a song or two. It seemed like there
wasn't anything we couldn't dream up back then that wasn't possible
years later.
>But hearing all the ugly stories concerning
>television, both live action and animated, such as
>how making a great television show isn't always
>too easy, killed that.
>John Shughart
It did for me too once I realized the dirty part of the business. I
don't even wanna bother with some Public Access program as I don't think
it'll matter at all to today's spoiled culture (yet anyone thinks they
can be the next "American Idol" but most aren't that good enough to be
it anyway).
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>>That would be a perfect idea (and perhaps to limit
>>>the use of rotoscoping too).
>>Me too. His earlier films ("Heavy Traffic" as an
>>example) looked better when the characters were
>>drawn straight from the animators' hands.
>
>It did! I still find the animation in that quite well done given the
>budget they had to work with (at least we get the slow-motion bullet
>scene that still impresses me).
Same here. I once read that the Bakshi studio had to work under such
under-budget standards that they didn't have pencil tests. (Which makes me
wonder how Bakshi made sure how the animation ran smoothly to his direction.)
>
>>>It would be, I would also not deal with TV as I've
>>>seen the sorry state of where it could go to,
>>>rather just stick to theatrical and home use
>>>venues instead.
>>I understand. I wouldn't want to deal with
>>television, myself, especailly when it comes to
>>animation. They try to force you to be
>>squeaky-clean and ed-yu-ka-shun-al and hold back
>>any creative ideas that might be "dangerous", even
>>something as innocent as a sneeze.
>
>I know how the BS&P rules and what-not can affect even the best
>animation out there.
>
>>The animation gets donw at some cheap labor
>>Asian company, which means you would not work
>>closely with the animators as you would like to in
>>theater cel animation. And I don't think I could
>>handle well doing several cheap 22-minute
>>cartoons almost immediately in a six-month period.
>For something like this to be done, I'd be wanting to de-unionize my
>business and pay the animators who I feel is the rightful amount for
>their work. It's rather hard to really draft this kind of proposal out
>as it's quite radical in thinking and one mess-up could spell terror
>down the road.
I suppose it would work... ,':-|
>
>If there's one part of TV I wouldn't mind, it might be VOD, or "Video on
>Demand". Although I have yet to try it out, it sounds rather convenient
>and much easier to watch than a normal broadcast on TV with it's ability
>to pause, fast-foward or other VCR-like commands you can make while
>watching a movie or TV show.
I don't have VOD. sounds interesting, but I don't mind watch TV the
old-fashioned way, though.
>
>>Having been growing up watching TV as a child. I
>>had a fantasy about being on TV and having my
>>own show, and would daydream a lot about it.
>
>I did too! Somehow I have faint memories of standing in front of a
>hallway mirror, and speaking out to the "audience" on the other side,
>doing Johnny Carson monologues or a song or two. It seemed like there
>wasn't anything we couldn't dream up back then that wasn't possible
>years later.
I would try acting out my own shows as well. Plus I would draw my own comic
books.
>
>>But hearing all the ugly stories concerning
>>television, both live action and animated, such as
>>how making a great television show isn't always
>>too easy, killed that.
>>John Shughart
>
>It did for me too once I realized the dirty part of the business. I
>don't even wanna bother with some Public Access program as I don't think
>it'll matter at all to today's spoiled culture (yet anyone thinks they
>can be the next "American Idol" but most aren't that good enough to be
>it anyway).
>
The one thing I don't get from "American Idol" these days is that "SheBang"
guy. X_X
At least I watch "Super Millionaire".
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>done given the budget they had to work with (at
>>least we get the slow-motion bullet scene that
>>still impresses me).
>Same here. I once read that the Bakshi studio had
>to work under such under-budget standards that
>they didn't have pencil tests. (Which makes me
>wonder how Bakshi made sure how the animation
>ran smoothly to his direction.)
Well, I bet Bakshi didn't get to use pencil tests back in the days at
Terrytoons (given how TV-budgeted animation was and all), perhaps he was
able to time the movements quite well given the experience he would've
had up to that point in his career to do so. He also had worked with
people that had been in the business for decades and their skills
probably helped to kept the production flowing perfectly if not
restricted of essentials.
>>I did too! Somehow I have faint memories of
>>standing in front of a hallway mirror, and
>>speaking out to the "audience" on the other side,
>>doing Johnny Carson monologues or a song or
>>two. It seemed like there wasn't anything we
>>couldn't dream up back then that wasn't possible
>>years later.
>I would try acting out my own shows as well.
That's cool. I hope it had the John Shugart Orchestra and the John
Shugart Singers!
>Plus I would draw my own comic books.
That's cool. I never had the gumption to do my own comic work as a kid.
I feel envious of Robert Crumb and how he was able to find a career in
underground comics thanks to his older brother Charles, and how they
both used to do their own comics throughout their boyhood days. Too bad
my older brother wasn't an artist I tried to emulate, more of a jerk at
times that would do things like pushing my foot into a pile of dog turds
for no reason and going on to blue-collar career as a truck driver.
>>It did for me too once I realized the dirty part of
>>the business. I don't even wanna bother with
>>some Public Access program as I don't think it'll
>>matter at all to today's spoiled culture (yet anyone
>>thinks they can be the next "American Idol" but
>>most aren't that good enough to be it anyway).
>The one thing I don't get from "American Idol"
>these days is that "SheBang" guy. X_X
I'm glad I don't pay attention at all!
>At least I watch "Super Millionaire".
>John Shughart
Surprised that's back on ABC.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
Well, not quite. ^_^ Although having a music band wouldn't be bad, but I lack
much musical skill whatsoever.
Sometimes I would wear a towel from the bathroom, or any rectangular cloth I
could find and pretend I am a superhero, kind of like Superman. Another time, I
used to have a children's vinyl-record palyer with some "Seseme Street" records
and make-believe that I was a radio disk-jockey.
Of course, that was a lot of fun, untill I was playing the Oscar The Grouch
record "I Love Trash" and the sound seemed to come out at the wrong speed or
something and I then turned off the turntable on the record-player ---*while
the stylus was still planted on the record!* As a result of my neglect, the
sounds from the record suddenly sounded horrible bad, getting slower, unusually
deeper and distorted in an ugly way. I had to clasp my hands in fear over my
ears and wait for a minute or so till the horrid experience was over, in which
the record came to a complete stop. O_O
>
>>Plus I would draw my own comic books.
>
>That's cool. I never had the gumption to do my own comic work as a kid.
>I feel envious of Robert Crumb and how he was able to find a career in
>underground comics thanks to his older brother Charles, and how they
>both used to do their own comics throughout their boyhood days. Too bad
>my older brother wasn't an artist I tried to emulate, more of a jerk at
>times that would do things like pushing my foot into a pile of dog turds
>for no reason and going on to blue-collar career as a truck driver.
I used to enjoy doing it, just take a pen or pencil and draw anything I want on
a piece of paper or in a book. I did this a lot when I was a kid and then a
teenager. Of course, there were times when I steal ideas from other cartoons,
TV shows and movies, and I even once stole an entire story from a comic book I
read for my own characters and book. My grandmother then showed my comic story
to a ladie's club she went to and they gave me an award for it. But as soon as
I quickly learned that taking other people's stories and ideas is wrong, I
ripped up in pieces the award and destoryed my plagerizing comic to clense
myself of my aesthetic crime. I also destroyed some of my cartoons for the same
reason. It was a very sad and not so easy thing to do.
Also as a teenager, I was making a comic strip for a church newsletter, using
some of my own characters that I created before the strip. It seemed first like
a fantastic and proud start to excerise for a cartoonist career, but then it
was no fun as it was in the past cause there is a monthly deadline to get to
and I haven't have a creative idea for the cartoon yet. It gets very rushed
doing the strip the my mother and the newsletter editor would plant their own
ideas to me to draw/write into the strip, which were stale and flat to my sense
of fun and humor. I eventully hated doing the strip and wondered why I agrred
to it in the first place. I then stopped doing it and never made another
cartoons for the church again.
In recent years I'm trying to go back to making comic books and stories, but
once I've started something good I get into a creative freeze, because I don't
often feel original, or that I have no ideas to go forward on, or I have no one
with high storytelling talent to help me.
>
>>At least I watch "Super Millionaire".
>>John Shughart
>
>Surprised that's back on ABC.
Well, at least it's similar the the old "Millionaire" that I enjoyed watching
years back. (I hate the syndycated half-hour version cause there's no Fastest
Finger and in my opinion the hostess dosen't have that sort of flair like
Regis.) But since the past few days its rating has dropped since its first show
on Sunday. Some of Disney's critics have wondered why the would bring the show
back since ABC is in the ratings basement.
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>I used to enjoy doing it, just take a pen or pencil
>and draw anything I want on a piece of paper or in
>a book. I did this a lot when I was a kid and then a
>teenager. Of course, there were times when I steal
>ideas from other cartoons, TV shows and movies,
>and I even once stole an entire story from a comic
>book I read for my own characters and book. My
>grandmother then showed my comic story to a
>ladie's club she went to and they gave me an
>award for it.
Heh, somehow I dread wanting to get an award through such a group.
>But as soon as I quickly learned that taking other
>people's stories and ideas is wrong, I ripped up in
>pieces the award and destoryed my plagerizing
>comic to clense myself of my aesthetic crime. I
>also destroyed some of my cartoons for the same
>reason. It was a very sad and not so easy thing to
>do.
This is probably why I felt safer that I didn't bother to do copyrighted
material in my artwork and such, just didn't felt it was right to do so
(and costly down the line if I kept it up). I find it funny when I spot
local businesses in my town that illegally use a character or a mock-up
of that character to promote their work, especially Warner Bros. types.
A fireworks shop in the area used Wile E. Coyote, an exterior house
painter used Elmer Fudd, a bar used Daffy Duck, etc. Yet knowone sues
(probably not that big of deal coming from Middle America)!
>Also as a teenager, I was making a comic strip for
>a church newsletter, using some of my own
>characters that I created before the strip. It
>seemed first like a fantastic and proud start to
>excerise for a cartoonist career,
Heh, I feel glad I wasn't too psyched up to try that at my church (if
they even bother having a suitable newsletter at all, but I'm not that
religious enough to think I can work on something that's supposed to be
funny).
>but then it was no fun as it was in the past cause
>there is a monthly deadline to get to and I haven't
>have a creative idea for the cartoon yet.
Heh, and I thought a weekly deadline was tough!
>It gets very rushed doing the strip the my mother
>and the newsletter editor would plant their own
>ideas to me to draw/write into the strip, which were
>stale and flat to my sense of fun and humor. I
>eventully hated doing the strip and wondered why I
>agrred to it in the first place. I then stopped doing
>it and never made another cartoons for the church
>again.
I just don't plain like dealing with relgion in my work as I tend to
side with my own opinions about things than to think of what the church
had in mind.
>In recent years I'm trying to go back to making
>comic books and stories, but once I've started
>something good I get into a creative freeze,
>because I don't often feel original, or that I have
>no ideas to go forward on, or I have no one with
>high storytelling talent to help me.
I get that way too. I've been using the same sketchbook I bought 2
years ago and still haven't gotten it finished (somewhere over 2/3
through it)! I usually get a good idea or something and I try to draw
it out before I forget it. Other times I"m drawing people I see
someplace, or othertimes it's whatever comes to mind, but it's getting
harder to be original without re-using a previous idea or stealing
someone else's.
I do have a younger brother who turns out to be a very decent artist
like me, but he's not really in the same boat as I am in terms of
getting any ideas or feels the need to pursue his work further. Which
is a shame as the two of us could work together and perhaps solve any
problems we'd have along the way.
I guess what I need is a good gag man or someone I can feel at home with
and could help me get ideas for my creations whenever possible. I also
pretty good at writing my own material but I'm not as good as my mother
and late grandma were before me (somehow I feel like steal... err...
borrow my late grandma's poems and other short stories she did and try
to use them for my art or something, since they weren't copyrighted
anyway and I can probably make some fast dough out of it if I play my
cards right).
>>Surprised that's back on ABC.
>Well, at least it's similar the the old "Millionaire"
>that I enjoyed watching years back. (I hate the
>syndycated half-hour version cause there's no
>Fastest Finger and in my opinion the hostess
>dosen't have that sort of flair like Regis.) But since
>the past few days its rating has dropped since its
>first show on Sunday.
That's a surprise. (my mom has been watching that all week)
>Some of Disney's critics have wondered why the
>would bring the show back since ABC is in the
>ratings basement.
>John Shughart
Who knows. I'm only surprised it's been like 4-5 years since we first
had the Millionaire shows in the US. The popularity didn't stay on top
as we thought.
A while back I managed to get a copy of the Japaense edition of the
program, and that one had many nuances and differences that are hard to
describe without going into further details about it. One biggie is the
use of a small group of people or audience that are in a booth watching
the show as it's being produced, and during the intensive and
hard-as-hell questions, with the host about to give out the verdict, out
of knowhere, a commecial break comes in! They would NEVER do this on
ABC!
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>I used to enjoy doing it, just take a pen or pencil
>>and draw anything I want on a piece of paper or in
>>a book. I did this a lot when I was a kid and then a
>>teenager. Of course, there were times when I steal
>>ideas from other cartoons, TV shows and movies,
>>and I even once stole an entire story from a comic
>>book I read for my own characters and book. My
>>grandmother then showed my comic story to a
>>ladie's club she went to and they gave me an
>>award for it.
>
>Heh, somehow I dread wanting to get an award through such a group.
*LOL*< Yeah, I find it better to win a award from some cartoonists' group.
>
>>But as soon as I quickly learned that taking other
>>people's stories and ideas is wrong, I ripped up in
>>pieces the award and destoryed my plagerizing
>>comic to clense myself of my aesthetic crime. I
>>also destroyed some of my cartoons for the same
>>reason. It was a very sad and not so easy thing to
>>do.
>
>This is probably why I felt safer that I didn't bother to do copyrighted
>material in my artwork and such, just didn't felt it was right to do so
>(and costly down the line if I kept it up). I find it funny when I spot
>local businesses in my town that illegally use a character or a mock-up
>of that character to promote their work, especially Warner Bros. types.
>A fireworks shop in the area used Wile E. Coyote, an exterior house
>painter used Elmer Fudd, a bar used Daffy Duck, etc. Yet knowone sues
>(probably not that big of deal coming from Middle America)!
I think our society needs to more teach kids and people more about copyrights
and trademarks and how they work, so that people like myself wouldn't have been
messed up.
>
>>Also as a teenager, I was making a comic strip for
>>a church newsletter, using some of my own
>>characters that I created before the strip. It
>>seemed first like a fantastic and proud start to
>>excerise for a cartoonist career,
>
>Heh, I feel glad I wasn't too psyched up to try that at my church (if
>they even bother having a suitable newsletter at all, but I'm not that
>religious enough to think I can work on something that's supposed to be
>funny).
There's nothing wrong about doing a cartoon about Christianity or about
religion. If people could make movies about Bible stories, such as Mel Gibson,
it's only fine as long as it is done highly well.
>
>>but then it was no fun as it was in the past cause
>>there is a monthly deadline to get to and I haven't
>>have a creative idea for the cartoon yet.
>
>Heh, and I thought a weekly deadline was tough!
>
>>It gets very rushed doing the strip the my mother
>>and the newsletter editor would plant their own
>>ideas to me to draw/write into the strip, which were
>>stale and flat to my sense of fun and humor. I
>>eventully hated doing the strip and wondered why I
>>agrred to it in the first place. I then stopped doing
>>it and never made another cartoons for the church
>>again.
>
>I just don't plain like dealing with relgion in my work as I tend to
>side with my own opinions about things than to think of what the church
>had in mind.
Again, there's nothing wrong about cartoons about going on about God and such.
It's just that I make them without any heart or artistic pace to them. I would
draw one cartoon of the characters doing nothing but stand on the beach and
talk. And that's it. Another cartoon has my dog characters in a horse character
and that that's it. Another one has them having a dinner together, and that's
it. Oh, except that the editor akwardly added additional dialouge sqeezed into
the cartoon on her own. >:-(
They also changed the personalities of my characters. One cartoon dog I used to
have was sort of sacronic, sort of like like Jim Davis' cat Garfield. He could
also be cutesy whimsical. At least in my cartoons. In the church newsletter he
got real mediocre with no personality, except to sprout out "Oh aren't the
trees and the skies wonderful". The other characters from my cartoons were all
like that, 100% the same with no indiviuality in the church strip.
Nowadays this experience made me sympathize with Disney animators who have been
working under Eisner as of recent.
>
>>In recent years I'm trying to go back to making
>>comic books and stories, but once I've started
>>something good I get into a creative freeze,
>>because I don't often feel original, or that I have
>>no ideas to go forward on, or I have no one with
>>high storytelling talent to help me.
>
>I get that way too. I've been using the same sketchbook I bought 2
>years ago and still haven't gotten it finished (somewhere over 2/3
>through it)! I usually get a good idea or something and I try to draw
>it out before I forget it. Other times I"m drawing people I see
>someplace, or othertimes it's whatever comes to mind, but it's getting
>harder to be original without re-using a previous idea or stealing
>someone else's.
Another problem for me is that getting legal trademarks and copyrights from the
goverment cost $30. Where the heck do starving artists get that sort of money?
>
>I do have a younger brother who turns out to be a very decent artist
>like me, but he's not really in the same boat as I am in terms of
>getting any ideas or feels the need to pursue his work further. Which
>is a shame as the two of us could work together and perhaps solve any
>problems we'd have along the way.
>
>I guess what I need is a good gag man or someone I can feel at home with
>and could help me get ideas for my creations whenever possible. I also
>pretty good at writing my own material but I'm not as good as my mother
>and late grandma were before me (somehow I feel like steal... err...
>borrow my late grandma's poems and other short stories she did and try
>to use them for my art or something, since they weren't copyrighted
>anyway and I can probably make some fast dough out of it if I play my
>cards right).
I'm thinking of getting a writer to help me straighten out my characters and
develop their personalities, histories and stories. The challenge is to find
someone who's tatse for entertainment and storytelling is similar to mine. I
can't trust my cartoons to my mother since she has no talents in creating
original stories and characters. About the same thing with the rest of my
family. I have not found anyone who is into furries and the sort of stuff I
what for my cartoons in my community, since it is tightly conservative. So I
many have to scout out for some talent in the furry fandom to share my
characters with.
John Shughart
>
>>>Surprised that's back on ABC.
>>Well, at least it's similar the the old "Millionaire"
>>that I enjoyed watching years back. (I hate the
>>syndycated half-hour version cause there's no
>>Fastest Finger and in my opinion the hostess
>>dosen't have that sort of flair like Regis.) But since
>>the past few days its rating has dropped since its
>>first show on Sunday.
>
>That's a surprise. (my mom has been watching that all week)
>
>>Some of Disney's critics have wondered why the
>>would bring the show back since ABC is in the
>>ratings basement.
>>John Shughart
>
>Who knows. I'm only surprised it's been like 4-5 years since we first
>had the Millionaire shows in the US. The popularity didn't stay on top
>as we thought.
>
>A while back I managed to get a copy of the Japaense edition of the
>program, and that one had many nuances and differences that are hard to
>describe without going into further details about it. One biggie is the
>use of a small group of people or audience that are in a booth watching
>the show as it's being produced, and during the intensive and
>hard-as-hell questions, with the host about to give out the verdict, out
>of knowhere, a commecial break comes in! They would NEVER do this on
>ABC!
>
Maybe they wanted to pump in more intest and excitment?
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>through such a group.
>*LOL*< Yeah, I find it better to win a award from
>some cartoonists' group.
Heh, the best I ever had was placing thrid place in a local newspaper's
cartoon contest almost a decade ago. My winning entry was a sort of
one-panel political cartoon that poked fun at the capture of the
Unabomber by having a joke that the FBI was holding a sale of Unabomber
merchandise. The prizes I won including the Calvin & Hobbes Tehtn
Anniversary Book and a copy of "How to draw & sell comic strips", whcih
I didn't bother with at all. I'm not much into wanting to do comic
strips as I feel I can't really do something that can last for a limited
number of panels unless I can make them last for much longer for
continuity thanjust having a quick joke a day.
>>This is probably why I felt safer that I didn't
>>bother to do copyrighted material in my artwork
>>and such, just didn't felt it was right to do so (and
>>costly down the line if I kept it up). I find it funny
>>when I spot local businesses in my town that
>>illegally use a character or a mock-up of that
>>character to promote their work, especially
>>Warner Bros. types. A fireworks shop in the area
>>used Wile E. Coyote, an exterior house painter
>>used Elmer Fudd, a bar used Daffy Duck, etc.
>>Yet knowone sues (probably not that big of deal
>>coming from Middle America)!
>I think our society needs to more teach kids and
>people more about copyrights and trademarks and
>how they work, so that people like myself wouldn't
>have been messed up.
I remember first learning a bit about it in school once when it came to
a song in a book I was singing in music class, because it had a bit of
fine print that stated the song was copyrighted by some publisher and
was used by permission or whatever, so I was given some idea about it,
though it was hard to reason with a mother who would copy videos of
movies from the video store for her own collection when she could just
buy them anyway (a bad habit I'm glad I don't do much myself).
>>Heh, I feel glad I wasn't too psyched up to try
>>that at my church (if they even bother having a
>>suitable newsletter at all, but I'm not that
>>religious enough to think I can work on something
>>that's supposed to be funny).
>There's nothing wrong about doing a cartoon about
>Christianity or about religion. If people could make
>movies about Bible stories, such as Mel Gibson,
>it's only fine as long as it is done highly well.
Somehow I wasn't planning much to see that film, though my mom's been
bugging me, as well as wanting to pay me to see it, but I'm just not
much of person for these type of films.
>Again, there's nothing wrong about cartoons about
>going on about God and such. It's just that I make
>them without any heart or artistic pace to them.
Sounds more like a typical "joke a day" method in cartooning that I
hate. I have relatives or whoever that once sent me drawings they did
that I could not relate to. Most of them involved a big moustached
gentleman, and one cartoon had him ducking from a kite while telling a
girl nearby something about God creating the Heaven & Earth, but I just
didn't really understood the real point of it. Plus the style of the
cartoon looked pretty dated, as if it was done 50 years earlier.
>I would draw one cartoon of the characters doing
>nothing but stand on the beach and talk. And
>that's it.
At least they don't quote the Bible or feel the need to bring Christ
into their converstation. (Sorry if I'm stil on this religious rant,
but after watching Kevin Smith's Dogma, I've kinda stopped caring about
it in a fearful way).
>Another cartoon has my dog characters in a horse
>character and that that's it
Ewww! (I supposed you mean "dog characters and a horse character") ^_^
>Another one has them having a dinner together,
>and that's it. Oh, except that the editor akwardly
>added additional dialouge sqeezed into the
>cartoon on her own. >:-(
Heh, sounds like you didn't have much direction at all then. Somehow
I'm reminded of a comic strip that was published in my high school's
newspaper that was a typical "joke-a-day" formula and was mostly a
cheapo doodle on regular paper with a black or blue ball point pen,
nothing like the India ink and dip pens I was using in my work at the
time.
>They also changed the personalities of my
>characters. One cartoon dog I used to have was
>sort of sacronic, sort of like like Jim Davis' cat
>Garfield. He could also be cutesy whimsical. At
>least in my cartoons. In the church newsletter he
>got real mediocre with no personality, except to
>sprout out "Oh aren't the trees and the skies
>wonderful".
Sounds like the typical sissy type characters I usually see in cartoons
where they'd be doing that act and you just want to have something
terrible happen to them in the end!
>The other characters from my cartoons were all like
>that, 100% the same with no indiviuality in the
>church strip.
Though given that it was a church strip, it probably wouldn't work too
well to have more of an antagonist or more mean-spirited characters
without feeling the need to resolve their conflicts or bring it out as
if you couldn't keep tem being mean, jealous or other unholy things.
>Nowadays this experience made me sympathize
>with Disney animators who have been working
>under Eisner as of recent.
I guess.
>>I get that way too. I've been using the same
>>sketchbook I bought 2 years ago and still haven't
>>gotten it finished (somewhere over 2/3 through it)!
>>I usually get a good idea or something and I try to
>>draw it out before I forget it. Other times I"m
>>drawing people I see someplace, or othertimes
>>it's whatever comes to mind, but it's getting
>>harder to be original without re-using a previous
>>idea or stealing someone else's.
>Another problem for me is that getting legal
>trademarks and copyrights from the goverment cost
>$30. Where the heck do starving artists get that
>sort of money?
Still $30 doesn't sound too expensive to me if I wanted to trademark my
creations.
I did send you an example of my work in case you did happen to see any
of them, so you might get some idea of what I was going for (or not)
over the years.
>I'm thinking of getting a writer to help me
>straighten out my characters and develop their
>personalities, histories and stories. The challenge
>is to find someone who's tatse for entertainment
>and storytelling is similar to mine. I can't trust my
>cartoons to my mother since she has no talents in
>creating original stories and characters. About the
>same thing with the rest of my family. I have not
>found anyone who is into furries and the sort of
>stuff I what for my cartoons in my community,
>since it is tightly conservative. So I many have to
>scout out for some talent in the furry fandom to
>share my characters with.
I would like to find someone who might have the same interest as I do or
could be more zany or overboard in his work than I would expect, and to
be open-mided to my ideas and things.
>>A while back I managed to get a copy of the
>>Japaense edition of the program, and that one
>>had many nuances and differences that are hard
>>to describe without going into further details
>>about it. One biggie is the use of a small group of
>>people or audience that are in a booth watching
>>the show as it's being produced, and during the
>>intensive and hard-as-hell questions, with the
>>host about to give out the verdict, out of
>>knowhere, a commecial break comes in! They
>>would NEVER do this on ABC!
>Maybe they wanted to pump in more intest and
>excitment?
>John Shughart
Perhaps, but it's very common in Japan for may TV programs to be that
way.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>>Heh, somehow I dread wanting to get an award
>>>through such a group.
>>*LOL*< Yeah, I find it better to win a award from
>>some cartoonists' group.
>
>Heh, the best I ever had was placing thrid place in a local newspaper's
>cartoon contest almost a decade ago. My winning entry was a sort of
>one-panel political cartoon that poked fun at the capture of the
>Unabomber by having a joke that the FBI was holding a sale of Unabomber
>merchandise. The prizes I won including the Calvin & Hobbes Tehtn
>Anniversary Book and a copy of "How to draw & sell comic strips", whcih
>I didn't bother with at all. I'm not much into wanting to do comic
>strips as I feel I can't really do something that can last for a limited
>number of panels unless I can make them last for much longer for
>continuity thanjust having a quick joke a day.
Oh, boy "how to draw and sell cartoon" books, I would like one of those. :-)
>
>>>This is probably why I felt safer that I didn't
>>>bother to do copyrighted material in my artwork
>>>and such, just didn't felt it was right to do so (and
>>>costly down the line if I kept it up). I find it funny
>>>when I spot local businesses in my town that
>>>illegally use a character or a mock-up of that
>>>character to promote their work, especially
>>>Warner Bros. types. A fireworks shop in the area
>>>used Wile E. Coyote, an exterior house painter
>>>used Elmer Fudd, a bar used Daffy Duck, etc.
>>>Yet knowone sues (probably not that big of deal
>>>coming from Middle America)!
>>I think our society needs to more teach kids and
>>people more about copyrights and trademarks and
>>how they work, so that people like myself wouldn't
>>have been messed up.
>
>I remember first learning a bit about it in school once when it came to
>a song in a book I was singing in music class, because it had a bit of
>fine print that stated the song was copyrighted by some publisher and
>was used by permission or whatever, so I was given some idea about it,
>though it was hard to reason with a mother who would copy videos of
>movies from the video store for her own collection when she could just
>buy them anyway (a bad habit I'm glad I don't do much myself).
I had relative that gave my sister a copy of a movie that they taped from a
company-produced tape, which I knew from the start was a bad idea.
>
>>>Heh, I feel glad I wasn't too psyched up to try
>>>that at my church (if they even bother having a
>>>suitable newsletter at all, but I'm not that
>>>religious enough to think I can work on something
>>>that's supposed to be funny).
>>There's nothing wrong about doing a cartoon about
>>Christianity or about religion. If people could make
>>movies about Bible stories, such as Mel Gibson,
>>it's only fine as long as it is done highly well.
>
>Somehow I wasn't planning much to see that film, though my mom's been
>bugging me, as well as wanting to pay me to see it, but I'm just not
>much of person for these type of films.
I'm going to see it. It looks good. And I don't think it'll be anti-semitic.
>
>>Again, there's nothing wrong about cartoons about
>>going on about God and such. It's just that I make
>>them without any heart or artistic pace to them.
>
>Sounds more like a typical "joke a day" method in cartooning that I
>hate. I have relatives or whoever that once sent me drawings they did
>that I could not relate to. Most of them involved a big moustached
>gentleman, and one cartoon had him ducking from a kite while telling a
>girl nearby something about God creating the Heaven & Earth, but I just
>didn't really understood the real point of it. Plus the style of the
>cartoon looked pretty dated, as if it was done 50 years earlier.
Hee. I see.
>
>>I would draw one cartoon of the characters doing
>>nothing but stand on the beach and talk. And
>>that's it.
>
>At least they don't quote the Bible or feel the need to bring Christ
>into their converstation. (Sorry if I'm stil on this religious rant,
>but after watching Kevin Smith's Dogma, I've kinda stopped caring about
>it in a fearful way).
Well, they don't quote the Bible. But they do have them talk about God and
nothing more than that. By the way, I don't want to ever see "Dogma." Dosen't
seem like a good thing to watch from some of the things I've read about it.
>
>>Another cartoon has my dog characters in a horse
>>character and that that's it
>
>Ewww! (I supposed you mean "dog characters and a horse character") ^_^
I meant that my cartoon dogs were in a carriage pulled by a horse. (Where is my
head? O_O)
True. But I remember when I was a little child in Sunday School they give out a
newsletter, which would feature a Sunday-newspaper type of comic strip
freaturing anthromorphic animals acting out stories that help teach children
Christian values. They would have some sense of personality and display faults,
which of course shows how not to act. Even if it's a bit more cleaned-up, it
had better charm and real connection to the reader than my attempt at
church-newsletter cartoons.
>
>>Nowadays this experience made me sympathize
>>with Disney animators who have been working
>>under Eisner as of recent.
>
>I guess.
>
>>>I get that way too. I've been using the same
>>>sketchbook I bought 2 years ago and still haven't
>>>gotten it finished (somewhere over 2/3 through it)!
>>>I usually get a good idea or something and I try to
>>>draw it out before I forget it. Other times I"m
>>>drawing people I see someplace, or othertimes
>>>it's whatever comes to mind, but it's getting
>>>harder to be original without re-using a previous
>>>idea or stealing someone else's.
>>Another problem for me is that getting legal
>>trademarks and copyrights from the goverment cost
>>$30. Where the heck do starving artists get that
>>sort of money?
>
>Still $30 doesn't sound too expensive to me if I wanted to trademark my
>creations.
Yeah, but I want to use my money on other things too. Gas for my car is
currently around $1.50 per gallon, making it over $10 to $15 to fill my car. I
buy DVDs that range from $14 to $30 dollars. Comic books cost $3.95, and buying
a lot of them takes a wallop to the wallet. I need to budget and handle my
finances somehow.
>
>I did send you an example of my work in case you did happen to see any
>of them, so you might get some idea of what I was going for (or not)
>over the years.
You mean those cartoon drawings that were sent to me with your DVDs and videos
recently were yours? I wanted you ask you about that, but never have gotten to
do it on my own.
>
>>I'm thinking of getting a writer to help me
>>straighten out my characters and develop their
>>personalities, histories and stories. The challenge
>>is to find someone who's tatse for entertainment
>>and storytelling is similar to mine. I can't trust my
>>cartoons to my mother since she has no talents in
>>creating original stories and characters. About the
>>same thing with the rest of my family. I have not
>>found anyone who is into furries and the sort of
>>stuff I what for my cartoons in my community,
>>since it is tightly conservative. So I many have to
>>scout out for some talent in the furry fandom to
>>share my characters with.
>
>I would like to find someone who might have the same interest as I do or
>could be more zany or overboard in his work than I would expect, and to
>be open-mided to my ideas and things.
>
I'm usually good with humor, though I wouldn't mind assistance with that area.
It's that, being inspired by anime, Disney feature hand-drawn cartoons, and
other non-Disney cartoons like "Balto" and "The Secert of NIMH", I want to try
being involved with deeper storytelling and personalities than whatever I did
before. But I don't seem very good at such storytelling skills but am highly
talented at drawing, emoting, (must show you my work someday) and have a sense
of vision.
I'm a little inspired by Walt Disney (the individual human that is.) I once
read an online article where although Walt ruled over the creative ongoings of
his company, he sometimes didn't have the answer to anything. So, even if he
was the boss, he might ask people of their thoughts if he was stuck on
something. One time he asked some teenager who worked at selling ballons how
Mickey-Mouse-head shaped ballons might work. Michael Eisner wouldnt have been
caught dead asking anyone's advice.
Also, Disney's movies and themeparks worked because he surrounded himself with
the best people who are employed to do work for him.
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>in a local newspaper's cartoon contest almost a
>>decade ago. My winning entry was a sort of
>>one-panel political cartoon that poked fun at the
>>capture of the Unabomber by having a joke that
>>the FBI was holding a sale of Unabomber
>>merchandise. The prizes I won including the
>>Calvin & Hobbes Tehtn Anniversary Book and a
>>copy of "How to draw & sell comic strips", whcih I
>>didn't bother with at all. I'm not much into wanting
>>to do comic strips as I feel I can't really do
>>something that can last for a limited number of
>>panels unless I can make them last for much
>>longer for continuity thanjust having a quick joke
>>a day.
>Oh, boy "how to draw and sell cartoon" books, I
>would like one of those. :-)
Well you're not getting mine! ^_^
My copy though was more text that pictures anyway,as it gave you an idea
of what syndicators would need in order for a strip to be accpeted for
publication and other useful tidbits.
>I had relative that gave my sister a copy of a movie
>that they taped from a company-produced tape,
>which I knew from the start was a bad idea.
Well, my mom has been doing it for over 20 years already, so we've
already gotten so used to it not being a threat to ourselves.
>>Somehow I wasn't planning much to see that film,
>>though my mom's been bugging me, as well as
>>wanting to pay me to see it, but I'm just not much
>>of person for these type of films.
>I'm going to see it. It looks good. And I don't think
>it'll be anti-semitic.
Seems like whenever something is Christian or related to, it's already
labled anti-semetic by those Jews out there.
>Well, they don't quote the Bible. But they do have
>them talk about God and nothing more than that.
Figures.
>By the way, I don't want to ever see "Dogma."
>Dosen't seem like a good thing to watch from
>some of the things I've read about it.
Geez, and I saw this one in the theatres too. I thought it was pretty
decent movie, and it allowed me to think of religion in a way I didn't
before. I have the special edition DVD release that has some nifty
extras as well.
>>Ewww! (I supposed you mean "dog characters
>>and a horse character") ^_^
>I meant that my cartoon dogs were in a carriage
>pulled by a horse. (Where is my head? O_O)
Thanks for clearing it up. Kinda amused at how rather old-tyme that is
to have someone driving in a horse carriage, you rarely see that anymore
(outside of Amish country.
>True. But I remember when I was a little child in
>Sunday School they give out a newsletter, which
>would feature a Sunday-newspaper type of comic
>strip freaturing anthromorphic animals acting out
>stories that help teach children Christian values.
I never got to go to Sunday School myself, but some odd equivilent at my
Catholic church (also a grade school) that was held for some 1-2 hours
wednesday nights during the school year. I usually got bored in my
later yeras in the program, and my mom couldn't afford to send us
through our last year or so in the program, which I was OK with.
>>Still $30 doesn't sound too expensive to me if I
>>wanted to trademark my creations.
>Yeah, but I want to use my money on other things
>too. Gas for my car is currently around $1.50 per
>gallon, making it over $10 to $15 to fill my car. I
>buy DVDs that range from $14 to $30 dollars.
>Comic books cost $3.95, and buying a lot of them
>takes a wallop to the wallet. I need to budget and
>handle my finances somehow.
I guess I feel a little luckier since I don't drive (have never learned
to and don't have a license) and I hardly buy much other than DVDs and
graphic novels. I hardly buy comic books since most don't really appeal
to me anyway and I just have a subscription to Shonen Jump anyway.
>>I did send you an example of my work in case
>>you did happen to see any of them, so you might
>>get some idea of what I was going for (or not)
>>over the years.
>You mean those cartoon drawings that were sent
>to me with your DVDs and videos recently were
>yours? I wanted you ask you about that, but never
>have gotten to do it on my own.
Well you can always write to me personally about it if you like.
>I'm usually good with humor, though I wouldn't
>mind assistance with that area. It's that, being
>inspired by anime, Disney feature hand-drawn
>cartoons, and other non-Disney cartoons like
>"Balto" and "The Secert of NIMH", I want to try
>being involved with deeper storytelling and
>personalities than whatever I did before. But I
>don't seem very good at such storytelling skills but
>am highly talented at drawing, emoting, (must
>show you my work someday) and have a sense of
>vision.
It's best to have these qualities to make it big.
>I'm a little inspired by Walt Disney (the individual
>human that is.) I once read an online article where
>although Walt ruled over the creative ongoings of
>his company, he sometimes didn't have the answer
>to anything. So, even if he was the boss, he might
>ask people of their thoughts if he was stuck on
>something. One time he asked some teenager who
>worked at selling ballons how Mickey-Mouse-head
>shaped ballons might work. Michael Eisner
>wouldnt have been caught dead asking anyone's
>advice.
You're right about that.
>Also, Disney's movies and themeparks worked
>because he surrounded himself with the best
>people who are employed to do work for him.
>John Shughart
Seems like much of that legacy has since faded away along with Walt's
life.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Chris Sobieniak wrote --
>>>Heh, the best I ever had was placing thrid place
>>>in a local newspaper's cartoon contest almost a
>>>decade ago. My winning entry was a sort of
>>>one-panel political cartoon that poked fun at the
>>>capture of the Unabomber by having a joke that
>>>the FBI was holding a sale of Unabomber
>>>merchandise. The prizes I won including the
>>>Calvin & Hobbes Tehtn Anniversary Book and a
>>>copy of "How to draw & sell comic strips", whcih I
>>>didn't bother with at all. I'm not much into wanting
>>>to do comic strips as I feel I can't really do
>>>something that can last for a limited number of
>>>panels unless I can make them last for much
>>>longer for continuity thanjust having a quick joke
>>>a day.
>>Oh, boy "how to draw and sell cartoon" books, I
>>would like one of those. :-)
>
>Well you're not getting mine! ^_^
>
>My copy though was more text that pictures anyway,as it gave you an idea
>of what syndicators would need in order for a strip to be accpeted for
>publication and other useful tidbits.
Ah, I see. I'll go see what I could catch at eBay instead.
>
>>I had relative that gave my sister a copy of a movie
>>that they taped from a company-produced tape,
>>which I knew from the start was a bad idea.
>
>Well, my mom has been doing it for over 20 years already, so we've
>already gotten so used to it not being a threat to ourselves.
I remember one time while being at school I loved someone's copyrighted story
in a school book so much I copied it through a copying machine with the help of
a teacher, and that was it. Other wise I never have made a complete duplicate
of copyrighted books or video. If I want to keep the video or DVD that I want,
I buy an on-sale copy made from the copyright holder in a store, usually.
>
(About "The Passion of The Christ")
>>>Somehow I wasn't planning much to see that film,
>>>though my mom's been bugging me, as well as
>>>wanting to pay me to see it, but I'm just not much
>>>of person for these type of films.
>>I'm going to see it. It looks good. And I don't think
>>it'll be anti-semitic.
>
>Seems like whenever something is Christian or related to, it's already
>labled anti-semetic by those Jews out there.
Personally, I love the Jewish people, but it seems that some of them, such as
those who belong to the old Jewish religion, aren't very tolerant of the
Christian faith, but others like them are open minded even if they still don't
want to believe.
Besides, what non-Christian Jews and true anti-semites forgot is that while
some Jews like the group of relious leaders that pushed the Romans to arrest
and crucify Jesus, there were still some Jews that were good or Jesus-friendly,
which Mel Gibson's movie points out. Also Jesus Himself was Jewish, born of
Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem, with Jewish-heritage forefathers like the Israeli
king David and Abraham, father of all Jews. Many of first Christian followers,
such as Jesus' disiples, were Jewish.
>
>
>>By the way, I don't want to ever see "Dogma."
>>Dosen't seem like a good thing to watch from
>>some of the things I've read about it.
>
>Geez, and I saw this one in the theatres too. I thought it was pretty
>decent movie, and it allowed me to think of religion in a way I didn't
>before. I have the special edition DVD release that has some nifty
>extras as well.
Well, pardon my opinion, please.
>
>>>Ewww! (I supposed you mean "dog characters
>>>and a horse character") ^_^
>>I meant that my cartoon dogs were in a carriage
>>pulled by a horse. (Where is my head? O_O)
>
>Thanks for clearing it up. Kinda amused at how rather old-tyme that is
>to have someone driving in a horse carriage, you rarely see that anymore
>(outside of Amish country.
You're welcome.
>>>Still $30 doesn't sound too expensive to me if I
>>>wanted to trademark my creations.
>>Yeah, but I want to use my money on other things
>>too. Gas for my car is currently around $1.50 per
>>gallon, making it over $10 to $15 to fill my car. I
>>buy DVDs that range from $14 to $30 dollars.
>>Comic books cost $3.95, and buying a lot of them
>>takes a wallop to the wallet. I need to budget and
>>handle my finances somehow.
>
>I guess I feel a little luckier since I don't drive (have never learned
>to and don't have a license) and I hardly buy much other than DVDs and
>graphic novels. I hardly buy comic books since most don't really appeal
>to me anyway and I just have a subscription to Shonen Jump anyway.
Boy, you have it easy. I go nuts over comic books and DVDs/ video (mostly of
anime/foriegn movies and classic old movies.) due to the bane of current pop
entertainment.
>
>>>I did send you an example of my work in case
>>>you did happen to see any of them, so you might
>>>get some idea of what I was going for (or not)
>>>over the years.
>>You mean those cartoon drawings that were sent
>>to me with your DVDs and videos recently were
>>yours? I wanted you ask you about that, but never
>>have gotten to do it on my own.
>
>Well you can always write to me personally about it if you like.
Thanks. ^_^
>
>>I'm usually good with humor, though I wouldn't
>>mind assistance with that area. It's that, being
>>inspired by anime, Disney feature hand-drawn
>>cartoons, and other non-Disney cartoons like
>>"Balto" and "The Secert of NIMH", I want to try
>>being involved with deeper storytelling and
>>personalities than whatever I did before. But I
>>don't seem very good at such storytelling skills but
>>am highly talented at drawing, emoting, (must
>>show you my work someday) and have a sense of
>>vision.
>
>It's best to have these qualities to make it big.
I hope so. I'm going to mail copies to a furry writer and pen pal of mine to
ask if he could help or make some suggests. Might also take the issue to some
furry comic publishers who also write comics.
>
>>I'm a little inspired by Walt Disney (the individual
>>human that is.) I once read an online article where
>>although Walt ruled over the creative ongoings of
>>his company, he sometimes didn't have the answer
>>to anything. So, even if he was the boss, he might
>>ask people of their thoughts if he was stuck on
>>something. One time he asked some teenager who
>>worked at selling ballons how Mickey-Mouse-head
>>shaped ballons might work. Michael Eisner
>>wouldnt have been caught dead asking anyone's
>>advice.
>
>You're right about that.
Under Eisner's method he might hire some cheap-labor factory in Mexico to
produce the ballons. And the ballons will maybe of some cheap poorly designed
plastic-like material that would combust or pop-explode horrilbily when the
cast memebers inflate them, or leak helium through his skin. Dirty Uncle Mike
would maybe try to backpedal with some spin: "Hey, at least Disney now gives
all Disney themepark attendants the once in a lifetime ability to speak like
Mickey Mouse." :-)))
>
>>Also, Disney's movies and themeparks worked
>>because he surrounded himself with the best
>>people who are employed to do work for him.
>>John Shughart
>
>Seems like much of that legacy has since faded away along with Walt's
>life.
And there seems to be more presure than ever to get Eisner and this managment
out of office. A group of shareholders announce that they are withholding votes
on Eisner, or something like that.
Also I have been read a lot online about all the Disney animated cheapquels,
and the reason they sour against the originals and the Disney name in animation
is how that the plots in the sequels are more or less the same as the
originals, or that they would have the characteers do the same or similar
things from the original flicks. "Jungle Book II" is one example with its
inferior relience of having the "Bare Nessesities" sung *three times* during
the run of the whole movie. Also most of these same sequels carry the
"protagonist from first movie has rebelious child who disobeys and get in a
great misadventure" plot formula and give original-movie characters some out-of
chracter quirks to peg them into the sequels' plot.
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Ah, I see. I'll go see what I could catch at eBay
>instead.
That's OK. Oddly I might've misinterperate the title for sometihng
else. Christopher Hart has made a lot of different books about
cartooning, including animation, and lately has been putting out books
on anatomy as well as anime/manga drawing as well.
>I remember one time while being at school I loved
>someone's copyrighted story in a school book so
>much I copied it through a copying machine with
>the help of a teacher, and that was it. Other wise I
>never have made a complete duplicate of
>copyrighted books or video. If I want to keep the
>video or DVD that I want, I buy an on-sale copy
>made from the copyright holder in a store, usually.
I know what you mean. For me, it was watching films in school I
couldn't see anywhere else, and I somehow got interested in film
collection later in life by tracking down these 16mm films like the ones
I used to see in school as well as other TV programs and films whenever
I can.
>Besides, what non-Christian Jews and true
>anti-semites forgot is that while some Jews like the
>group of relious leaders that pushed the Romans
>to arrest and crucify Jesus, there were still some
>Jews that were good or Jesus-friendly, which Mel
>Gibson's movie points out. Also Jesus Himself was
>Jewish, born of Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem,
>with Jewish-heritage forefathers like the Israeli
>king David and Abraham, father of all Jews. Many
>of first Christian followers, such as Jesus' disiples,
>were Jewish.
Sometimes I wish we would all just forgive just what has been pushing us
back these past 2000 years, but then I wonder if that would ever happen
at all. If Jesus didn't came into the world, would most of us be Jewish
today? Such interesting questions!
>Well, pardon my opinion, please.
That's OK. It's just that we all have our likes and dislikes out there.
>>Thanks for clearing it up. Kinda amused at how
>>rather old-tyme that is to have someone driving in
>>a horse carriage, you rarely see that anymore
>>(outside of Amish country.
>You're welcome.
Still it sounds rather corny to me as if it's 1914 all over again or
somtehing!
>Boy, you have it easy. I go nuts over comic books
>and DVDs/ video (mostly of anime/foriegn movies
>and classic old movies.) due to the bane of current
>pop entertainment.
I do. Mainly since I'm more reserved in what I can get with my money
and I don't try to blow it all in one day. Whenever I do spot an issue
I might enjoy, I buy it, but I won't go and by every other issue
afterwards. I'm just glad I'm a non-smoker/drinker as well.
>>Well you can always write to me personally about
>>it if you like.
>Thanks. ^_^
You're welcome. Much of the material I sent you was a few older
drawings I didn't need anymore, as well as xeroxes of my skechbook
entries.
>>It's best to have these qualities to make it big.
>I hope so. I'm going to mail copies to a furry writer
>and pen pal of mine to ask if he could help or
>make some suggests. Might also take the issue to
>some furry comic publishers who also write comics.
Hope it'll work out fine for you.
>Under Eisner's method he might hire some
>cheap-labor factory in Mexico to produce the
>ballons. And the ballons will maybe of some cheap
>poorly designed plastic-like material that would
>combust or pop-explode horrilbily when the cast
>memebers inflate them, or leak helium through his
>skin.
Sounds like what he'd be doing!
>Dirty Uncle Mike would maybe try to backpedal
>with some spin: "Hey, at least Disney now gives
>all Disney themepark attendants the once in a
>lifetime ability to speak like Mickey Mouse." :-)))
That would be pushing it!
>>Seems like much of that legacy has since faded
>>away along with Walt's life.
>And there seems to be more presure than ever to
>get Eisner and this managment out of office. A
>group of shareholders announce that they are
>withholding votes on Eisner, or something like
>that.
That's good to hear.
>Also I have been read a lot online about all the
>Disney animated cheapquels, and the reason they
>sour against the originals and the Disney name in
>animation is how that the plots in the sequels are
>more or less the same as the originals, or that they
>would have the characteers do the same or similar
>things from the original flicks. "Jungle Book II" is
>one example with its inferior relience of having the
>"Bare Nessesities" sung *three times* during the
>run of the whole movie. Also most of these same
>sequels carry the "protagonist from first movie has
>rebelious child who disobeys and get in a great
>misadventure" plot formula and give original-movie
>characters some out-of chracter quirks to peg them
>into the sequels' plot.
>John Shughart
Pretty much what makes sequels very cheap when they're handled that way.
It was best if they just left it like it is than to feel they have to
continue the story such as with Jungle Book or such.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Ah, I see. I'll go see what I could catch at eBay
>>instead.
>
>That's OK. Oddly I might've misinterperate the title for sometihng
>else. Christopher Hart has made a lot of different books about
>cartooning, including animation, and lately has been putting out books
>on anatomy as well as anime/manga drawing as well.
I'd to try anime-style drawing somehow. I'm much better at drawing realisitic
style and in a Western-style sort of cartoon style mostly inspired by Disney
and some great non-Disney american animations, and the best furry fandom
artists. I suck a little at anime though. :-p
>
>>I remember one time while being at school I loved
>>someone's copyrighted story in a school book so
>>much I copied it through a copying machine with
>>the help of a teacher, and that was it. Other wise I
>>never have made a complete duplicate of
>>copyrighted books or video. If I want to keep the
>>video or DVD that I want, I buy an on-sale copy
>>made from the copyright holder in a store, usually.
>
>I know what you mean. For me, it was watching films in school I
>couldn't see anywhere else, and I somehow got interested in film
>collection later in life by tracking down these 16mm films like the ones
>I used to see in school as well as other TV programs and films whenever
>I can.
How and where could I find 16mm movies and such?
>
>>Besides, what non-Christian Jews and true
>>anti-semites forgot is that while some Jews like the
>>group of relious leaders that pushed the Romans
>>to arrest and crucify Jesus, there were still some
>>Jews that were good or Jesus-friendly, which Mel
>>Gibson's movie points out. Also Jesus Himself was
>>Jewish, born of Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem,
>>with Jewish-heritage forefathers like the Israeli
>>king David and Abraham, father of all Jews. Many
>>of first Christian followers, such as Jesus' disiples,
>>were Jewish.
>
>Sometimes I wish we would all just forgive just what has been pushing us
>back these past 2000 years, but then I wonder if that would ever happen
>at all. If Jesus didn't came into the world, would most of us be Jewish
>today? Such interesting questions!
*WARNING to anyone non-Christian or atheist/angoistic. If you do not want
anything to do with Chistianity if you so choose, don't read the next
paragraph.*
Pardon if I'm getting into the spirital here, but it eases us Christians
further having the faith that Jesus' death, even if it was done by hateful men,
it was still from the very beginning a plan to save humanity from its own
darkness by Jesus' Devine Father.
*END CHRISTIAN-FAITH RELATED PARAGRAPH HERE*
>
>>Well, pardon my opinion, please.
>
>That's OK. It's just that we all have our likes and dislikes out there.
If only the world would understand that more. :-p
>
>
>>Boy, you have it easy. I go nuts over comic books
>>and DVDs/ video (mostly of anime/foriegn movies
>>and classic old movies.) due to the bane of current
>>pop entertainment.
>
>I do. Mainly since I'm more reserved in what I can get with my money
>and I don't try to blow it all in one day. Whenever I do spot an issue
>I might enjoy, I buy it, but I won't go and by every other issue
>afterwards. I'm just glad I'm a non-smoker/drinker as well.
Same here. Has been a big cut in my health as well as my wallet.
Abeit, I do get troubled by other folks' smoking, though. Like whenever I pass
close to people with their cigars, I breath their smoke and it tastes/smells
bad. Hard to taste food with that ashy aftertase. Plus, whenever I'm at in a
checkout line at some store and the guy before me asks for cigarettes, it takes
a long time than usual as the cashier gets the brand and number of boxes of the
smokes he asks for. I find it surreal.
>
>>>Well you can always write to me personally about
>>>it if you like.
>>Thanks. ^_^
>
>You're welcome. Much of the material I sent you was a few older
>drawings I didn't need anymore, as well as xeroxes of my skechbook
>entries.
>
>>>It's best to have these qualities to make it big.
>>I hope so. I'm going to mail copies to a furry writer
>>and pen pal of mine to ask if he could help or
>>make some suggests. Might also take the issue to
>>some furry comic publishers who also write comics.
>
>Hope it'll work out fine for you.
Thanks
the cast
As if it weren't enough that the budget of a cheapquel or an "1 1/2" story is
1/8 or so the budget of an original, they're cheap that they couldn't quite
think of anything new for the films either.
>It was best if they just left it like it is than to feel they have to
>continue the story such as with Jungle Book or such.
>
That seems to be a good rule to follow, especailly with Walt's cartoons. (What
makes the inferior "Jungle Book II" the more hellish was that it was the last
animated movie in production Walt had his stamp of approval on. The animators
finished the film as he passed away under cancer in a hospital bed.) Also, Walt
was the sort of guy who never wanted to do sequels. What would he think of
seeing his company caring less about doing new original movies than cheap,
idiotic, spoiled-brat friendly sequels?
According to an article written on SaveDisney.com, since the cheapquels were
made by Disney's television-animation crews, they resembled TV shows more than
like real movies. And the article mentions how Pixar did a better job at
animation sequels with "Toy Story 2", with new further character development on
the original "Toy Story" characters and a new story, as well as completely new
characters.
By the way, despite that it got positive reviews from some critics and from a
few furry friends of mine, I'm still not buying "Lion King 1 1/2". >;-( I saw
most of the "movie" play entirely on screen in a video store, and while there
were a few funny jokes involved, I still think it's a purid waste of pencil
drawings and film that yet again rapes the Disney legacy.
John Shughart
Kip Williams
> By the way, despite that it got positive reviews from some critics and from a
> few furry friends of mine, I'm still not buying "Lion King 1 1/2". >;-( I saw
> most of the "movie" play entirely on screen in a video store, and while there
> were a few funny jokes involved, I still think it's a purid waste of pencil
> drawings and film that yet again rapes the Disney legacy.
The Lion King is quite a few years removed from any Disney legacy,
unless you mean Roy. (And where's Siegfried? Sorry, free association.)
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Well! Two naughty, nasty children gone. Three good, kind children
left!" --Willy Wonka
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> By the way, despite that it got positive reviews from some critics and from
>a
>> few furry friends of mine, I'm still not buying "Lion King 1 1/2". >;-( I
>saw
>> most of the "movie" play entirely on screen in a video store, and while
>there
>> were a few funny jokes involved, I still think it's a purid waste of pencil
>> drawings and film that yet again rapes the Disney legacy.
>
>The Lion King is quite a few years removed from any Disney legacy,
>unless you mean Roy. (And where's Siegfried? Sorry, free association.)
Sorry, I don't mean to imply that "The Lion King" was made by Walt Dinsey,
which is inncorrect. Instead of the Disney legacy, I should have said that "The
Lion King 1 1/2" raped the studios' golden reputation.
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>I'd to try anime-style drawing somehow. I'm much
>better at drawing realisitic style and in a
>Western-style sort of cartoon style mostly inspired
>by Disney and some great non-Disney american
>animations, and the best furry fandom artists. I
>suck a little at anime though. :-p
I pretty much need these books totally for my help, and there are still
a few places where I do lack at (especially mecha design which I feel I
might need to develop further).
>How and where could I find 16mm movies and
>such?
Lately the best place is eBay, when I first got started in collecting
films, I used to order some from dealers who list their films for sale
in the trade publication, "The Big Reel".
>As if it weren't enough that the budget of a
>cheapquel or an "1 1/2" story is 1/8 or so the
>budget of an original, they're cheap that they
>couldn't quite think of anything new for the films
>either.
Would rather done that with the budget than spend it on a sequel.
>That seems to be a good rule to follow, especailly
>with Walt's cartoons. (What makes the inferior
>"Jungle Book II" the more hellish was that it was
>the last animated movie in production Walt had his
>stamp of approval on. The animators finished the
>film as he passed away under cancer in a hospital
>bed.) Also, Walt was the sort of guy who never
>wanted to do sequels. What would he think of
>seeing his company caring less about doing new
>original movies than cheap, idiotic, spoiled-brat
>friendly sequels?
I bet he'd be mad! (plus for "Destino" not winning tonight!)
>And the article
>mentions how Pixar did a better job at animation
>sequels with "Toy Story 2", with new further
>character development on the original "Toy Story"
>characters and a new story, as well as completely
>new characters.
Seems like Pixar is better off if they weren't associated with Disney
this way.
>By the way, despite that it got positive reviews
>from some critics and from a few furry friends of
>mine, I'm still not buying "Lion King 1 1/2". >;-( I
>saw most of the "movie" play entirely on screen in
>a video store, and while there were a few funny
>jokes involved, I still think it's a purid waste of
>pencil drawings and film that yet again rapes the
>Disney legacy.
>John Shughart
I think so too.
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>I'd to try anime-style drawing somehow. I'm much
>>better at drawing realisitic style and in a
>>Western-style sort of cartoon style mostly inspired
>>by Disney and some great non-Disney american
>>animations, and the best furry fandom artists. I
>>suck a little at anime though. :-p
>
>I pretty much need these books totally for my help, and there are still
>a few places where I do lack at (especially mecha design which I feel I
>might need to develop further).
My anime problem is trying to draw the eyes, such as the exageratedly big eyes
that animators and manga artists give the characters (you know, like the sort
of big eyes Excel and Hyatt from "Excell Saga" have, or the kids and most
Digimon in the "Digimon" shows.) Drawing the cartoon eyes in western-animation
style is rather easy if you practice a lot, but in anime I get them to look
sucky and stiff.
>
>>How and where could I find 16mm movies and
>>such?
>
>Lately the best place is eBay, when I first got started in collecting
>films, I used to order some from dealers who list their films for sale
>in the trade publication, "The Big Reel".
That's cool.
>
>>As if it weren't enough that the budget of a
>>cheapquel or an "1 1/2" story is 1/8 or so the
>>budget of an original, they're cheap that they
>>couldn't quite think of anything new for the films
>>either.
>
>Would rather done that with the budget than spend it on a sequel.
>
>>That seems to be a good rule to follow, especailly
>>with Walt's cartoons. (What makes the inferior
>>"Jungle Book II" the more hellish was that it was
>>the last animated movie in production Walt had his
>>stamp of approval on. The animators finished the
>>film as he passed away under cancer in a hospital
>>bed.) Also, Walt was the sort of guy who never
>>wanted to do sequels. What would he think of
>>seeing his company caring less about doing new
>>original movies than cheap, idiotic, spoiled-brat
>>friendly sequels?
>
>I bet he'd be mad! (plus for "Destino" not winning tonight!)
I think he would too. (I'm dissapointed at that too, plus that another Disney
cartoon, "Brother Bear", didn't win the Best Animated Feature, and neither did
another hand drawn movie, the French "Triplettes of Belleville". Oh, well
congratuations on Pixar with "Finding Nemo", anyway.)
>
>>And the article
>>mentions how Pixar did a better job at animation
>>sequels with "Toy Story 2", with new further
>>character development on the original "Toy Story"
>>characters and a new story, as well as completely
>>new characters.
>
>Seems like Pixar is better off if they weren't associated with Disney
>this way.
>
>>By the way, despite that it got positive reviews
>>from some critics and from a few furry friends of
>>mine, I'm still not buying "Lion King 1 1/2". >;-( I
>>saw most of the "movie" play entirely on screen in
>>a video store, and while there were a few funny
>>jokes involved, I still think it's a purid waste of
>>pencil drawings and film that yet again rapes the
>>Disney legacy.
>>John Shughart
>
>I think so too.
>
What gets me to no end is that "The Lion King" was a special movie to me as it
was for most others, and here the "1 1/2" video comes off like some episode
from a bad ABC Network sitcom that mocks the original LK movie. I almost
expected like the cast of "Hope and Faith" or "According To Jim" to jump into
the animation and ruin the LK characters more. (One Imdb.com poster, one of the
few to critize negatively over "LK 1 1/2", hit the nail of how the original was
an epic adventure with light comedy, and "1 1/2" was too over the board silly
and runs against the grain of the original.)
And the way Timon and Pumba sit in front of the movie screen and ad-lib... I've
read some people describe it as being like MST3000. And my problem with this
is? Well, the theater scences are nothing like MST3000 in my opinion. I mean,
the real MST3000 was actually FUNNY, for on thing.
Some jokes in the film itself angered me more than make me laugh. For instance,
remember how when Rafiki walked up to Pride Rock, holding up the baby cub Simba
on full view in front of the animals in the beginning of "The Lion King"? That
all the animals gracefully bowed down in respect and revelence of their prince
of the serengeti. In the in-your face "Pumba and Timon really was the force
behind so-and-so" style of "LK 1 1/2", the cheapquel tells us it was really
Pumba letting the stinky out that make the animals "bow down" to the earth. Oh,
ho. Ho. Ho. Ho. No-no. Komedy.
Also I am mixed at the end when Simba and all the Disney animated characters
from other movies -- both other post-Walt characters like the cast of
"Alladin", and even classic Walt Disney characters like Mickey Mouse and Snow
White and the Seven Dwarfs 9`_'9 -- move into the theater to watch the movie,
much to Timon's tired distain. Yeah, I'm sure the ghost of Walt loves to have
Mickey and Snow White watching an forced un-comedy with digusting "jokes" about
fart and tons of bug and snail eating scenes *sacasam*.
And "You don't know the 1/2 of it"... that has to be one of the lamest movie
taglines I've ever heard. >:-(
John Shughart
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>My anime problem is trying to draw the eyes, such
>as the exageratedly big eyes that animators and
>manga artists give the characters (you know, like
>the sort of big eyes Excel and Hyatt from "Excell
>Saga" have, or the kids and most Digimon in the
>"Digimon" shows.) Drawing the cartoon eyes in
>western-animation style is rather easy if you
>practice a lot, but in anime I get them to look
>sucky and stiff.
It is a lot different. Many eyes in manga/anime tend to have a hefty
amount of detail in them, especially eyelashes or darker upper eye lids,
the relectiosn on the irus, the pupils, etc. It does tend to vary from
show to show, Dragon Ball for example tends to have some simpler eye
styles.
>I think he would too. (I'm dissapointed at that too,
>plus that another Disney cartoon, "Brother Bear",
>didn't win the Best Animated Feature, and neither
>did another hand drawn movie, the French
>"Triplettes of Belleville". Oh, well congratuations
>on Pixar with "Finding Nemo", anyway.)
I kinda wanted "Belleville Rendez-Vous" to win as well. That was still
a decent film, and I sometimes hate to admit when I coined this pfrase,
"it's UPA in 3-D!" as that's how I interperate the intersting blend of
2D and CGI renderings that still retain the look of that modernized art
style like those I used to see in UPA's films of the past.
>And the way Timon and Pumba sit in front of the
>movie screen and ad-lib... I've read some people
>describe it as being like MST3000. And my
>problem with this is? Well, the theater scences are
>nothing like MST3000 in my opinion. I mean, the
>real MST3000 was actually FUNNY, for on thing.
Well, there's been many people that have spoofed or paid homage to MST3K
in their work I believe.
>in the in-your face "Pumba and Timon really was
>the force behind so-and-so" style of "LK 1 1/2", the
>cheapquel tells us it was really Pumba letting the
>stinky out that make the animals "bow down" to
>the earth. Oh, ho. Ho. Ho. Ho. No-no. Komedy.
That is so pre-school bad!
What's next, Timon & Pumbaa teaching Simba how to mark his territory?
^_^
(kept having that running through my mind as a deleted scene from the
first film they wanted to elaborate on)
>Also I am mixed at the end when Simba and all
>the Disney animated characters from other movies
>-- both other post-Walt characters like the cast of
>"Alladin", and even classic Walt Disney characters
>like Mickey Mouse and Snow White and the Seven
>Dwarfs 9`_´9 -- move into the theater to watch the
>movie, much to Timon´s tired distain. Yeah, I´m
>sure the ghost of Walt loves to have Mickey and
>Snow White watching an forced un-comedy with
>digusting "jokes" about fart and tons of bug and
>snail eating scenes *sacasam*.
It's like a bad nightmare that never ends!
>And "You don't know the 1/2 of it"... that has to be
>one of the lamest movie
>taglines I've ever heard. >:-(
>John Shughart
I think so too!
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>My anime problem is trying to draw the eyes, such
>>as the exageratedly big eyes that animators and
>>manga artists give the characters (you know, like
>>the sort of big eyes Excel and Hyatt from "Excell
>>Saga" have, or the kids and most Digimon in the
>>"Digimon" shows.) Drawing the cartoon eyes in
>>western-animation style is rather easy if you
>>practice a lot, but in anime I get them to look
>>sucky and stiff.
>
>It is a lot different. Many eyes in manga/anime tend to have a hefty
>amount of detail in them, especially eyelashes or darker upper eye lids,
>the relectiosn on the irus, the pupils, etc. It does tend to vary from
>show to show, Dragon Ball for example tends to have some simpler eye
>styles.
I've seen the graphic design of Dragon ball. It looks like most of the
characters have black pupils with no light reflections in them.
>
>>I think he would too. (I'm dissapointed at that too,
>>plus that another Disney cartoon, "Brother Bear",
>>didn't win the Best Animated Feature, and neither
>>did another hand drawn movie, the French
>>"Triplettes of Belleville". Oh, well congratuations
>>on Pixar with "Finding Nemo", anyway.)
>
>I kinda wanted "Belleville Rendez-Vous" to win as well. That was still
>a decent film, and I sometimes hate to admit when I coined this pfrase,
>"it's UPA in 3-D!" as that's how I interperate the intersting blend of
>2D and CGI renderings that still retain the look of that modernized art
>style like those I used to see in UPA's films of the past.
That sounds interesting.
>
>>And the way Timon and Pumba sit in front of the
>>movie screen and ad-lib... I've read some people
>>describe it as being like MST3000. And my
>>problem with this is? Well, the theater scences are
>>nothing like MST3000 in my opinion. I mean, the
>>real MST3000 was actually FUNNY, for on thing.
>
>Well, there's been many people that have spoofed or paid homage to MST3K
>in their work I believe.
There are some MST-style webpages online that poke fun of other folk's
fan-fictions and such. Most of them are funny.
>
>
>>in the in-your face "Pumba and Timon really was
>>the force behind so-and-so" style of "LK 1 1/2", the
>>cheapquel tells us it was really Pumba letting the
>>stinky out that make the animals "bow down" to
>>the earth. Oh, ho. Ho. Ho. Ho. No-no. Komedy.
>
>That is so pre-school bad!
>
>What's next, Timon & Pumbaa teaching Simba how to mark his territory?
>^_^
>(kept having that running through my mind as a deleted scene from the
>first film they wanted to elaborate on)
I would hate to think how Disney might do any further "1 1/2" stories. 9_9
>
>>Also I am mixed at the end when Simba and all
>>the Disney animated characters from other movies
>>-- both other post-Walt characters like the cast of
>>"Alladin", and even classic Walt Disney characters
>>like Mickey Mouse and Snow White and the Seven
>>Dwarfs 9`_=B49 -- move into the theater to watch the
>>movie, much to Timon=B4s tired distain. Yeah, I=B4m
>>sure the ghost of Walt loves to have Mickey and
>>Snow White watching an forced un-comedy with
>>digusting "jokes" about fart and tons of bug and
>>snail eating scenes *sacasam*.
>
>It's like a bad nightmare that never ends!
Yep.
>
>>And "You don't know the 1/2 of it"... that has to be
>>one of the lamest movie
>>taglines I've ever heard. >:-(
>>John Shughart
>
>I think so too!
>
I know some real cheesy bad non-Disney movies from 20 to 30 years ago that at
least have better taglines than that.
Then there's the audience-grapping phrase for advertising "Home on The Range"
to be released a month from now... "Bust a Moo for April 2?" Even the Disney
advertisment management is suffering under Eisner.
John Shughart