Coming up for air

[Gerry]

I've been a bit out of touch here since I came back from the Kidscreen conference to pitch Nightcallers to TV folks. Partly because I've been slammed at work, on a very interesting case regarding an AR (augmented reality) patent which is going to trial next Monday. I had to create a couple of 3D images and used Thom, who came in very handy, as well as one of the boy models from the library.

 

But also, having been through the extremely interesting and educational process of meeting with and pitching to TV animation execs, I've actually been able to SIT AROUND AND DO NOTHING once I get home from the office, a novel experience that has taken some getting used to. I sit in front of the TV and each evening it slowly dawns on me that I don't have to do a dang thing if I don't want to. Been strumming my ol' guitar a bit, and in the runup to the pitchfest I actually bought a nice Yamaha keyboard to use in operating Garage Band, but which it turned out was not needed. But now I've got a pretty nice electronic keyboard (for like $129) and I've wanted to learn piano my whole life, so here goes.

 

For those who are interested, I can tell you some things worth knowing about TV animation programming, chief among which is that I'm not sure I'm cut out for it! As I said, it was educational, but so was the Project Management class I took last Fall. "Nightcallers", if I was to massage it for TV, needs some serious work and there are a couple of directions I could go with it. But having developed and developed it for nearly 20 years, I need to just take a step back and see if I can continue working on it profitably, and I don't mean money. I think the characters aren't well-enough developed for the story I've always wanted to tell, and if I were to tweak it for TV there are maybe three or four ways I could make adjustments, but I haven't decided yet what if anything I might do with it. I feel like I'm simply too close to take a fresh approach.

 

I'm also looking at my other projects and seeing what if anything I can do to make them pitchable, just for practice. Now that I have these TV contacts, pitching doesn't need to be expensive or time-consuming. I spent a couple of bucks on nice color copies of my pitch materials, only to find that NO ONE AT THESE CONFERENCES WANT TO CARRY ANYTHING EXTRA AROUND. They just want me to email pdf's after the conference.

 

I may also switch gears altogether and start a new project, a graphic novel version of one of Vicki's plays, called "Wildcatter", about the 1950's Oklahoma oil fields. But really, who knows what's next. I'm just chillin!

[robcat2075]

Interesting to hear those experiences, Gerry.

 

My own sense (based on only distant observation) of the people who are buying ideas is that they are inundated with proposals and what they really want is something that is just like something that is already successful, preferably from someone who made that already successful thing.

[largento]

I think Robert is right, but it sounds like you've got a good attitude about it, Gerry.

 

I gave thought to putting together a pitch for The Wannabe Pirates a couple of years ago. I do think there are some clever things about it (chiefly the Parrot Review Board stuff), but my impression of the whole process was that it was like taking your children, training them the best you can, dressing them up in their finest clothes and trying to sell them into slavery. :-) I can't imagine a scenario where'd I'd be allowed to be involved ...if by some miracle it was even bought somewhere.

 

Periodically, I listen to Rob Paulsen's podcast and he did one last year where he interviewed Paul Rugg. Here's a guy who wrote at least 40 of the Animaniacs stories, produced the Freakazoid! show (even voicing Freakazoid!) among other things and nowadays he was still pitching projects trying to get work. If guys like him are struggling, how can we ever make it?

 

Writer Paul Dini has been interviewed on several episodes of Kevin Smith's "Fatman on Batman" podcast and told nightmare stories about dealing with the suits at Warner Bros. and Fox while working on the Batman/Superman/Justice League programs. The kind of stories that must make people like Dini want to pull their hair out. They all want younger characters and more edgy stories with attitude. My nephews watch some of these shows and *I* want to pull my hair out.

 

The internet gives us the opportunity to avoid the gatekeepers, which may be small consolation, but at least it gives us the chance to do what we want to do ...without someone who can't do what we do telling us we can't do it because they think they know what people want.

[Gerry]

Well, as for them wanting new versions of what already works, I would suggest watching some cartoon channels. Unless you've done so recently, it might not be what you expect. I especially recommend Adventure Time, The Regular Show, and Gravity Falls.

 

And the internets certainly get around the gatekeepers, but there's no way I can do Nightcallers myself, which I was wrestling with back last year when the pitch opportunity came up.

 

But more than all that, I've always known the characters weren't designed optimally for animation. They need more characteristic silhouettes, more suitability for lines of action, etc., etc. Which means some sort of wholesale redesign at the very least. I've actually filled several sketchbook pages in the last week working on this, but I go back and forth on how much energy I want to spend on it, or whether I should move on.

[Rodney]

Off the cuff opinion follows...

 

If going for the big time, perhaps you should consider going 3D on your 'Sister Mary Dracula'?

It is just irreverent enough to spark interest and yet has the typical childhood angst and 'boys interest' themes.

 

'Sister Mary Dracula' interspersed with 'Goo 'n Roo' (making each look stylistically different enough to be seen as distinct shows apart from each other) might fill a 15 to 30 minute niche. The thought of 'Sister Mary Dracula' being a continuous story interupted regularly by sound bites from 'Goo 'n Roo' would have some potential. Time it out with the standard comercials and I'd guess you'd be animating about 15 minutes per half our episode (remember also that a few minutes are eaten up by the recurring intro and end credits.

 

My thought is that a high dose of humor is what folks are looking for in cartoons (whether aimed at kids or adults).

'Nightcallers' would seem to be a more serious Sci Fi adventure (requiring more realism? Name actors?) or else need to push more toward 'Ben 10' and similar styles/themes and audience targeting.

 

The biggest challenge would be... what if you pitched the show and they bought it hook, line and sinker?

How would you rise to the challenge of a second season?

 

At any rate, I'm glad you've had time to relax and ruminate!

[Roger]

Well, as for them wanting new versions of what already works, I would suggest watching some cartoon channels. Unless you've done so recently, it might not be what you expect. I especially recommend Adventure Time, The Regular Show, and Gravity Falls.

 

And the internets certainly get around the gatekeepers, but there's no way I can do Nightcallers myself, which I was wrestling with back last year when the pitch opportunity came up.

 

But more than all that, I've always known the characters weren't designed optimally for animation. They need more characteristic silhouettes, more suitability for lines of action, etc., etc. Which means some sort of wholesale redesign at the very least. I've actually filled several sketchbook pages in the last week working on this, but I go back and forth on how much energy I want to spend on it, or whether I should move on.

 

I've been thinking about this a lot, with my characters. I'm happy with my penguin, more or less, but am not happy with the look of the dragon. It just doesn't strike a chord with me, for some reason. Not the way my drawings do (rough as they are).

 

I've seen Regular Show and Adventure Time. Regular Show struck me as kind of funny, maybe I just don't get Adventure Time?

It seems like a kids show but also trying to cater to the stoner crowd? (although I guess you could make the same argument about Regular Show) Maybe I need to watch it again.

[Rodney]

A lot of the shows seems to target 'absurd'. It's the kind of disconnected humor of unrelated or unnexpected connections that makes people laugh because of the absurdity more than anything. It's 'shock and what was that?' In the case of 'Adventure Time' etc. they've managed to wrap it in with characters that you care about enough to keep coming back.

 

It's interesting, but topical references seem to work well with this theater of the absurd. Make a crazy connection or insult a popular icon and the result is automatic.

 

For the most part I find I can take only so much of the current crop of 'insult humor'. This extends to satire in general as the primary rote.

Then again however, I've always been a fan of the subtle humor that gets you to say, 'yup, that's us' collectively rather than single specific people out and begin a barrage of personal insults. That's a slippery slope.

 

I know I'm old fashioned but I enjoy uplifting stories.

The creators of these shows know exactly what they are doing (and/or don't particular care beyond the $$$ people will pay for the show). That to me is all the more disconcerting.

 

In thinking about what I'd like to see in a show I confess that I'm all in it for the grand adventure.

A world where absurdities do happen but aren't considered the norm.

That difference (for me) is what makes a cartoon awe-some.

 

Now concerning the style... I think a lot of the style we see these days is (just like in the days of Hanna Barbera) mostly a matter of economics. What is particularly disturbing to me though is styles obviously designed for younger viewers but without content for young viewers. Sadly, those are for the children who refuse to grow up whose joy in life resides in seeing imaginary characters behave like idiots. In short, not really funny, just irreverently odd.

 

I do think that the attention span of folks these days does have a lot to do with what will be watched.

I am constantly amazed that anime still incorporates so much dialogue... but then again... that is largely driven by economics.

Talk is cheap... animation is hard.

 

Now, lest folks think I am being too harsh it should be noted that cartoons have a long history of satire, caricature and being odd. What that stems from is an effort to capture/satirize current society. In this sense it is more the society than the cartoons that are odd. This is almost as true as it is ironic. Our society has accepted absurdity to the point where exaggeration itself is no longer enough.

[Gerry]

Aside from the "animatable" qualities of my characters, where I had trouble too was in trying to pitch "Nightcallers" as a comedy. It's not. I tried describing it as "action-adventure with a funnybone" but without a more persuasive sizzle reel that's a hard sell. I still like the tone I set with the webcomic, and that's how I'd like to tell the story. If I could put that exact sense of play in an animated sample I would feel like I'm giving the project a fair shot.

 

The networks all say they want a particular "thing". But if you can show them something wacky from left field that really grabs them, their articulated desires go out the window.

 

A lot of what you're talking about, Rodney, is the fallout of the Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, etc. A dazzling new style of show would change all that, but then that style would have legions of imitators too.

[Roger]

A lot of the shows seems to target 'absurd'. It's the kind of disconnected humor of unrelated or unnexpected connections that makes people laugh because of the absurdity more than anything. It's 'shock and what was that?' In the case of 'Adventure Time' etc. they've managed to wrap it in with characters that you care about enough to keep coming back.

 

It's interesting, but topical references seem to work well with this theater of the absurd. Make a crazy connection or insult a popular icon and the result is automatic.

 

For the most part I find I can take only so much of the current crop of 'insult humor'. This extends to satire in general as the primary rote.

Then again however, I've always been a fan of the subtle humor that gets you to say, 'yup, that's us' collectively rather than single specific people out and begin a barrage of personal insults. That's a slippery slope.

 

I know I'm old fashioned but I enjoy uplifting stories.

The creators of these shows know exactly what they are doing (and/or don't particular care beyond the $$$ people will pay for the show). That to me is all the more disconcerting.

 

In thinking about what I'd like to see in a show I confess that I'm all in it for the grand adventure.

A world where absurdities do happen but aren't considered the norm.

That difference (for me) is what makes a cartoon awe-some.

 

Now concerning the style... I think a lot of the style we see these days is (just like in the days of Hanna Barbera) mostly a matter of economics. What is particularly disturbing to me though is styles obviously designed for younger viewers but without content for young viewers. Sadly, those are for the children who refuse to grow up whose joy in life resides in seeing imaginary characters behave like idiots. In short, not really funny, just irreverently odd.

 

I do think that the attention span of folks these days does have a lot to do with what will be watched.

I am constantly amazed that anime still incorporates so much dialogue... but then again... that is largely driven by economics.

Talk is cheap... animation is hard.

 

Now, lest folks think I am being too harsh it should be noted that cartoons have a long history of satire, caricature and being odd. What that stems from is an effort to capture/satirize current society. In this sense it is more the society than the cartoons that are odd. This is almost as true as it is ironic. Our society has accepted absurdity to the point where exaggeration itself is no longer enough.

 

I agree with you somewhat. Once of my favorite shows is Venture Brothers - it is a great blend of topical humor, pop culture references, a bit of gratuitous violence but I don't think I've ever felt the show was mean spirited (except maybe towards Dr. Venture, not towards anyone real) and I certainly don't feel like my intelligence is being insulted when watching it.

 

I don't think we need to cater to the lowest common denominator in order to get people to watch our stuff. I think one of the worst things to ever grace the TV screen is the Springer show. I can't help but think that most of it is staged, but even if only 20 percent is real, it is still human tragedy being marketed as entertainment. I think it and all its offspring have coarsened our society. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, 100 years from now we end up with the world of Transmetropolitan (not sure how familiar folks are with it).

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to live in that world.

 

I'm not saying I'm above coarse or blue humor, there is a time and a place for everything, but if that is the only thing available it is a sad situation.

 

Toy Story, I think, is a great example of an uplifting movie. I think originally when they were writing it, someone wanted Woody to be all edgy and cynical. I don't remember where I read/saw this, but I'm sure Lasseter must have fought to make the movie he wanted to make, because we have a much different character that made it to the screen.

 

However, all that being said, there is a very very fine line between uplifting and syrupy sweet. It is easy to cross it if you're not careful.

[robcat2075]

The famous Mencken quote is "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste and intelligence of the American public."