Above is recent photo of Eagle, aka Pie - A truly Great Dane. Son of our Roku and Star, Eagle was a grand ambassador to the breed. Show dog. Therapy Dog. Family Dog. One of a kind. He was a lover of pumpkins, KFC, real whipped cream, talking to the TV, and Outback steaks. He brought joy to all he met. His soul and mind remained strong... but his body betrayed him. He has joined his parents and others that have passed before.
He will be missed.
Not the end of the line, as his daughter Kele and son Rooster are still here. But it is the end of an era.
The house without him is very much a different house. (10/21/09)
Family memories. Have spent some time looking through old photos given us by my mom. They made me think of various family memories.
The few that show my grandparents made me think of how I often heard how my grandmother was the first woman to drive a car in her town. The reaction to her was so negative, that she stopped. And it makes me realize I don't ever recall her driving anyplace when we visited. My grandfather was a successful banker who gave up his career to start a printing company, which he kept doing until he retired. Also recall how he was friends with the Kellogg family. When the family had an arguement about the future path they should take, my grandfather agreed with the side that said people would not give up a hot breakfast to eat cold dried corn in a bowl. He thought he had made the right choice. He figured if he had become part of the Kellogg's empire, he would not have met my grandmother.
Perhaps the most interesting photos are the ones from Pennsylvania. We moved a great deal due to my father's profession, and I knew an early stop was Pennsylvania. The photos, several dated 1956, show we were in Milford, Pennsylvania. A number of them are of a long forgotten park, Moon Valley Park. It was one of many "cheesy" parks across the country made of facades and animals. Dad took around a dozen great photos of the facades, buildings, and such. (While surfing the net, I could only find three images of the park.) They also had some photos of "the flood". I recall them mentioning at times of "the flood". Seeing the photos, I now know that they lived in the area during the famous 1955 flood which destroyed much of the town. I know we didn't live there long. They once commented it was due to the folks not accepting outsiders well. Either way, we were out of there by 1958 and moved to Lisle, Illinois.
Hope to find some time to scan these. (10/18/09)
During a recent fire in the area, several folks around me were keeping posted via their wireless devices. It made one comment that this is the age of information. I countered that it was actually the age of misinformation. The web allows information to spread almost immediately, but more often than not the news is spotty in its accuracy. Bloggers and web 'reporters' have no editorial fact check procedure. They hear/see and report. That is why so much of news and research is all over the place today.
In pre-web days, news folks and researchers had time to double check information. They also had editors who (hopefully) kept them honest on their facts. Today, most of the research seen on the internet comes via user databases like wikis and IMDB. Not that these sites are unreliable... just that they are so well, unreliable. I remember the times I would be reading a book and thinking it was full of great info on things I didn't know about. Suddenly, I would reach a chapter on something I knew about and find various errors in facts or conclusions. That would make me wonder if there were similar errors in chapters I did not know about.
Whenever I write, I always try to find as many sources as possible. I don't want to presume that something written on paper or web is a fact just because it is written. I cannot count the number of times we (when Jim Korkis was writing with me) would go back to earlier sources and find that a "well known fact" was wrong. Sadly, once somebody writes something in a book or on the internet, folks will see it as a fact that cannot be disputed... and if you find a contradiction, many will find a reason not believe the second source.
Just the other day, I looked up some information on a tv series. IMDB had an interesting story about how the series was created. Then it had another. There were two "facts" of how the creator came up with the series - both completely different. Similarly, I have looked up things at various info sites only to find the facts simply 'lifted' from another. And, it is not just the internet. While working on Great Dane book with Rachel, I found some interesting info in a rather old book. I found the same info, almost word for word in several other newer books. Luckily, the info seemed to be backed up by several other sources. I have also found facts from a faulty book reprinted in other books by authors who simply copied info from one source for their book.
It all reminds me of a statement fellow writer Jim Korkis used to say. "When writing copying from one source is plagerism. Copying from two sources is research." These days, copying from one source is key to the age of misinformation. (10/13/09)
Watched MONSTERS VS ALIENS on dvd the other night. Another well done film that has little to interest me. The film is really slow going until the last 15-20 minutes. It is one of those films, that if I had seen in a theater, I don't know if I would have stayed until the end. The first hour is almost all build-up, kind of like many of the 1950s scifi films it is parodying. All the characters are broadly stupid or annoying in the film before the movie kicks into gear... then suddenly they begin acting brighter. Too many long scenes of 'hip humor' that just lay there after a while. It is really a shame, as the ending deserved a better movie.
Course it is hard to dismiss the film totally. It may be the weakest of the Dreamworks library that includes things like Shrek, Kung Fu Panda, Road To El Dorado and Spirit. The film looks good. And when one considers how much effort it takes to get any animated film made, it is an accomplishment. I have been close a few times to selling a project or script. And I have seen more than one project go through all the hoops necessary to get to completion. Even before animation went totally Hollywood, studios had a string of people that had to approve every project. One classic animator compared producing an animated feature with pushing an elephant across a football field. So any film that gets from idea to screen is, well, "amazing" as the monsters might say.
Another fire is in the area. The 'good news' (as no fire can be called good news) is that the fire is pretty far from us. It is on the other side of the mountain across a freeway. The 'bad news' is that is the same area that the 2003 Old Fire got its start. That fire continued to grow and eventually jumped the freeway and ended up burning over most of the mountain. We were evacuated for several weeks. Got recent word that the fire is not spreading as fast. So we hope for the best.(10/3/09)
Once again we are being warned about the H1N1 virus (aka swine flu). It makes the public afraid of coming into contact with anyone carrying the bug. But far worse is the fear the public has towards people with RV2009 - the Recession Virus of 2009. Thousands, if not millions of Americans suffer from this disease. Symptons include foreclosed homes, lost jobs, reduced paychecks, loss of health insurance, loss of savings, increased debt and more. Those who suffer from this ailment will find friends and former co-workers hard to connnect with. Perhaps they worry that contact will create feelings of depression. Perhaps they fear that meeting someone with RV2009 will result in the request for money, help, or even employment. Whatever the reasons, victims of RV2009 will find emails and phone calls unanswered and fewer invites to social events. RV2009 is not as well publicised as H1N1, but it is just as serious... and could be just as devastating. "The only difference between a derelict and a man is a job." - My Man Godfrey (1936)
On a brighter note, spent a great day at Disneyland/DCA today. It can brighten anyone - at least it always helps me. Know a lot is due to my former days there. Saw the characters in their Halloween costumes - unfortunately missed grabbing a snap of Chip and Dale as cop and robber. Saw they had Maggie the cow in a ballet dress at Thunder Ranch. Sally & Jack were pleasing crowds by the Haunted Mansion. What was most amusing were the two Mansion employees watching - they looked like they came from the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Crowds were light. No matter how low you can feel, a day at the park can really bring a smile to your face... or at least mine. Its fun seeing the characters, the buildings, the smiles and more. The piano player gave a rousing version of the Haunted Mansion theme. We then wandered over to DCA and found that the Chinese restaurant, empty since the park opened, was now open... where the Mexican restuarant used to be. (The Mex restaurant moved to the building that was to be the Chinese.) Food was good. Left feeling good. A nice feeling.
Last thought, caught the debut/season premieres of a couple of shows. The premiere of GREYS ANATOMY was very long... and flat. Too much chaos and not enough character. Hope it improves. The debut of FLASH FOWARD was too busy being 'baffling' to be interesting. Won't bother with it again. Seth McFarlane's latest series, THE CLEVELAND SHOW was just not funny. Course the whole half hour was just setting up the stituation and introducing all the new characters. Will see if it improves once they are just telling stories. And finally, the season premiere of FAMILY GUY. A good idea, Brian and Stewie traveling through dimensions, not done with enough laughs. Too many dimensions and not enough character stuff until they hit the last one. Still, it had enough clever bits and some real laughs to keep it at the top of my list of best animated series. (9/30/09)
As part of my search for another full time gig in entertainment (animation or performance), I have joined two "social networks", facebook and Linkedin. Both are home to thousands of folks also looking to meet people and network with contacts. After having been on both for several months or more, I am still not certain if I am properly networking... or even what proper networking is.
It seems the term networking became popular in the 1990s. The most common use seemed to have been about keeping in contact with social and employment peers as well as making new contacts. To be blunt, I have never been much of a network person. Guess I consider myself more of a local independant station than a network. This is not to say I I am anti-social. During the 70s and 80s I was quite a 'penpal' person keeping correspondence up with dozens of folks from around the world. Most came from my hobbies of collecting comics, animation and such. We would write letters back and forth sending thoughts and occasionally items of interest like newspaper clippings, small collectible items, videotapes, music tapes and such.
But what does one do on these modern social networks? One person on facebook posted an article from CNN about the 12 worst types on facebook. Most of the commentors stated they were guilty of one or more of the acts. Though listing 12 might make a good article, it seems to me folks on these sites mostly fall into three categories - the ones who have to tell you every detail of their daily life (similar to twits, ie those who twitter), the ones who like to post 'things' (clips, art, quizzes, news articles and such), and finally those who need to post (brag) about all the business deals they are in. I feel a bit uncomfortable with all three.
Will posting a constant string of comments make me more appealing to an employer, or make a friend suggest me for a job? Or make them want to introduce me to a new "friend" or "link"? In real life, such blabber mouths are mostly ignored or avoided. If I post lots of interesting links, will that make folks think I'm "in touch" with new thoughts, pop culture, or current trends? That makes me think of the type who comes to work spouting constant trivia, news about celebrities, or reviews of last nights TV line-up. And constantly bragging about my work? Well, there are some who I might mention about a new project or possible gig. But I was never one to push my past successes or promote my current task, unless I was in an interview or other job hunting mode.
I guess the modern social networks remind me of the Stephen Sondheim song, "A City of Strangers". Like the parties "of the friends of friends who you never know", these networks are so much sound bites without much real bite. Like a logline about your interests, job skills, activities or such, these snatches of conversation say so little. It seems the continually decreasing attention span of modern life has even invaded our social life. These sites even discourage any real discussion by cutting off any long comment by sticking a "more" after a few lines of text. That way, no one has to read a whole paragraph. Unless they are actually interested in a complete thought, or perhaps have nothing better to do. Of course with texting and twittering the goal is to use the fewest amount of words to express some thought.
I guess I am more comfortable where a story well told is the best kind. Crunching every tale, thought or idea into a newspaper headline may show some cleverness... but it seems to wring all the personality, life and joy out of the tale. I am reminded of such analogies as the frog and comedy, or the prisoners and number jokes. But those will have to wait for another kick. ttfn. (9/13/09)
Over the weekend saw two movies of similar format - 17 AGAIN and HOTEL FOR DOGS. 17 AGAIN was for Rachel. HOTEL was for Eagle. Both movies are of the type that has a story which has been well told in the ads and trailer. The first is the tale of a troubled person who suddenly finds themself younger and goes about to change their life. Laughs and tears to follow. The second tells a story of kids, who are smarter and kinder than almost any adult in the film, that get involved with a secret project. Laughs and tears to follow. With both films, after watching around 15 minutes, it becomes obvious where the story is going and what type of ending it will have. I have, occasionally, seen films that manage to pull off a surprise or twist at the end, but that is the rare bird, indeed.
With these films, it is all about how the story is told as to whether the film succeeds. 17 AGAIN worked well within its predictable confines offering some actual laughs and good ideas. It was helped greatly with the help of a character that is very odd... but oddly likeable. The only surprise offered in such films is exactly how will the film end. Unlike Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS, there is no ambiguity to the conclusion. While not a great film, the film is breezy and generally likeable.
HOTEL FOR DOGS is more of a 'kids film' in which the kids are so much smarter and cooler than the adults it becomes tiring. In true kiddie film fashion, there are all sorts of problems or set-ups that are easily solved with no real danger to anyone involved. Though the story is straight forward, as 17 AGAIN, it is told in a much more jarring on-again-off-again style. And the ending, as predictable as the other film, comes in a rushed way. The happy ending seems to just happen with little explanation of how the happy ending was actually achieved. The film was generally less fun to watch. Even Eagle, who usually loves movies with dogs in them, seemed to tire of the antics. Overall, it reminded me of the less entertaining Disney live action films of the 70s. (9/11/09)
In a world where one can twitter info immediately almost anywhere, why are computerized tests slower than those that are hand graded? Recently in my employment training and searching, I have taken a number of those computerized tests for things like food safety and county positions. Like the college tests I took, you get a book of questions and a sheet for answers in which you blacken the letter (a, b, c, or d) that is the right answer. They still use these at the DMV. There wannabe drivers go in, take the test and a person goes over the sheet with a special answer guide and you learn in moments if you passed. The food safety test will take around 5 weeks for them to let me know my score. The county will take at least 6 weeks before they have the score. Why can't someone simply walk the sheet over to an answer guide and check my score? Or perhaps there would be a scanner that you slip the sheet in and a computer reads it and gives you a score. Again, the DMV can do it in minutes - and that is about all they can do that quickly. Why is private enterprise and government alike needing weeks? Good thing they don't use this system to count the votes at election time.
And speaking of the county test, I was amused by the crowd. The test was for work at the animal shelter. The group featured folks of all ages, gender, height, weight, and ethnic. The dress code went from suits and dress shirts to shorts, t-shirts and tank tops. There were over 50 folks there for the test, and apparently it was the first of a few groups who would be testing that day for the position. Guess it is just another sign of the economic times. (9/1/09)
Now that I am becomming an expert on fast food, I have found it interesting seeing how folks operate in a common location.
For example, there is how families order their meals. There are basically three types. The first is the 'everyone for themselves' family in which each member of the party comes up and orders what he/she wants. The next type is the "elected leader" family in which the group talks first and then has one member (usually dad or mom) make everyone's order. The final is the "translator" which is similar to the "elected leader" in which one person orders. What makes the "translator" different is that the group approaches the counter and proceeds to whisper to the translator what they want, after which the "translator" will tell the cashier.
Another is how folks keep their money. It seems that men frequently keep their bills neatly ordered and folded in either their wallet or a money clip. In fact, I am surprised at how many folks use money clips as opposed to wallets. Women tend to keep their money bunch up like tiny scraps of paper in the purse. When it comes time to pay, they dig around and unbind each bill. Kids and teens, in an effort to find the smallest of anything (cel phone, mp3 players and such) seem to want to keep their money tiny by having it folded multiple times so that the square is finally about the size of a quarter. When it comes time to pay, then they unfold and unfold and unfold the bill until it finally opens. (8/30/09)
Got a rude awakening about the 'power of the internet' today. In my search for new health insurance heard about a company offering low rates and guaranteed coverage. Went to their website and answered a few questions after which a selection of possible companies/plans popped up. Before I finished reading the page, I got a phone call from one of the companies to inform me of their options and that they had sent me an email with more info. Before that call was completed, I had a call waiting beep me. It was another saleman who had sent me emails and wanted to talk about it! Who would think checking out a valid site, that pushed it was secure and 'spam free' would send out my info immediately to salesfolks. Even worse was having several of the folks state that my prescriptions would not be covered by most companies nowadays. Hope they have generic versions at Walgreens. Where's Ted Kennedy when we need him?(8/26/09)
Sad to see our political system once again grind to a halt as debate turns into shouting matches. Now it is about health care. Special interest groups (many sponsored by anti-obama groups and insurance companies) shout about how terrible it will be if the government takes over. And actually, the government does not 'take over' healthcare. I wonder why Obama and the supporters don't bring out folks to tell horror stories about the world of big business insurance where profits are the only concern. Folks could tell about how insurance companies deny procedures everyday, no matter how many doctors may recommend it for a patient. Folks could talk about how insurance companies refuse coverage to them, or only offer it at enormous costs, if they have 'pre-existing' conditions. I found one company that would insure me for low cost, but NOT cover any pre-existing condition and meds for 12 months. Guess they figure if I can live without my meds for a year, I am a good risk. Or perhaps doctors could come forward and state how much money and time they spend filling out insurance forms and negotiating with the companies. I have been told by numerous doctors that several major insurance companies have told them to stop prescribing certain drugs or requesting certain tests as they are just "too expensive".
Of course, most probably won't come forward for fear of losing their insurance. Even the government is worried. After all, the insurance lobby is one of the biggest in Washington. Supposedly second only to the banking industry. Bet in the interest of profits for stockholders the insurance companies would gladly put together a death panel to eliminate all those pesky patients who need meds and tests.
On other notes, took the safe serv exam today to assist in my moving up to management. The class was interesting, and did a good job of verbally covering the material in the books. But was shocked when I saw the exam. At least 30% of the questions were on topics not covered in the reading material or the class! It was like the test was taken from some other source. The sample test questions in the reading material were around 90% directly from the material. Am not sure where all the info/questions were gotten from for the test given today. Had to do lots of guessing. Hope I was lucky.
Oh, and am really enjoying Der Wienerschnitzel's new dollar menu. Lots of great items including a chili cheese fry burrito! Such a natural, hard to believe it wasn't thought of long ago. They have one of the best dollar menus in the fast food world right now. (8/12/09)
Thoughts on a couple of topics...
As usual, there were folks at the comic con in costume. Seems the most popular costumes for guys were Batman and Storm Troopers. The Batmen were in a variety of colors including black, blue, brown and violet. Think they represent various "worlds" where Batman exists. The Storm Troopers have been a con tradition for nearly 3 decades. Ladies were mostly dressed in Harlequins (Joker's girl) and Catwoman. So three of the top four were all Batman related. Course there were other suits from videogames, cartoons, movies and such. Even saw two fursuits. Was amused at the number of folks who would request photos with the various costume characters, even those that were less than "amazing". Though overall, there are much fewer percentage of costumes than in earlier cons. Feel the number dropped when the con moved to the convention center, where it is tougher to change into a suit at the event.
While recovering from illness have found The Learning Channel (TLC) needs to be renamed. There is little if any learning going on here. The series focus largely on "reality" families including families with lots of kids, families of little people, families exploiting their daughters (talk about a pedophile's dream show), and families that are pregnant and don't know it. Sheesh. Maybe they should rebrand to The Real Family Channel... or maybe The Disturbing Channel. Though to be fair, they do have some career shows such as the lives of female tattoo artists and female police.
Saw THE UGLY TRUTH and found the film to be amusing. The plot is a bit too predictable, but this is one of those films that "getting there" is most of the fun. And as a rule, it is fun. Found the film was best when the two stars were bantering. The more people in the scene, the less interesting it got. A cute film. Before the film they showed a trailer for THE TIME TRAVELLER'S WIFE. Looked interesting, if not a variation on some other films that were produced too long ago for anyone today to really care about.
Also while recuperating rented CORALINE. This stop motion film is certainly intriguing. Having been told over and over to hear nothing about it before seeing it, I will respect those who have not seen it. Will simply say that folks are right that the film continually surprises. Visually interesting (if a bit reminiscent of the director's other films), and nicely paced. However, I am not sure if it is a film I would watch again. Feel repeat viewings will lose some of the surprise factor. And despite some nice ideas and story points, nothing struck me as 'gotta see that again' material. Maybe after time I will. Oh, and since he is in the commercials and won't ruin any surprises, the cat is great.
Finally, have to brag about our recent win on TMZ.com. Rachel submitted a photo of our kids Saber and Rooster to their 'crazy pet photo' contest and they won! That is Saber's third win this year! (7/29/09)
Random thoughts on the 2009 Comic Con International: San Diego. Have not been for to the con for a couple years. At least not since they began selling out of tickets months before the con. The con is still packed to the roof with attendees, reminding me of a "worst crowd" day at Disneyland. It even has the enormous lines of Dland with more and more of the companies having folks stand in line to pick up souvenir pins, bags and such. Some folks spend nearly 2 hours in each line. I would ask what they were waiting for and often got an "I don't know" answer. The attendees saw a line and just got in it, hoping the wait would provide a neat prize. Ran into a friend who does a number of panels at the convention and mentioned that the lines for the panels were just as bad. He stated if you didn't get in line at least a half hour before the panel began (an hour for 'big' panels) you just would not get in. I wondered how many folks do spend, like Disneyland, a majority of their time at the con just standing in line.
Ran into a number of business friends. The stories were all the same. Each was "between" gigs and looking for work. Most had been out of steady work for nearly a year. We lamented how so much talent was unable to find employment, and what it meant for the animation business. Only one was still very busy, and he was now focusing almost all his time on comic book work.
Also got to meet Peter Beagle, author of The Last Unicorn among other titles. He was signing books for the few who remembered the film and/or book. Seeing him sitting mostly neglected in a sea of apparently 'hot' comic artists (surrounded by crowds), I walked up and said hello, shook his hand and mentioned how much Rachel and I enjoyed his work and the animated version of his book. He thanked me and asked where Rachel was, because he wanted to meet her too. I told him she was at home with the kids. I said Rachel would not fogive me if I didn't get news on the live action version planned for Unicorn. He replied it was a rights problem and weaved a sad, but typical tale of companies selling minor parts of rights to various companies to help complete deals.
His business partner noted my pro badge and asked what I did. I said I usually did animation production, but was currently 'between gigs'. Then I added that Rachel and I were working on a book about Great Danes. Peter then told me a story of a friend of his in Los Angeles who once had a wonderful Dane. It was a nice break in the crowds and frantic fandom to just chat with such a gentlemanly pro. It was sad that he, like other older professionals seen there, seemed less remembered than the new crew.
Noted the ever shrinking number of comics dealers at the event. For more than a decade now, the con has been more of trade-type convention in which studios and corporations promote their new product. Sellers of comics were mostly segregated to one small area. At one such booth that housed a large amount of golden age titles a tv reporter was asking if comic collecting was still a big thing. The dealer stated it was, but mostly due to the investment factor and how much old comics were valued. I was amused that surrounding the dealer, and unnoticed by the news crew, were booth after booth of dealers with boxes of comics all being advertised for sale at 20-50% of their value.
The convention has changed in many ways since I attended the first official one in 1970. I have seen it grow from single banquet rooms at hotels to the city center to the ever expanding convention center. Dealer rooms went from rooms full of comics, to comics and toys, to comics and toys and small publishers, to comics and toys and small press and video, to more and more corporate and creator booths. Not a bad thing. But not really a comic con.
I joked with one friend that the con had made a mistake years ago when they changed their name. Back in the late 80s or early 90s, the con committee was having a problem with the city of San Diego getting dates for the convention. They considered moving it to Anaheim. So as not to be locked into a misleading name, they changed their monicker from "San Diego Comic Con" to "Comic Con International: San Diego" thus leaving open the option to move the con to other locations. As the con grew bigger and more influential, the city became more willing to accomodate the con so no move was necessary. I commented when they changed the name, instead of dropping "San Diego" they should have dropped "Comic" allowing them to expand, as they have, away from the artform that inspired the first committee to attempt such a gathering in 1969.
However different the con has become, it is still a fascinating event. The crowds make it much less enjoyable, but wandering the dealers area it is fun to see all the various company promotions, artist booths (now selling everything from illustration to sculptures to plush toys), small publishers seeking attention for their ideas, and the occasional organization trying to drum up support. It really can give you a view into what various media concepts and trends are around. Plus, it is an event where you can be surprised by the old friends you bump into. One such friend referred to the con as 'the only family reunion that mattered'. And maybe that's just why the con still draws us year after year. (7/25/9)
Been away for a bit cause so much has been happening. Just need to catch up a bit. Finished the first two chapters of our book and they are finally at the publisher. We are now awaiting praise and (hopefully) light notes. Always forget how much I enjoy writing and hope I will find time in the future to do more.
Saw the new Harry Potter movie, HALF BLOOD PRINCE. It is another good film. Still like the third one best, but Potter is about the only movie series I can think of that gets better as they go along. The early ones were decent adaptations, but the film styling was so bright that it made Hogwarts look like a department store. More recent directors have given the school a darker, grittier look more suited to a school for wizards. And am still surprised at how good they are at chosing actors for roles. Am now looking forward to the final chapters.
Am amazed at how working six days a week really eats up one's time. It has also given me another insight into the differences between men, women and children. Men mostly keep their paper money flat in a wallet or folded neatly in a money clip. Women mostly have their bills wadded up in balls in their purse or bag. Kids seem to fold their bills into the smallest size possible.
How to tell your a fan of character costumes and mascots? When you notice a picture in someone's wallet of a child with the Easter Bunny, and you wonder if the person holding the wallet is the person in the suit.
This coming weekend is the San Diego Comic Con. Will not be going this year. But hearing about it brings back lots of memories including attending the first "real" one as a dealer. The cons of the 70s were so much smaller and intimate. There was the one held at the college campus with round dealers' tables. It was at that one I purchased a copy of All Star Comics #1 - probably the most valuable comic I ever owned. Then there was the one a few of us sat around chatting with Bob Clampett, and a year later talking with June Foray and being asked to come visit her at her home! And there was the year I helped carry stuff for Forrest J. Ackerman's to and from his hotel - each trip was filled with lots of great stories. I only missed one con during their first 20 years. Hard to believe it is still going... and attracting over 100,000! Remember when comic cons getting 500 attendees was considered amazing.
It is the 40th anniversary of the moon landing. Was in New York City at the time with my Dad who was on a business trip. Remember watching it on a hotel TV. That was also the trip where I saw my first show on Broadway - MAME with Ann Miller starring. I also visited DC comics, Marvel Comics, Mad Magazine and Science Digest. It was a time when they were surprised/thrilled that fans would come and visit. Oh, also saw KRAKATOA EAST OF JAVA in Cinerama there. Probably could have chosen a better movie. (7/21/9)
It seems the drive to make more live action animated combo films is having studios look into their vaults for new projects. The latest announcement being that THE INCREDIBLE MR. LIMPETT is headed for a remake. The studio talk is all about how the film will give a new take on the cult 60s film that starred Don Knott's as a fellow who loves fish more than people and ends up falling into the ocean and becoming a fish. It is a cute tale... and very 1960s. Too often, creators, execs and studios get nostalgic and pull flms from the past and try to revision them. Sometimes it does work, but it usually dies in failure. A success can happen if you have someone a bit visionary (or maybe lucky) pull off the idea. But, as mentioned, they generally fail.
I feel the reason for failure is that too much effort is put into updating a movie. True, that is somewhat the point of the project, but often, there is a better way to go about it. Simply go back to the book. For example, when the Bond people decided to remake CASINO ROYALE, they did not look at the wild 60s version that starred Woody Allen, Orson Welles and other such unlikelies. The producers went back to the original novel by Ian Fleming and built their own new story. By doing such, they reduce the risk of someone seeing the new film and comparing it to the old.
Now take the recent remake of WILLY WONKA by Tim Burton. The 60s Gene Wilder film is another cult favorite. When Burton did his film, he could have simply "forgotten" the Wilder film and re-adapted the book. Instead, Burton took a few ideas in the book, not found in the Wilder version, added some Wilder elements and then tacked on some Burton bits. So instead of a film that is 100% Dahl (author), or 100% Burton, or 100% Wilder remake, you get sort of a mush. It is an interesting mush, with a number of clever ideas. But, again, by using the movie as the key source, one is constantly being reminded that this is not the original film.
For MR LIMPETT, I would suggest going back to the original book published in the 1940s - and for some reason never published again. Adapt the book as if there hadn't been another movie. The title should pull the crowd in, and there is less chance of a deja vu. When I was working at the Disney studio in the 70s, I got to talk with the fellow in charge of all their animal movies and shorts. I asked him what he thought of other studios who tried to do similar films. He said he never saw any. His theory was that if he watched their takes on animal stories, their ideas might creep into his own. "If I need an idea for a story, I will look through the many books of animals tales and adapt it." He felt that way it was his solo view of the author's work. Maybe more of today's filmmakers could take a page from that theory. (7/4/9)
Just heard the rumors that Dreamworks Animation may be purchased by one of the big studios... most likely Warners at the moment. With that came a slew of remarks that a takeover would be good because it would most likely have Katzenburg, current studio head, removed. For some reason, I am still always amazed at the incredible way the animation business is divided into such fierce cliques. Not to mention the fan gruops who are equally divided and angry about it. It gives me a chuckle to hear how groups rant that the problem with the animation business is not enough solo creators are given the right to do what they want... Unless those individuals are individuals like Seth McFarlane and Jeffrey Katzenburg. After all, such individuals only create garbage. Top rated, and top box-office garbage, but garbage none the less. And then there are those who denounce that any film created by a committee is doomed to failure... unless it is a committee at Pixar. After all, anything Pixar does is genius. Those who say different just want to help the terrorists.
And the cliques have been here since my early days of just being a fan when some cliques announced any Disney feature was better than any other studio's feature... or the ones who said anything created in Japan was garbage - "japcrap" was the term back then... or the animation dinosaurs (as I called them) who thought quality animation stopped around 1945. Some of those folks nowadays sing the praise of anime, think cgi animation tops anything done previously, and denounce the name of Disney. Once in the biz, I found the line between TV and features was strong with the only good work being done in features. Anything on TV was... well garbage. Times change... but cliques and their anger seldom do.
Reminds of the day The Simpsons came to work at Film Roman. There was a studio mixer where the Film Roman crew met the crew doing the Simpsons. While chatting with one they asked me what I worked on. I said I was working on the Garfield show (then the top rated series on Saturday morning). "Oh," they replied with a saddened face. "So you work on cartoons." I then said, "well you work The Simpsons". They smiled, "yes, I work on a primetime show." Right. (6/29/9)
Went to Disneyland on Wednesday. The first time in around a month. Got to park in the Timon parking lot, which is mostly construction now for the new Cars attraction for DCA. Wondered why they even keep the lot open as there is not a lot of room for cars... and it has to slow down construction. Inside the park, things seemed about average for a June day. It was crowded, and despite park claims that their layoffs would not be noticed, service most places is slower as there are fewer people behind registers, counters and such.Had our favorite chocolate cake at the Golden Horeshoe and saw their alternate show - a sketch by the "laugh factory" (?) It was about on par with a high school group, maybe college. Think it may be the group that does the show outside of the Horseshoe when Billy Hill and the Hillbillys are inside confusing talent with volume.
Made me wonder why Disney has so many lame attempts at an "old time show" when they had one of the best with the original Golden Horseshoe Revue done for decades by Disney Legend Wally Boag. Yes, the cast would need to be revamped here and there, and a few lines updated, but that mix of silliness, songs and slapstick is miles above what they now present there. Rachel actually wondered why don't have continuous entertainment there - instead of shows every hour. Made me think they could do it by simply rotating their various street groups of singers from Main Street between the 'official' Golden Horseshoe entertainment. Did more pin trading, of course. Along with some nice trades, got to meet more fun folks at the park. There were the two girls from Hong Kong (one celebrating her 5th anniversary working Hong Kong Disneyland's Small World), a new character department arrival from Walt Disney World who was doing pins while his injured leg recovered, and just the usual folks from around the globe dropping by to trade pins and share stories about Disney.
Reminds me of the days when I would sell at cons and get to meet most of the con folks from the comfort of my table, as opposed to having to constantly walk the floor. Day ended on notes of bizarre and bellyaches. First, as we returned to our vehicle, we found Disney security had surrounded a car in the parking lot that apparently had a beehive under the hood! The car's front was covered with hundreds of bees which were swarming around. Rachel guess the hive had been there and angered by the trip to Disney. Just glad they didn't head to Pooh's terrain. Then used our coupons to get free two-piece meals of grilled KFC. It tasted fine. Rachel even thought it was very good. However, but the time we got home, both had cases of food poisoning from the visit. Bleh. (6/25/9)
It struck me the other day, how different the financial paths of individuals and corporations are. While some economists have been shouting that people need to save money and spend less (and even blame some of the country's financial ills on overspending), it seems corporations are all about savings. This revelation occured when I was reminiscing about how studios had changed over the years. when first in the business, studios looked at a budget for a show as a pot of money. That is, the studio had a pot of money for each show, and the show could spend the money however it seemed fit to get the show done. If one episode was elaborate and needed extra money for backgrounds and props, one would simply notify accounting that there would be another episode to spend a little less on. In fact, it was common to find small savings here and there so that one could afford the occasional "big" episode, or even unexpected expense (like the need to revise work). Simple.
However, by the late 1990s, it was all about "savings". Each week the producer would meet with the execs and they would look over the spending. If some money was found to have been "saved", the studio would take that money away from the show as a "savings". It might be argued that the money would be needed later on, but the studio would hear nothing of it. Each time the production saved some money, the money was taken from it. It became like the corporate joke that if a department got all of its work done on budget, it would get less budget next year. This corporate savings' fever is not just in animation. Every day one can find articles of how this company or that is "saving" money by cutting jobs, reducing output, using cheaper ingredients or whatever. There used to be an old adage that it takes money to make money. That was a time when companies spent money on quality material and good people knowing in the long run it would pay off with profits. Today's companys have no such "long run" philosophy. It is all about how much one can save now... and hoping that people will simply continue to spend and spend. Perhaps if we began saving, corporations might start spending again to win back business. The worst that could happen is that we would have some savings. (6/20/9)
Parody vs Varience. The art of parody has probably been with us since the first sense of humor. I recall how fun it was to see parodies of films or stars in the classic Warner Cartoons. Most of the classic comedians performed parody now and then. With the advent of TV, parody was one of the key elements of many series. And Mel Brooks got his cinema break with the broad parody BLAZING SADDLES, which created whole new genre of parody films. All of these previous parodies were funny because of the broad humor used to showcase the topic. Sadly, what passes for parody these days is for the parody to simply recreate the original... with a varience. The variance is to mold the material to fit the new production's characters. I noticed it first in TINY TOON ADVENTURES. When the series would parody a film, like CITIZEN KANE, it only told the original film's story, with many of the same shots, dialogue and such. The variation was the use of Tiny Toon characters as the actors. Using that definition of parody MR MAGOO'S CHRISTMAS CAROL would be a parody though it is more accurately a retelling of the tale with Magoo as Scrooge. The difference came to me again when viewing some of the episodes from the Emmy voting dvds... especially FAMILY GUY and THE SIMPSONS. THE SIMPSONS, which wins almost every year, submitted an episode that seems to be a parody (or variation) of THE DAVINCI CODE and maybe NATIONAL TREASURE. I say "seems" because I have not seen either, though am familiar with the stories. THE SIMPSONS episode seemed to be simply telling a story using the Simpson characters. There were no real laughs. Perhaps if one were familiar with the films, one could get a chuckle seeing Homer or Mr. Burns or Lisa as this or that character in the film. In contrast, FAMILY GUY, which is often criticized for too many "cultural references" as jokes, does actual parodies and "nods" to culture. First, like the classic Warner shorts, FAMILY GUY seldom does a whole episode parody. (STAR WARS series noted.) Yes, the emmy episodes had riffs on films like BACK TO THE FUTURE, but the variations were short... and one did not need to know that the elements were from other films. The best example was when in a secret Nazi weapons facility, the characters ask how the atomic bomb tests are going. The scientist indicates that they are not doing well, but that they have succeeded in blowing up 100 Luff balloons. Rachel mentions, "99". Suddenly one pops. She knew the reference was to an 80s song called "99 Luff Balloons" - which I did not remember. I still had chuckled at the gag because these scientists just blowing up balloons. The joke worked for those who got the reference... and those that did not. Today, too many shows are written and storyboarded by folks who all have the same cult tastes... and little regard for those not in the group. I recall working on a series where the creators giggled all through the newest episode. They asked what I thought, and I said it was "cute". They were insulted because they had created the perfect parody of THE SOPRANOS. I told them that I had not seen THE SOPRANOS. In shock, they told me that "everyone" watches THE SOPRANOS. I replied, "everyone with HBO." At that moment the head of the network, one of the hipper ones I have worked with, chuckled and said he was glad I had asked, because he had not found the episode particularly funny either. He continued that even though he did have HBO, he never had time to follow the series. The show aired, and various sites reviewed it. I could tell by the reviews who had HBO. Some praised the episode for its flawless parody using "the same" (as one said) shots and dialogue found on THE SOPRANOS. Other reviews commented it was a flat mafia tale with no real jokes. It's one thing to have one joke a sequence that may go over the head of those not "in" with the original. But to create whole episodes and films in this mold are simply losing a lot of their audience. Especially in a world where not everyone watches TV, YouTube or "hit" movies. (6/17/9)
The summer TV season has arrived and it is mostly being discussed as the year Cartoon Network goes "real". There has been much discussion about adding live action to CN. Bloggers say it is a "shame" or "crime" or "stupid decision" and such. Truth is, very few networks are where they began. I remember the Disney Channel when it was mostly populated by classic Disney cartoons, films and programming. Today, one would be hard pressed to find any purely Disney material from the past. MTV, once the haven of music videos, has shifted to reality shows and animation. (Ironically, as Cartoon Network moves away from animation, other networks are adding animation.) The original Animal Planet contained wonderful documentaries and series about actual animals. Today the channel is full of reality series with cops and doctors. The History Channel, no longer home to tales of times past, now shows things like Ice Road Truckers and Ax Men. TVland has moved from classic TV shows to award shows, reality shows and movies. So one could say that Cartoon Network is not going "real"... It is simply going "network". And this points up how print and tv have chosen different paths to move forward. The print media attempted survival by aiming publications at special interests like chess, theater organs or old movies. In a way, magazines became like pure breed dogs - a common ancestor (wolf) diversified into many unique offspring. TV has taken the 500 channel concept and gone the opposite track. Instead of each channel being unique and offering viewers real variety, the networks have evolved into a pack of mutts - each being similar to the other with only slight variations. No matter the network, one can expect to see reality shows, movies, repeats and low-budget new programming. Is it a good thing? Unknown. But it is obvious the people with Nielson boxes prefer mutts over pure breeds. (6/5/9)
After reading constantly about TV on the internet, I have finally wandered a bit into the digital (time) wasteland of such sites as YouTube and Hulu. Was amused to find Hulu has the old PERRY MASON series via CBS. Since I had taken so much time to discover these gems, it seemed silly not to waste another 50+ minutes watching one. It was fun. It not only brought back memories of the classic series with Raymond Burr, it also brought back memories of studio execs and development execs. One of my first lessons in the world of talking to those who run studios and develop movies and TV shows is that you never "correct" or "argue" with one. (Sadly, it is a lesson I still have never fully learned.) While talking about modern shows with an exec in charge of Disney during the mid 1980s, I was asked if the hit MURDER SHE WROTE was similar to any other TV series. I suggested the format was similar to another series created by the MURDER team, the clever 70s ELLERY QUEEN series starring Jim Hutton. The exec was shocked that I did not know it was really based on PERRY MASON. I gave a few examples as to why my suggestion had been an honest and good one, but it only made him more strongly defend his decision. The discussion had me remember a similar mistake I had made when I tried to show a director that his story point, which he stated was a "classic moment in all Disney films" had not existed in any Disney film. Then there was the time that the person in charge of writing many an attraction at Disneyland asked to meet me and discuss some possible writing assignments. During the meeting he expressed dismay about how he had passed an adult movie theater and they were showing a "dirty version of Disney's Alice in Wonderland". He was amazed that Disney had not shut it down. I told him that since the book was in public domain, anyone could use the material just as Walt had done. The Magic Kingdom exec became quite stern in telling me that Disney made the Alice movie and thus Disney owned anything dealing with Alice. I asked if that meant Disney even owned all the earlier and later movie versions of the book. "Yes", he answered without hesitation. While pitching some ideas to the head of Disney development I was asked which was a better TV show - THE GUMMI BEARS or THE WUZZLES. Trying to be cautious I explained some good points on both shows while watching the exec, before suggesting that THE WUZZLES seemed to have some clever ideas. His faced dropped and he informed me I was wrong. GUMMI BEARS was the good show he told me, WUZZLES was nothing more than just a cartoon show done by Disney. The rest of the meeting did not go so well. Even in this century, while job hunting I was talking to the head of Sony who was looking for someone to produce one of their shows. He discussed a number of projects and then asked if I had ever heard of ASTROBOY. I said I had, and that I had even met with and had discussions with Osamu Tezuka. He smiled and said that was wonderful. I then related how, while at Film Roman, we had approached Tezuka about doing a new version only to have Tezuka tell us he would not want a US studio handling his iconic creation as it would be a failure. The exec continued to smile while he told me that he was currently talking to the Tezuka studio (Tezuka had recently died) and that he would, "one day" do a US version of ASTROBOY and it would be a big hit. A few years later he was at another animation studio and he did create a new version of ASTROBOY... which tanked. So I guess we were both right. Wow. All of that from watching an old PERRY MASON. What will happen when I find ELLERY QUEEN? (5/29/9)
Have been taking a few moments to update my costume page with a few new pages including Eeyore, Winnine the Pooh, Wallace and Gromit. Also added some pix to the existing Pink Panther (at the NY Stock Exchange) and Pluto (current suit) pages. Have more pix in the hopper and hope to get to them soon. Enjoy the suits! (5/25/9)
Was saddened to hear that Vince Davis passed away recently. Vince was the last producer on GARFIELD AND FRIENDS while I was at Film Roman. He was a friend, who sadly, I had not kept in contact with over the last few years. Vince was also one of the last bohemian animation folks around. He was a true free spirit who loved talking about cartoons, comics, old radio, and entertainment in general. Mark Kausler gives a much better tribute than I have time to do. I will just remember Vince as a fellow who loved animation and the folks who created it. He praised the old pros who would "show up, put their butts in the chair and work" (as he put it). He also valued new talent, often taking time to show younger artists ways to improve the humor of the work, as well as how to make it more understandable to overseas studios. In some ways he was a pixie in that he loved to tweak the system, any system, as much as possible. He loved rubber stamps and had one of John Hancock's signature. For a while, he used that stamp for his signature on checks. After several months he went to his bank and asked them why they were cashing his checks when it was obviously not his signature - and not even his name. They were lost for an answer. At the studio, he would frequently tape a dollar bill (or $5 bill or $10 bill) to a random page in a storyboard being sent to the head of the network. He said he did it to see if they actually looked at the boards. Our big laugh came midway through production when the head of the network called up to ask if a $5 bill on storyboard page was trying to "bribe" the network to allow a gag through. Vince then explained to the exec what he did and suggested that their assistant must have pocketed all the previous money sent. The exec was not amused... but again, had no answer as to why they never noticed it before. Then there was his famous request - "If I give you dollar, would you..." and the request could be anything from make a script funnier, to do a better drawing, to speed up the action of a sequence. He was just fun to be around. I left Film Roman while he was still handling Garfield. I later bumped into him when he worked on COW AND CHICKEN and GRIM AND EVIL. By that time, health issues and a personal tragedy began to drain on him. He tried to maintain his positive outlook, and humorous activities, but the industry was becoming more corporate. Newer suits did not appreciate his offbeat humor and studio "shenanigans" as one exec put it. I remember in one of the last times we had lunch together he went from joking to anger. Tighter schedules, heavy handed human resource managers, production folks who knew little about production and general lack of respect for "seasoned" folks were his now frequent gripes. He wondered why studios had gotten so serious. "Making cartoons should be fun", he said. As years passed, I would occasionally hear through friends about his health problems and current jobs, but we never seemed to have connected again. I don't think a week goes by that I don't think about Vince regarding one thing or the other. This week, alone, I thought about him when looking at our deck (and how he always said you needed to oil outside decks, not paint them) and hearing about parachuting. His sense of fun, profressionalism, and directness are things sadly missing from many productions these days. I would gladly give an exec a dollar if they would just let a crew have real fun. I know Vince would approve... and probably give me the dollar. (5/21/9)
Today we lost Tember, our eldest cat. Tember was a tiny, manx (stub tail) female. She was black with slight white markings. She was a "one person" cat, common with manxes, and that person was Rachel. Rachel could do anything with Tember from clipping nails to bathing to rough-housing. Anyone else comming in contact with Tember usually ended up with a scratch or two. We jokingly refered to her as the "devil cat" on occasion as she loved to tease visitors. She would walk over to them all shy and cute, giving a slight head butt on occasion. She would allow one, maybe two pets from the person and then swing with her paw. When she begged, she had the ability to puff her face out into a round "moon face" and look as cute as possible. If she wasn't pleased by the result, you might get a cute "meow", or even an attempt to grab it off your plate. If you tried to stop her, the claws would be ready. But with Rachel, it was a deep love affair. Rachel acquired her in 1993 as a kitten. The two grew to be inseperable. Tember would often be the first to know when Rachel was not feeling well. If Tember was suddenly spending time kneading Rachel, it meant she was trying to make Rachel feel better. Though tiny, under 10 pounds, she was the head of the house. She managed the various other cats, as well as canines with a strong hand. It was only in her last few years that a few of the boy cats began to doubt her strength. Around a year ago, she seemed to be slippin in health, frequently sleeping and looking lethargic. A change to a grain free food was like a youth tonic. Tember was back running around, playing and being the suprising cat I had grown to know. However, for the last few weeks, she had begun to sink again. Not only was she sleeping more, her face looked lifeless. She stopped eating her food, and only occasionally ate snacks. She developed a raspy sneezing. It was time to help her move on. Her exit ends an era. Tember was the sole remaining critter to be brought here when Rachel moved to the mountains. Tember had seen all the rest, and (too) many new family members exit. Her greatest loss was a large black and white male called Patchrick. She never really found another feline friend... until the two kittens arrived in 2007. Tember allowed both the youngsters (Touche & Yuki) to get away with almost anything unpunished. Today, as the awareness of Tember's exit hit home, Dante, now the eldest cat, began sitting on Rachel more and more. Touche and Yuki have been a bit more attentive. Of course, none will take the place of Tember. But it is a tribute to the little black manx, the "devil cat", that she left such a strong legacy. Good night, Tember.
(5/18/9)
Eeyore tales. While returning from Disneyland the other day, we passed a dam with a faded message - 1776 to 1976. It was painted for the bicentennial... and reminded me of the that classic day, July 4th, 1976. At the time, it was considered the biggest holiday event in history and had a huge build up. (Sort of like December 31, 1999.) I was working at Disneyland, and they had been running the America On Parade parade for many months and it was a mega smash. Folks would sit on the curb for hours before the parade began to see it. Honestly, it was a fairly garish, dull event. But on that day, I was performing as Eeyore. Though I was "too short" for the costume, they needed him filled and I was there. We actually only worked around half a day. By noon, the park was considered "too crowded" for characters. There were over 75,000 visitors. It was a park record. (By the late 1980s, it was common to have over 80,000 every summer day.) Since the park was so crowded, they pulled the characters from their scheduled sets. Instead, we'd go out for a few minutes and stand around by the areas that were entrances from the back stage to the park. Still, it was fun being Eeyore on such a day. The other key time I played Eeyore was early in my career, when I was asked to work one of the Private Party nights. In those days, they did small shows at the Carnation stage - so named since across from the stage was an ice cream serving area. That night they had a character show. It was the Pearly Band that played various tunes and characters would come and dance. For me, Winnie, Tigger and I came out when they played Tea for Pooh (two). We then danced. Course, I wasn't trained in the routine, so I just shuffled around. The audience seemed to think that was fine. It was my debut in 'prime time' at Disneyland. A short time later, a new choreographer was hired who would revamp the entire idea of shows and parades. Her first effort was the Mary Poppins and Friends show - in which I did Chip. But that's another set of memories. (5/14/9)
It seems everyday someone is saying that government is spending too much money and wasting tax payers dollars. Stories about hammers or toilet seats costing hundreds of dollars, bridges going nowhere and libraries built without the money for the books. But the government doesn't have a monopoly on wasteful spending. Recently a local project ran into some money trouble. Seems folks got the government to fund a dog park in the mountains. A really great idea. And the folks who made it happen certainly deserve credit for their work. But... well... despite the county giving the group a good sum of money, they ran out before the park could be finished. Now they are trying to finish it with donations from the public. The main reason for the overrun seems to be a large amount of the funds went to an elaborate fence in the front of the park. Unlike other dog parks that use unexpensive chain link fence, this group decided to make the park more of a showplace than a dogplace. We went to help them do some clean-up and the entire time the lady who got the project going kept warning the workers to "be careful" around the fence because it was "so expensive". While the wrought iron fence does look nice, and would be great at someone's home, it was not only a waste of money... but a poor decision. The fence is so high off the ground, with such wide spaces between the vertical posts, most smaller dogs will be able to go right through (or under). Now, with donation money they are going to add mesh to the fence to make it safer for small dogs. I wonder if someone mentioned the issue when the fence was being decided. It probably would not have made much of a difference in the final decision. Perhaps it is human nature to waste resources. I recall when a creator on one series wanted to put a red film on all the windows in the building so it would look "neat". Despite my concerns that some folks may find the colored light awkward, the studio decided to go with the idea and spent around $10,000 to do. After one week, others in the building hated the light and the studio agreed and spent $7,000 to remove it. About a week later, there were complaints that the series was suddenly almost $17,000 overbudget! The government has nothing on the private citizen.(5/10/9)
While searching for full time employment, I am often surprised at the information I bump into. For example, while there is much talk about companies only wanting to hire young employees, I was surprised to find that the Marriott company does not. They recently advertised for folks to wear and manage costume characters for a new program at the hotel featuring characters from Nickelodeon. I applied, feeling I had strong qualifications in both performing and managing. Imagine my surprise when they replied to my application and told me that they appreciated my interest, but were going with applicants that had more experience. Wow. I have over 30 years of experience performing and managing costume characters beginning with half a decade of work at Disneyland and then years of freelance work for such clients as Kellogg's, PBS, Sony, Nickelodeon, and more. So Marriott is hiring someone with more experience? Yes, it was surprising. But nice. After all, that means they must be hiring folks near their 60s. How many other companies would hire senior citizens to perform in character costumes? You go, Marriott! (5/7/9)
Some shows just seem to live a cursed life. The animated series SIT DOWN SHUT UP seems to be one them. The series on FOX follows the lives of various teachers at a high school. Based on a live action sitcom from Australia, the series took several years to get developed and greenlit. Then once production began, it almost immediately stopped due to a writer walkout caused by "confusion" over which union the writers were covered under. Production finally got going again only for FOX to decide to delay the launch of the series from January to end of April. They claimed the change was made to help the series "avoid" heavy competition from other shows early in the year. The delay meant that the entire crew would be dismissed long before the debut and a review of ratings would allow for a renewal. The show finally premiered at the end of April to poor reviews and mediocre ratings. After two episodes (between power house shows SIMPSONS and FAMILY GUY) the network announced it was moving it to a more available timeslot. That turned out to be early in the night when ratings are scarce. The first night in the new timeslot found the show cut in half due to FOX (at least our local) being off the air for "technical difficulties" for almost 15 minutes! When the network came back on, there was no word of the reason and the episode was already in progress. With only a few more episodes to go, it seems unlikely an audience will ever find the show and simply disappear. But, having seen one and half episodes, that doesn't seem much of a loss. (5/5/9)
Volunteers annonymous. Over the weekend we decided to pitch in and help a group working on a special project in the mountains. We didnt' know the group, but felt the project (a dog park) was a good idea. The event had been mentioned on some locals boards and stated that a scout group along with citizens were going to be cleaning up the area. We arrived, with Saber, and found the group to be quite small. More than that, being new to the group, and being volunteers, I found the folks to be quite thankless. I arrived earliest to find the small group mostly standing around. I stood as one person told the few (very few) scouts what to do. I looked at that person and they walked off. The other person who seemed somewhat in charge looked at me and walked away. So went to an area where someone was picking up pine cones and asked if I could help do that. They just looked at me and said ok. Rachel arrived with Saber to equal lack of fanfare and welcome. She also helped pick up pine cones, using Saber as the pack animal carrying bags as she filled them. I asked a question here and there and usually got a one syllable answer - yes, no, etc. After about an hour, I needed to head off to work. Rachel agreed to head off too. I walked over to one of the "leaders", introduced myself and gave a card stating if they had other events they could contact us. He seemed uninterested but accepted the card and then mentioned a few facts about the area. Then semi grumbled that they had expected two dozen scouts. I mentioned my scouting days and how it seemed the mountain scouts were not as active. He just replied folks were busy and turned back to his work. I was disappointed... but not shocked, as we had found similar situation at other volunteer events on the mountain. I do not know if it is just the modern way, or the mountain way, but volunteers seem to be considered far less valuable these days. When I was in scouts, my father always made an effort to meet each volunteer. He talked to them directly, expressing thanks for showing up and making an effort to get their name and reason for attending. When I began to manage events for a variety of groups, I took a leaf from my dad and also made a big deal about the volunteers. We knew that volunteers are the backbone of many an organization and should be made to feel that their part is important. If for no other reason than it IS important. To expect folks to volunteer is contrary to the spirit of getting them. True, I was an unknown quantity to the folks there. But I only got a little less than the scouts who showed up. There was no "thank you" or "how you doing". The one in charge just looked at them and told them what to do. I noticed a table with a thermos (coffee?) and some snacks. No mention was made that they were for the volunteers. No wonder the turn out of locals was so small. At first we were surprised that dog owners and social groups had not turned out. But seeing the value the organization put on volunteers, the turnout should have been expected. Sad. In a small town setting like the mountains you would think there would be more team spirit. Of course for that, you have to make everyone feel part of a team. (5/3/9)
Sometimes it is hard to tell if coincidences are just amusing... or amazing. The other night we were watching I AM LEGEND, the most recent film version of the story about a virus that destroys most of the population of Earth. This version stars Will Smith. Earlier versions starred Vincent Price and Charlton Heston. What made this one amusing was that the "future year" the epidemic destroys most of the population is 2009. During the day we had heard over and over how the Swine Flu (now being renamed so as to take some heat off of pigs) was growing dangerously fast. What are the odds? And why hasn't some media site made a point of this? Then as the month came to an end, we prepped to change our calendar from April to May. The calendar is from a feed store. As we went to flip the page we saw for the month of April, the calendar has a photo of pigs. Wow. As Charlotte might say, "some coincidence, pig". (4/30/9)
Fast food kids meal toys. I mentioned a while back how they seem to be less an item these days, unlike the frenzy of "collectible toys" of the 90s and early 2000s when everyone was scrambling for beanies, turtles and animated movie items. But there are now two items out that have attracted attention. One from watchdog groups, and one from my "what were they thinking" mode. First are the new Burger King toys featuring Spongebob. A series of ads showing girls dancing with "square bottoms" (thanks to boxes in thier pants), has attracted the ire of watchdog groups who dislike the idea of using kid icons to promote "unhealthy" eating. On top of that, they are horrified that the promotion is sexist and degrading to women. I don't see it, as Spongebob seems to often wiggle his bottom towards the camera. But perhaps the groups fear that kids will think girls bottoms are not to be oogled at... or to sell fast food. For me the more amazing thing is a recent line of toys from McDonalds. They have tied in with the Kids Bop music line. It is a line of cds that feature kids singing top hits (with all suspect lyrics revised). When I first saw the cds for sale on TV, I wondered what kid would want this. But they now have several dozen releases and are quite the hit with kids. However, while kids may want to buy the cds, cds do not make a good toy for kids meals. Toys in kids meals are supposed to be a "wow" item that can be taken out and played with. A distraction that allows parents to eat their meal more peacefully. But getting a cd is like getting a savings bond. Nice for later... but of no interest now. Lest some kid is carrying around a cd player. At our local McDonalds, almost 2 out of every 3 kids asks to trade the cd in for another toy. While the supply lasts, our store has some MONSTERS VS ALIENS toys. And it seems any toy is better than a cd. Again, what were they thinking? If they want to promote the cd, they should have had recording based toys - microphones, fake players, etc. Obviously a case of the promotion being more important than the kids. Meanwhile, I still chuckle everytime the MADAGASCAR monkey states "Africa" or "checkmate" when one of the cats bump it. Now that's a fun meal toy.
And happy birthday, Eagle! (4/27/9)
Publicity is gearing up for Pixar's latest opus, UP. And once again, despite all the pixar pixies slobbering at the mouth for the latest "fresh" film from the studio, all I see is Pixar once again recycling old ideas. Maybe it is because the pixar brain trust is too full of movie buffs that many of the pixar films seem to borrow ideas freely from other sources. Sometimes it is plot ideas, sometimes it is characters, sometimes it is sequences. But, like the early Spielberg and Lucas films, the movies often seem like fan fiction that constantly borrows from other people's works. I chuckled a few months back when the director of UP stated that they wanted to do something "really different" and have a curmudgeonly old man with a heart of gold in the main role. Considering how many "curmudgeonly old man with a heart of gold" movies and characters there are, it is almost unbelieveable that the pixar folks felt this was new. They even cast Ed Asner who has spent the last 2-3 decades playing curmudgeonly old men, as their star! (Some say Asner has never stopped playing Lou Grant since the Mary Tyler Moore show.) The plot of the film which is a man who wants to get away ties balloons to his home and flies off is also un-fresh. First, there was the popular art film from 2003, DANNY DECKCHAIR, where the main character wants to get away so he ties balloons to his deckchair and flies off. When that film debuted, numerous critics and news reports said the plot seemed similar to a real life situation in 1982 when a man in California actually did tie balloons to his chair and floated away. I was reminded of all this when a recent publicity stunt had the Disney studio send a sports mascot flying high in a chair tied to balloons. The cycle became complete. Oh, and after checking a few facts for this kick, I found that the first such balloon "flights" began in the 1950s... and since the late 1990s has become somewhat of an underground sport. Guess "pixar fresh" means ideas that are not new... just ideas that are sold as new. (4/23/9)
Newspapers are disappearing as the internet and economic pressures shift. I have read many a story of how this paper or that is closing. Even how major metropolitans are going away. It really struck home the other day when I picked up a copy of Los Angeles Times. For decades, the LA Times has been a massive publication with a dozen sections and easily two inches thick. The one I got was only four sections, not counting classifieds. There was the first page section, a sports section, a business section, the entertainment section and a few sections of classifieds. The business and sports sections were only a few pages each. The front section was the biggest, but not "huge" like I remembered. The entertainment section was almost half the thickness of the front! As I paged through, I could not get over how thin the paper seemed. It reminded me of the "cheap" local paper that was only 25 cents. It was the one I would get on the train to save money. The LA Times back then (only a few years ago) ran 75 cents and was easily five times thicker. The LA Times I picked up recently was maybe twice as thick as the old cheapie. (Wonder how thin the cheapie is?) It is hard to think of a time when there might not be a big newspaper in every large city. Are we destined to have nothing but little weeklies that litter the local communities with mostly press releases and society notices. It seems to be yet another step towards a world where there are less and less common threads holding society together. Voldemort is winning. (4/21/9)
I know recycling is good for the environment, and arguably good for the economy. But I wonder, at times, how good it is for the consumer. Some products seem no different despite their recycling. Glass bottles seem the same. Soda cans seem the same. But what about plastic? And what of aluminum? The reason I wonder is that I recently bought some recycled aluminum foil. The foil and box are both labeled as being 100% post consumer. What I noticed is that foil seems a bit thinner, and less resilient than "un-recycled" foil. Similarly, I find plastic grocery bags are also getting thinner and less resilient than older plastic bags. The foil and bags tear more easily than ones that don't claim to be recycled. Does recycled matter not maintain the flexibility of the original? Is it a case of the matter being worked too many times... to the point it becomes brittle? And come to think of it, I note that aluminun soda cans also seem a bit flimsy today. Is it due to the recycling... or is it merely a case of producers trying to save money and just making thinner, less elastic, less sturdy materials? I wonder... (4/17/9)
Why do people want to return reality or "home" in fantasy/sci fi films? Was thinking this while re-watching THE 10TH KINGDOM. As is the case of so many films, the story ends with everyone very happy in the alternate/fantasy world. [WARNING: Multiple Spoilers Ahead!] The father is a famed hero. The daughter has a relationship. Instead of remaining where they are loved, one heads back to New York... where in the beginning we find their life is far from perfect. This is a pattern that constantly occurs. At the end of WIZARD OF OZ, Dorothy opts to go back to Kansas rather than stay in Oz where she has new friends and family. Some would argue that being in Oz has taught her to appreciate home. But why can't she appreciate her new home. Kansas is filled with struggle and an adopted family. She is being raised by an Aunt and Uncle, not her real parents. It is a family she built. She could easily build one in Oz. In Tim Burton's remake of PLANET OF THE APES, the astronaut, who has become a world hero on the ape world and found love, opts to go back to his earth. Again, the beginning of the film shows that his life is not so wonderful. While I can understand the storyteller's desire to show that the character has "grown" to appreciate his surroundings, to me it often lends a bit of falsity to the tale. Reminds me of the end of Disney's PETER PAN where the kids return home and tell of their adventure. Of course it is all played as a dream, until they look up and see Peter's ship sailing off. The camera then pans to show the ship is only a cloud that begins to break up. Disney felt that playing it as a real story was just unbelievable. This from a man who brought us stories about flying elephants, living puppets and magic mirrors. With such a leaning away from the belief of fantasy, Walt should have ended SLEEPING BEAUTY with her waking up and finding she is just a normal girl dreaming of princesses, fairies, dragons and such. Sometimes such aspects can work, as in the eerie COMPANY OF WOLVES. But in that film, and similar ones, the point of the film is that it is a dream. Fact is, those who end up in faraway lands might be better to stay there... and storytellers should give them that chance. (4/16/9)
How dumb can a boss be? There's a TV commercial airing now for Hamburger Helper that says it is so easy, "your boss" can make it. Actually, a dumb boss is a classic cliche in books, comics and films. I will admit that in the past, I have worked at studios where the folks in charge are "less knowledgeable" than me. There were supervisors, executive vice presidents, and the likes who could not tell the difference between an exposure sheet and a bed sheet. (Course I also ran into some very popular and long employed producers who also could not have told the difference, but that is another kick.) There were those who professed great love for animation and its history and possibilities and yet could not name a single cartoon character that Chuck Jones or Osamu Tezuka worked on. Some could not even name five Disney movies. (That was one of my favorite trick questions, another was asking what was the most recent animated film they saw.) But even in animation, some might consider a strong knowledge of animation history or production process "trivia". After all, I worked for a creator currently considered one of the best who did not know who Bob Clampett was... or that Astroboy was created in Japan. But more shocking is my discovery of some recent supervisors outside the world of animation who have little knowledge of... well almost anything. I met one who did not know where rain came from. Oh, they knew it fell from clouds, but as they put it, "how does the water get up there?" Another one mused why they call some cars Japanese names and wondered if it was to make the car sound "cooler". Yes, they did not know the cars were made in Japan. And finally, there was one who wondered why anyone would have made a movie or TV show in black and white. They felt that technique only worked on the occasional music video. Yes, they did not know that "once upon a time" movies and tv shows were all in black and white. So now when I meet a studio exec who doesn't know that Dreamworks originally made hand drawn animation (which I did), or a producer who doesn't know why they "slug" a board (who I worked with), or even a studio head who never heard of Ralph Bakshi, maybe I should just be satisfied if they know how to make Hamburger Helper. (4/14/9)
The Beatles can offer an interesting guage for age and history. I remember the first time I felt "older" was while working as a character at Disneyland in the mid 1970s. Musical groups were being discussed and someone mentioned the Beatles. One of the newer employees looked blank a second and then responded, "wasn't that the band Paul McCartney was in before Wings?" The rest of the group, who were closer to my age simply sighed. Even though I have never been a big fan of the group, I knew of their importance to musical and cultural history. Thinking there was a new generation that only thought of the band as a stepping stone for Paul McCartney seemed odd. As years have progressed, that revelation into age and history has stayed with me. The other day, I found it rearing its head again. I was talking with some folks about the concerts being held on the mountain. The groups playing are mostly tribute bands (bands that copy a groups style) and run the range from the Beach Boys to Queen to Duran Duran to Pearl Jam. The younger member of the discussion, early 20s, mentioned there was even going to be a group emulating the Beatles. The eldest in the group was surprised the youngster had heard of the Beatles. She responded she had heard them since she was born as her mother played them all the time. Remembering my experience from the 70s, I popped in with, "The Beatles? Wasn't that one of the bands Paul McCartney played in before going solo?" The girl looked at me puzzled. "He was in another band?" Everyone else looked equally puzzled. I did a quick scan of the list and found no Wings tribute. So now the fickle hand of history had shifted The Beatles from being a footnote to Wings history to, once again, being a key part of Paul McCartney. While Wings, the key to 70s youth is mostly forgotten amongst the likes of Led Zeppelin, The Doors and The Rolling Stones - all of whom have tribute bands this summer. And speaking of musical history - when the Monkees tribute band came up, neither the younger or older members of the discussion were aware that the group had even been on a TV series. (4/12/9)
We have been living in the mountains for over a decade. However, much of that time was not spent on the mountains due to my working in the Burbank area and weekend outings. It sometimes makes me feel like we are outsiders in our own area. I know some of the key areas for shopping, hiking and such. I also recognize a few folks at the shops we frequent. But I am constantly hearing of local places that I don't really know, and seeing folks that I keep recognizing from some place else but can't place. The other day, while getting information on a prescription for Eagle the storeowner discovered I had lived on the mountain for a long time and began talking about various pet businesses and their owners. I just could not keep track of the all the people, places and events. And again, I felt like a stranger. But I am not alone. I am constantly reminded of similar folks up here. In fact the same day I was getting Eagle medicine, I ran into a long time resident who I know through the pet therapy group. In small talk, I found the fellow knew nothing of all the upcoming events for the Easter holidays. There have been signs, internet announcements, flyers and more promoting everything from duck races to Easter bunny appearances... and he had no idea anything was happening on the mountain. It made me think of the time I was applying at the local paper. While waiting I sat and watched as the publisher, editor and head writer were discussing what to put on the front page. No one was talking about a major crime that happened two days earlier. It had been all over the various local forums. It seemed none of these folks read the forums since they were just "online idiots". Back in college, my journalism teachers (all professionals at local papers) would have given them an "F" for not keeping up with "all local sources no matter how questionable" as one professor used to put it. The receptionist arrived and asked if they had heard of the crime. They said no. She stated it was all over the internet. The three guys began running around trying to track down info. So I guess if long time residents and the official press can't keep up with the mountain community, I shouldn't worry so much about the fact that a resident for over a decade can't (4/11/9)
I find the debate over 3-D animation (and movies in general) on various websites interesting to follow. It seems everyone agrees that 3-D is a gimmick and all that will really make a good movie is a good script. What amuses me is that these are the same sites that often deride the craft of writing. They state how writers need to let the artists alone and let the artists do the writing. But there is a reason artists are not always the best person to write their own work. Now there are certainly artists who do great writing. Walt Kelly (Pogo), Charles Schulz (Peanuts) and Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes) instantly come to mind. But also come to mind are the various artists and directors I have worked with who felt they could better tell a story than a writer. They all made the same decree that a good story is what makes a good film. But when it came for them to adapt the story, they all seemed to have the same idea - to rewrite the script to make it more "visual". (Many seem to think that those who work with words cannot create visual images.) So one director will take a dramatic, touching ending and turn it into a visual spectacle with magic gems and mystical powers - an ending that even artists think is weak. A storyboard artist decides that a (clever) story in which a series star is able to see the world so clear that the backgrounds become photos, instead of painted backgrounds, decides that what the story really needs is to have the character also travel to Dracula's castle and meet the famed vampire where he loses his glasses and the story ends - a diversion the series creator (an artist) rejected. Finally, there was the director who after receiving a script wanted to add a death scene in the middle because, that's what makes the best animated films. Again, not to take away the idea that animation story folk and directors can add to the best script. It is to say, like 3-D alone, "visuals" alone do not make a good animated film. A good script does. And despite what some art folks want to say, there are a lot of good scripts written by people who have never animated. (4/9/9)
Job hunting today is certainly different than when I entered the job market in the 1970s. Back then, when looking for a job, the best option had you visit the place you wanted to apply at and meet with people who would discuss job openings and possibly hire you. The worst option was you mailed in your resume and hoped for a response - a response you seldom got unless it was the standard "will keep your resume on file". Today, you generally have one option, period. That is to visit the internet and submit an application and hope for a response - a response that seldom comes or arrives as an email that they "will keep your application on file". Even if you visit the physical location to apply, you will often be told to sit at a computer and submit an application. No doubt this is all very modern and probably saves companies tons of money. But I wonder how many folks miss out on jobs because of it. I recall the first time I went to Disneyland to apply. I went to their employment office. My name was taken and I was asked to have a seat. Within a half hour I was called into an office and met an interviewer. He looked over my resume and stated they had several openings, but felt I would be best suited for working on the Jungle Cruise. I said fine. I was hired. Period. Over the last few years, I have applied at Disney a number of times. Each time I used the modern (and time consuming) online application. The application asks for specific job requests. No more discussing options with someone. The application needed me to retype my resume for their format. No more carrying around copies of your resume. (Should note, that this is not just a Disney thing, every online application is the same.) You then answer various questions and then submit your application. In theory you get an email response stating your application has been received and is being reviewed. End of application. Deciding to try a personal approach, I recently went to Disneyland to apply in person. I went to the employment office, which was much larger than the old one. I was if I had "already" applied. If you have not, they have a bank of computers for you to sit down and apply as if you were in your own home. I stated I had applied online, but was willing to discuss possible openings in any position. A fellow came out and said hello. He checked with a receptionist who found my application. He said an email stating the next steps would be arriving in my mailbox soon. I asked if he could tell me what the email would contain and what my next steps might be. He did not know that because hiring was handled at a different location. (From a previous phone interview for a job at the Disney Studio, I know that all Disney hiring is now handled though Disney World in Florida.) I thanked him and headed to other activities. At home I found no letter. And now, over two weeks from my official online application there has been no reply from Disney about next steps. As mentioned, this is not just a "Disney thing". This is the modern coporate scene where much of the hiring is no longer a face to face option. One sends applications and re-typed resumes to cyber-space where they float with thousands of other faceless applications. Kind of like when I would received those dozens of resumes via mail or fax each week. I would try to look at each one, but they told me little about the person except what they had done. Of course, I was better than other producers. Many of them simply threw the resumes away, or had them sent down to HR to be "filed". However, whenever someone showed up at the studio to ask about employment, I always took time to talk with them... even when there was no job available. I just felt that face to face was a better way to find employees. I still do. (4/8/9)
Still the king of animation. Recently checked out the box office numbers of animated features and found a few surprises. First, that the three SHREK films are in the top 5! That is one big ogre. More exciting thought, to me at least, was seeing that THE LION KING is still there. Holding at #3, this classic hangs in just under SHREK 2 and FINDING NEMO. It is the only hand animated film that falls in the top 10. It is also the oldest film there, having been released 15 years ago in 1994. Next oldest is TOY STORY 2 from 1999, which falls in at #8. Of the 9 cgi features in the top 10, Dreamwork's Shrek series are their only entries, the rest all hail from Pixar. If I drop into the top 20 features, two more hand animated films pop up - ALADDIN at 11 and THE SIMPSONS at 18. In the tier of 11-20, only two Pixar entries show up. Dreamworks still has three - the Madagascar series and Kung Fu Panda. The chilly HAPPY FEET and ICE AGE 2 are each there, along with the motion capture THE POLAR EXPRESS. Again, only Disney's magic can break the century barrier with ALADDIN and TOY STORY being the only showings from the 90s. Wondering how earlier films fared in the whole cinematic world, I checked the top 100 grossing films of all time. Surprisingly, among all the sci-fi, fantasy and super-hero epics, there are four animated features - SHREK 2 (#4), FINDING NEMO (#15), THE LION KING (#18) and SHREK 3 (#19). The "old fashioned" LION KING sits atop TRANSFORMERS, HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCEROR'S STONE, THE LORD OF THE RINGS 1, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 1 and THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA 1. And when one adds to the equation that ticket prices for THE LION KING were probably half that of today's mega-hits, an argument could be made that more people saw LION KING in the theaters than any SHREK and many a Pixar. It seems Disney hand animated King has done pretty well for a hand animated "b" picture (as Disney execs at the time referred to it). Despite the studio's initial thought about the film, it has never ceased exploiting the success with direct to video sequels, a TV series and a Broadway musical. Long live the King. No foolin... (4/1/9)
Writing in the past. My memory can be jump started by some of the oddest things. A common occurance at home or away will suddenly stir up a batch of vivid memories of times gone by. Recently, while figuring a schedule for a book Rachel and I have been contacted about writing, my mind slipped back to writing done decades ago. In my pre-college days I used to do a fair amount of "creative writing"... and had a number of instructors who thought my writing was quite above fair. I dabbled with some short story ideas and even developed a fictional character I thought could be a series of books. At the time they seemed fresh... but as I read more and more, I found that many of the ideas seemed similar to others. A key problem I have in the creative realm is that as soon as something I am writing begins to sound familiar, I lose interest. Unlike those who describe their stories as "like" this book or that movie, I find such references to be plageristic. Without going back to see if I even have copies, I do remember a short story about how humans discovered they were actually criminals from another planet that had set up Earth as a prison. The discovery happens when a space ship comes to "parole" some of the prisoners. The story was for a high school writing class, and the teacher suggested I submit it for publication. Never did. Another story featured Stuart Gotham. The name came from Stuart Bailey (the great detective on 77 SUNSET STRIP) and Gotham, from Batman's Gotham city. The idea was that Stuart was a hit man for the devil. Seems there was so much evil in the world that Satan could no longer keep up with so he hired hit men. A short story starring Gotham appeared in one of my college's creative writing magazines. When a small radio station began nearby, I got involved and wrote a comedy series about two bumbling detectives - Harry Bald and Twitters. Recall we got through the first 6 part story before the station closed down. I did try to write for comics and submitted a number of story ideas to DC. One editor liked them and I tried my hand at a script for the Brave and the Bold. At the time, the comic series featured Batman with a new co-star hero from the DC universe. (The premise and title are now a WB animated series.) My story had Batman meet Adam Strange with both of them ending up on Strange's other planet. The editor liked the script, but felt that the scifi element of Adam Strange was something they were trying to move away from for Batman. Though Batman had many a sci-fi trip in the 50s, by the late 60s they were trying to make him more "real". About two years later, Batman and Adam Strange did connect. By that time, I was writing more and more non-fiction doing interviews with historical celebrities (like Joe Besser), reporting news on comic books, research articles on films and animation, and even publishing my own magazines. I really did not get back into "creative writing" until I got into the animation business. Perhaps more on that later. (3/30/9)
Whatever happened to "what's new"? Today it seems whenever I'm greeted by friends, family or co-workers, the question is something like "are you making it okay?" It is a question about how we are doing in these troubled financial times. Of course, like the similar "how do you feel" question, most asking do not really want to hear that you are in deep trouble. They hope to hear that things are going well, but maybe you are cutting back a bit on things. No one wants to hear a story of depression - lost homes, delinquent bills, and such. I never really know how to answer. If they are close enough, the asker knows that I have been without a producer gig for quite some time. Some know that I am doing part time restaurant management. Some know that I am selling on eBay, and picking up the occasional mascot gig. Some know that Rachel has a store on Cafe Press. But I am not one to make things look too dark for such questions. Even when the issue is health, I will downplay any major concerns. A key reason for keeping the responses on the light side falls into the "think positive" role. Such thoughts are even more important when times get dire. Recently my mother was discussing a move East and I mentioned that when things "got better" Rachel and I would visit her. Her response was a gloomy, "do you think things will get better?" It was quite a shock from my mother who, for over 80 years, has been able to keep pretty positive when things got rough on everything from health to finances to family. After all, she even lived through the "great depression". I told her I was sure things would get better. But with the news full of constant distress signals on the economy, it does get hard to imagine we will be able to pull through in one piece. I do have concerns, at times grave, but as Rachel often mentions, "we'll get through". And that is really what I have to think about when folks ask if I am "making it". Yes, I, we are. At least for the moment. And every moment, every day, every week you make it through is a good one. And it adds a little hope that you will make it through the next. Wonder what is new? (3/29/9)
Along with seeing BOLT on dvd (reviewed in a previous kick), we got to see a trailer for THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG. This is Disney's "return" to hand drawn animated features. From the trailer, it does not look like it is going to help the cause much. The frog looks like it stepped out of a Warner Bros cartoon, and the princess is so stock Disney as to seem a parody. The only laugh in the trailer is the song. Some history is needed to explain my laugh. The film is based in New Orleans and the directors wanted to get a song writer from the area to add atmosphere. John Lasseter insisted they use Pixar's composer dujour, Randy Newman. The minute Newman's song began, I laughed because of FAMILY GUY. In an episode Peter and family end up at a country home where Randy Newman is living and, as the home owner states, "just sings songs about what he sees". As Lois (Peter's wife) goes to pick an apple, Newman sings a musical description of the sequence of actions. It becomes so annoying the family leaves. Not being familiar with Newman's music catalog, I don't know if most of his songs are like this. However, for THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG, that is exactly what he does! It just made me laugh. It was as if the trailer had been done by the folks of FAMILY GUY. After seeing the trailer, I would have definitely preferred going with the director's choice. Like the original TINKERBELL cgi movie and the original BOLT, I will always wonder what the original PRINCESS AND THE FROG would have been like before the "executive interference" from Pixar. The many animation sites that like to bash movies when producers and executives alter a director's original plans are always very silent when the interference comes from someone considered a genius. I remember all the fans in the 70s and 80s who constantly stated no movie from Spielberg or Lucas could ever be a bad movie. Come to think of it, many of them still feel that way. So no matter how much interference Disney creators get from the North, fans (and many in the business) will think it is all for the better. (3/27/9)
BOLT. Just saw this latest Disney/Lasseter cgi pix and found it a definite mixed bag. It is easily Disney's best cgi effort. On the positive side, the four-legged characters have some great expressions and various scenes of humor, heart and action work quite well. The plot about a character believing their imaginary life is real is one not frequently used. On the negative side, and it's a bit one, the story has such a lack of true-ism that it is hard to believe what is happening. Rachel reminded me that I shouldn't let such things ruin a movie - as Austin Powers says, just enjoy the show. I tried... but the movie kept pulling me out of the story by continually having the "real world" seem preposterous. Again, the animal characters are nicely designed and full of personality... not just celebrity. Less of a problem, more of a lost opportunity, the animators/directors tend to treat the animals as people as opposed to animals. The only time Bolt even uses full canine facial features is when Mittens is teaching him to beg and be a dog. The other times the expressions come strictly from the eyes, nose and mouth - totally ignoring the ears, tail and such. Story wise, as mentioned, it has trouble remaining true to its origins. It also shows more and more of Lasseter's Pixar influence. I wonder if all future Disney films will, like Pixar, become a string of story elements from previous films. This film has a character who thinks he is something he is not (TOY STORY), a female who had a human family but was dumped and now hates humans (TOY STORY 2), a character who thinks the average activities happening are the result of special abilities (BUG'S LIFE), a wonderment of the roads (CARS), a sincere character who feels duty bound to help a human while their snide companion decides to stay behind (MONSTERS, INC), a character traveling a great distance to reunite with a loved one (NEMO), etc. etc. etc. Repeat viewing may lessen the negatives and make the film easier to watch - it did with CARS. Still, BOLT is a strong effort from Disney... and hopefully a sign of better things to come. (3/25/9)
Placing the blame. A popular animation website has a current thread about studio notes on cartoons. It started when an animator thought what type of notes an exec would give on the classic WB short ONE FROGGY EVENING. The notes were amusing, and certainly got a cheering section going. Sadly, it became another chance to split the team that creates animation - artists and management. Like bickering conservatives and liberals, both sides blame the other for everything. Should someone come in, as I did (against my better judgment), and try to indicate such notes come from both sides, it brings more insults pointed at those who produce the cartoons. What I find interesting, is that my comment really pointed up that blame is easy to fix when one is trying to demonize a team member. For some, the mere mention that artists create problems in animation is to support terrorism. Fact is, I have seen problems on both sides. I have also seen the blame game used far too often. I can't count the number of times an artist or writer was told the network rejected their work when it really was the creator or story editor. If those managing the show did not like a gag, an idea, a plot, or even a talent, they would quickly point to the network or studio and state it was they who killed the idea. The talent, having heard of problems with managements of the past is quick to believe it. Similarly, I have seen more than one management person state it was the creator who killed an idea and asked the network to announce it. The business of animation (and probably most production) is to never say "no". I even had a boss tell me that one could never go far in the business by telling anyone no. Instead, they try to point out others who used the "n word", or to create some sort of rationale based on schedule or money. While I have certainly met my share of management that would gladly stab anyone in the back, I have found many more who really try to make shows work. After all, unlike a number of creators who announced their show was "shit", I have never wanted to work on a lousy project. I have backed everything from letting a creator tint all the windows in their building to pushing back on tight schedules from networks. But, like anyone who tries to help bring calm these days, all one can expect is to become the focus of attacks from both sides. No wonder the reasonable, dare I say "sensible" moderates in business, politics and perhaps life have all but gone into hiding. (3/18/9)
ABC Family ran another Harry Potter weekend running the first four films several times. It made us pop on the fifth film's dvd. However, watching these films just reminds of several issues I have with the literary world of Harry Potter. [SPOILER ALERT - If you have not read the final 2 books, stop here] Issues I have with Potter are seen in some of the early volumes/films, but really come to an irritating point by the final book. First, the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore. Though Harry constantly talks of how much he cares for Dumbledore and how important he considers their relationship, Harry never confides with his mentor. At least once in every book where Dumbledore is alive, Dumbledore asks Harry is there is "anything" he wants to tell Dumbledore... Harry always refuses. And most of the time these refusals cause greater danger, disasters, and even death for the characters. Second, Potter and his parents. Again, Potter frequently talks of how he wishes he could have known his parents. Yet Potter does little, if anything to find out. Most of the information he gets is told to him by others as parts trivia or plot points. By the end of the first book, the reader knows that the Potters were wealthy, his dad was a sportsman, his mom was muggle born and such. Despite all of Harry's comments about wanting to know, he never does any research - looking at old newspapers, yearbooks, other relatives and such. For example, where are his grandparents? How did his folks get the money? Why does it take him so long to visit his original home? And the list goes on. But the worse flaw is the final pages of the last book where Rowling tries to wrap up what should have been at least one more book with a few comments. She explains where some of the characters are years later, but leaves out lots of key folks. And the ones she does reveal are rather sad. Hermoine and Ron are married (not too surprising), but what is she doing? Has the "brightest witch of her age" as she if oft referred just become another Weasly woman working around the house taking care of acres of kids? And Harry's marriage to Ginny Weasly seems contrived. Yes, Ginny shows interest in Harry very early, and Harry shows feelings for Ginny... but little time is ever spent really developing Ginny. In fact, it seems as if Harry is more interested in getting a family than a lovelife. Now he has the whole Weasly clan. But I really think Harry should have married Luna. The performance of the actress in the 5th film changes the character from a dippy weirdo (in the book) to a charming, 'flower child' type. (I wonder if Rowling took some of that charm and put it into the written character for the final book.) Harry and Luna seem to really connect in the film... a way that Harry never does with Ginny. And what exactly is Harry doing now that he is older? Did he go to work for the ministry of magic? No doubt his father in law could pull some strings. Did he go to work at Hogswart? Considering how well he taught kids in book 5, he should have. Or is he just living high on the hog with his parents mysterious fortune? Again, some of these may be nitpicking, but when I watch the Potter films they keep popping up. I sometimes think Rowling got caught up in the films and began writing more cinematic points than character points. Will see how the final three films handle the books. Though I fear the two part final film will be longer than necessary... especially since the final book is filled with really long dialogue scenes - many seem to be there just to explain points in the series not clearly told in the first books. Despite these quibbles, I enjoy the early books very much... and am enjoying the later films very much. See what HP6 does this summer. (3/17/9)
Contradiction in terms? I am getting tired of TV in public eateries. At one time, back in the 1970s, I remember pizza parlors tried drumming up business by running movies (at the time 16mm) during lunch and late night to attract customers. Bars also began running films to attract folks on off nights. It was a novelty, and occasionally it was fun to go out to "dinner and movie" in one location. By the 80s, home video made the event less unique and most places seemed to have dropped them. The closest was probably "video bars" that had dozens of tv screens airing music videos. However by the end of the 90s cable TV began invading locations and became a kind of visual muzak. Today they seem to be just about everywhere... and suddenly mealtime means commercials, soap operas or worse, news. At one fast food eatery customers complained that the news channel was showing gruesome murder footage. The customers thought it was not proper for children. The management stated they did NOT change channels. Period. Actually, worse than news would be sports. I get tired of waiting for a space to open up as folks sit at their tables with the refillable sodas for hours watching a game. What amuses me, is at this same restaurant that has folks hanging around for ever watching tv there is a large sign on the opposite wall of the TV that states "No Loitering". Perhaps they need to decide what they want their customers to do - loiter in front of a screen, or leave after eating. (3/13/9)
All I hear about today is how advanced the art of communication has become. Emails, text messages, voice mail and other tech devices make it seem as if one is in constant contact. Yet, it seems that it is harder and harder to communicate with anyone today due to the massive amount of communication taking place. On a recent studio production, we were having difficulty with the network. At one meeting we talked with the head of the network about the problems with getting approvals and answers on their series. The exec stated the problem was he was not kept up with the production. I stated that we had emailed him almost daily on the progress. He responded that he got "hundreds" of emails a day and could not possibly read or even remember them all. I asked about the phone calls made. His answer was that he has so much going on at the network that he could never remember specific phone call questions or his responses. I then asked if the answer would be regular meetings. He liked the idea, but stated that his schedule did not allow him to add any more meetings, and besides that, he couldn't remember everything that happened at each one anyway. After the meeting, folks at our studio discussed the problem of communicating with someone who could not recall emails, phone calls or meetings. Similarly, while dealing with a publisher recently, we had a bit of "confusion" that came about because he received "so many" emails that he didn't read them all. He simply forwarded them on to someone else... who obviously did not read them either. Phone calls were also not of use due to the amount of projects he was handling. Everywhere I go these days, I see folks on cell phones talking and texting. It all seems like it is so important to keep the lines of communication open. But are there so many lines open that no one line every registers? The days of relying on printed correspondence and message services may be gone forever... but it appears when they left, communication followed. (3/11/9)
Another burst of thoughts on recent movie rentals/viewings. Finally got through the final RINGS film, RETURN OF THE KING. Will admit that this was the 'extended' version so longer than the theatrical. MUCH longer. Basically, the whole ring trilogy is an impressive piece of film making involving good acting, nice stunts, and amazing effects. In some ways, the films are more interesting for what they represent, than as entertainment. While watching them, I was constantly thinking, "oh, that's where the idea for [blank] came from." Never having read the books, but knowing how popular they were with comic and scifi fans of the 60s and 70s, it is easy to see where so many filmakers and writers got their ideas from. Was also interesting to find the story so convuluted and over-populated like much of the 'fan fiction' of the 70s and 80s. Again, the source was evidentally a major influence. As for the films, they all need editing. Keep the character bits, and reduce the massive battle scenes by half. It would be just as impressive... and more comprehensible and involving. On the opposite end of the spectrum was BEVERLY HILLS CHIHUAHUA. Bet there were lots of angry theater goers looking for the lively musical number seen in the trailer. (It does not appear in the film.) The story is pretty predictable, but respectably done. Effects range from good to obvious. What holds the film together is the German Shepherd who is well trained and well voiced. What nags at me is the humorous aka bumbling villains who run a dog fight ring. Just don't think the violent truth of such groups rings true with the film's tone. In fact the back story on the Shepherd is similarly whitewashed. Looks like Disney tried to keep it totally family friendly. (3/10/9)
Life without THE SIMPSONS. Who can remember such a time? It reminds me of how when such long running, pioneering shows as Ed Sullivan, Bonanza and Ozzie & Harriet went off the air, there was talk of how families did not know TV without them. This year will mark the 20th anniversary of THE SIMPSONS as a primetime series. That means there is a generation that does not know a time when SIMPSONS was not on prime time TV. Amazing. Now there were other prime time shows before SIMPSONS, most famously THE FLINTSTONES. But FLINTSTONES only lasted around six years, so by the 80s, most folks remembered the series as a Saturday morning show. I recall the reactions of co-workers who could not believe that the Flintstones was really a once-a-week, nighttime show, that was even sponsored by cigarettes! But today, anyone in their twenties, perhaps even early 30s will not remember a time when THE SIMPSONS was on primetime TV. What they won't remember is how amazing it was to have such a show debut and be successful. Or the big media event it was to move it opposite TV biggest hit (at the time) THE COSBY SHOW. Or how there was occasional attempts to tackle social issues somewhat seriously. Despite some character shifts over the years, the show has remained pretty consistent since its second season. (That was the season the directors finally began to utilize animation timing as opposed to live action timing.) They probably won't remember early comments by creator Matt Groenig who stated that the show should stop once they began using tired cliches of earlier series (like THE FLINTSTONES) by having celebrity voice talent guests or using aliens from outer space to affect storylines - sharks the series jumped more than a decade ago. Yet with FOX's decision to pick up another two seasons, the show looks to run well into 2010, making it the longest running series in TV history. Not bad for an animated show. Not bad at all. (3/6/9)
While reading a summary of an upcoming animated direct to video movie on DC Comics Green Lantern, I realized how comic fans are probably the most evolutionary of all media folks. The summary showed the story was trying to incorporate the various versions of the modern Green Lantern (no mention of hte Golden Age version is mentioned), which is quite a task. Comic book characters have been around now for nearly a century. During that time we have seen heroes and their secret identities shift and change as often as presidents. First you had the "golden age" heroes who mostly died off in the 40s only to be re-invented for the 50s and 60s (Flash, Green Lantern, Atom, Hawkman, Sub-Mariner etc). You also saw a new crop pop up (Spider-Man, X-Men, Teen Titans, Deadman, etc). Even the few who made it straight through the good and bad times (Superman, Batman, etc) kept being re-invented. In the late 60s and 70s you saw characters shift to darker sides and deeper emotions. The 80s and 90s found them getting more urban tales and characters and psychological issues. Some characters died. Some were reborn in new skins. Some had the origins totally reinvented. Some just stopped publication only to be restarted with in a totally different setting. And each time a new dimension, twist, or shift occured comic fans usually cheered the update. Few mourned the passing of the "classic" version. Compare this to animation fans who cringe, holler and petition every time someone mentions the idea of "doing something different" or "reinventing" Bugs Bunny, Yogi Bear or He-Man. Literary folks shout foul when a publisher decides it is time to present Peter Rabbit, Sherlock Holmes or Winnie the Pooh to new audiences with a "modern tone". Film folks gripe when classic films are edited, re-cast or musicalized. Is it because comics don't "stay" with us as much as we age? Is it because the characters are not as "real" as those on the screen? Is it because they are not as fleshed out as those in books? I honestly don't know. I just know that for some reason comic characters can be re-designed, modernized, colorized, youthen-ized, and any other "ized" and fans either simply accept or cheer. But let WB mention Looney Tune Babies or Loonatics and the public acts as if terrorists had taken over the studio. Don't know why. Just is. (3/5/9)
Two different websites have once again been hijacked by two of animation's latest heated debates - writers and credit. Sadly, animation has become as polarized as the rest of the world and finding any common ground today is nearly impossible as each side screams it is right to the other. First, the Animation Guild's blog has had someone push that artists and not writers should control animation as it was in the golden age. I am willing to take a 'middle ground' on this and admit While there is evidence some artists were/are good writers, one only need to see the entire output of animation (golden age or today) to find that there is much more garbage than quality, no matter who is controlling story. All I will add to the debate is that when I talked with Bill Scott (who worked in the golden age at Warners, UPA and later Rocky & Bullwinkle) he always got angered at being called a 'storyman' or 'gagman'. He stated he was a writer, as were the rest of the best folks like Michael Maltese (at WB) and Bill Peet (at Disney), and that his job was to develop stories and characters with which the animators could enhance. He got angry whenever it was suggested (as some debaters do) that all "storymen" did was write dialogue captions. The modern "waah-nimators" just cry that even suggesting a writer has any place in animation is anti-animation. As for credit, another site reminded folks of BANJO: THE WOODPILE CAT, Don Bluth's first independent release and wondered where it might fit into the creation of the animated feature boom of the 80s, that continues to this day. I mistakenly commented (see earlier kick about why I should not comment on websites), that Bluth's break from Disney really was the trigger that started the boom since it finally focused the business community and Hollywood on the financial value of animation. Instantly the "waah-nimators" were screaming that better directors or designers were behind the boom. One thing this crybabies never want to admit is that commercial animation (as opposed to school or independent shorts animation) is driven by the business end. Disney understood that and based many of his decisions on how best to achieve profit for his studio. It is one of the reasons he survived the decades where other small studios did not. Hollywood and the business community is only interested in financial success. When actions causes financial trouble (as Bluth's walkout did - Disney stock dropped), or productions are successful (as Bluth's AMERICAN TAIL was) the industry takes notice. Other directors or designers might have been more appealing to the animation community, but it was the power-houses of Spielberg, Lucas, Eisner, Jobs and such that drove the animation industry to the position of strength it is today. Yes, they gave opportunities to some of the newer directors and designers... but it was money that mattered. The only way the "waah-nimators" dream of a golden age will really return (where it didn't matter if the cartoons were good or not, as long as they produced the right number each year for theatrical release), is for animation to once again become a subsidized art form. Walt Disney fought a long and hard battle to elevate animation from a theatrical freebie to a major player in motion pictures. To do that he had to have good writers and good profits. Even Walt understood that it was not "just" about the art. The one lesson animation schools never seem to teach. (3/3/9)
Would Walt Disney have a job today? Was wondering this as I see studio after studio shifting the way they value their staff. Once there was a great respect for folks who could manage productions and personnel towards the best possible product. However in the era of cost cutting, workers need to do more than multitask... they must physically cover several jobs. Storyboard artists must also create layouts and models as they work. Directors need to be able to time animation and edit animatics. Producers need to be able to juggle budgets and schedules for various productions as well as either provide art or editorial assistance. Only top corporate folks need to handle one task - deciding how to increase profits. Walt? Well, he was good at managing story and staff... but in his later years he would not have been called to re-do art for boards or animation. He would not be hands on editing picture or sound. He would fall into that perceived wasteland of "middle management". Despite one's past experience handling any variety of tasks, if they are not currently doing more than one job, they are an expendible line item in the budget. After all, it happened to Phil Roman at his own studio. Once a corporate structure was set up, it realized that Phil no longer had "real" jobs at his studio. Spotting talent and delegating were skills of little value. Phil was removed from his own studio. (Similar stories include claymation great Will Vinton and golden age Hollywood mogul Louis B Mayer.) So perhaps the question today is less "what would Walt do", and more "what would the studio do with Walt?" (2/27/9)
Another Academy Award ceremony comes and goes. As folks debate the reasons and worthiness of the winners of Oscars, the main loser is again the animated feature. Though it might please some that animated features have their own category, the fact is that the presentation of them is always a bit snide. This year was no exception. While films, stars and directors had serious comments, the animated feature was treated the same as special effects or sound editing... as a kind of a sideshow. However, the winner still gets bragging rights. WALL-E can claim it is an "oscar winning" motion picture. Already some are complaining that KUNG FU PANDA was more deserving because it was more entertaining. The opposites argue that WALL-E won because of its technique and unusual story line. Sadly, of the two, I think PANDA was more fun, and will certainly inspire more repeat viewings. The truth is, though, the best picture oscar for live action has seldom gone to a crowd pleaser. If you look at its history, you will find that most best picture films are not as well remembered as other films of the year. Who remembers which film won the best picture oscar the year STAR WARS or INDIANA JONES came out? As Will Smith joked about action/efx films, they may not win awards, but they win fans. Yes, WALL-E has won the award... but in future years, the fans and public will be more interested in KUNG FU PANDA. Ditto for SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Both join the footnotes of history while other films from 2008 will become part of popular culture. Officially, I felt PANDA was fun while WALL-E was long and epic-minded - just the type of film that often wins best picture. (2/23/9)
It was one of those "I'll never get that hour back again" moments. While waiting to head out, I decided to click on to Nickelodeon's RANDOM CARTOONS show. The show is compiled of the latest shorts created by a group of artists to showcase talent and new characters. The concept is nothing new. Nick and Cartoon Network both had series of shorts in the 90s and early part 2000s that actually led the way to a number of series from DEXTER'S LAB to CHALKZONE. And while there is some interest in shorts produced under such creative freedom, it is mostly a major disappointment. It was short after short of similarly designed characters due to the fact that so much of the talent comes from the same pool of shows currently on. The stories expressed the same tired concepts seen ad nauseum the last two decades including opposites coping with each other, overly happy characters being tormented with reality, and characters so over the top "wacky" as to make such classics as Bugs, Daffy, Tom and Droopy seem to be bland nobodies. I can't blame the creators for wanting to do things they think are funny. That is why they are talent in demand - the can make funny things. I blame the management and execs who after looking at hundreds of pitches went with such lame ideas. No doubt the creator had some very funny drawings for the pitch, but as was obvious in the half dozen or more I saw, a funny drawing does not a story/short/series make. The continuous barrage of over done humor and common characters proves these groups make a big mistake by not allowing writers to get involved. I remember when Cartoon Network was starting one of their big drives for shorts they announced that writers need not apply. (CN, almost annually announces they are starting a program to develop over a dozen shorts a year... then barely can get two through the pipeline.) About the only "nice" thing watching the shorts was seeing a few familiar names. One particularly made me chuckle. The creator is a very funny fellow and has punched up many a series/film. However, in almost every batch of such 'creatortoons' he has one or two. They have a similarity that makes it easy to see why they test poorly with the general public and network execs. Yet the guy is so popular in the community, studios will always give him another chance to create (basically) the same cartoon over and over with only a species change. I am glad networks are willing to spend bucks on so many untested properties... I just wish the networks would seriously evaluate the pitches, and encourage all creators to pitch. Maybe they would really find some good ideas then. I recall at one studio meeting where they announced one of the studio's newest batch of experimental shorts, before it began someone in the crowd shouted to "look under your chair" and stated if you found a special sticker, your idea would be produced. When I see things like Random Cartoons (or the earlier incarnations like "What A Cartoon") I think using a system like stickers under a chair could not produce any less funny or successful cartoons... and might discover some new talent. Now THAT would be random... (2/22/9)
To post or not to post... that is something I often wonder when reading some of the sites I visit that offer readers to post "comments". Often I'll read something and want to correct a statement or add some information. But I seldom do. A long time ago, I was a member of various publications that asked members to comment on others' submissions. For awhile, I would try to correct errors of fact or assumption. I got tired. A friend who was in one of the publications stated that I needed to correct the information, otherwise the wrong information would get spread around as fact. My comment was similar to Sherlock Holmes after he let a thief go, "I am not employed to correct the deficiencies of the local police." Similarly, I didn't feel it was my job to police others writings for errors. I continue to feel that way, though I do have to fight the urge. Misinformation drives me nuts... especially when it gets passed on via websites, wikis and such. I tried for a bit on one animation website. Someone had stated an artist had worked on TV series X. I wrote a comment stating that the artist had NOT worked on the series. The topic was soon flooded with various folks saying that I was obviosly not aware of studio workings. I then stated that I knew for a fact about the series because I had produced it. No less than two other commentors suggested that just because I produced the series didn't make me a valid authority on the staff!!! Of course it is hard. The internet allows folks to state anything. Just as political groups use it to push their ideas, folks in animation use it to boost their credit importance. I have seen folks claim to create, head color, supervise storyboards, direct and produce on shows that I was in charge of... and know that the claims are, at best, exaggerations. Some are just plain lies. The historian in me wants to instantly post a correction, or "question" regarding their statements. But what good will it do? Those who have read it believe it and have moved on. Those who have not read it, will look at the two claims and believe the one they want to - if they like the blogger, they will believe the blogger, if they think the blogger is a phoney, they will believe the commentator. So, for the moment, I will continue to hold my tongue. At least on other sites. Here, I will occasionally suggest there are at least two sides to every post. (2/9/9)
The "creatives" are at it again. Or at least they are busy blaming everyone for bad films and shows... except themselves. I noted this again when some sites were recently griping about this film or that book. In such gripe fests, eventually one or more commentator will state that all the problems were due to "non-creatives" making decisions best left to "creatives" (ie artists). One of the bigger legends ("lies"?) of the animation business, and even comics to some length, is that only artists really understand creativity. While there is ample evidence that some folks are certainly good at multitasking, these artistic anarchists generally ignore the more numerous examples of artists who cannot handle more than a pencil. In live action, folks point to the likes of Charlie Chaplin and Woody Allen as examples of those who do best when controlling their creative process. There have also been modern actors (animators without pencils) successfully moving into the controlling chair like Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood. But those who have tried the move and failed are seldom brought up. In the silent era, one of the greatest film comics was Harry Langdon. He was as popular with critics and the box office as Chaplin and Keaton. At the time, Langdon surrounded himself with top writers and directors. Suddenly, he wanted to be another Chaplin and took over the story and direction himself. Within a few years (and several flops) he was forgotten. Jerry Lewis was having huge success with directors like former animator Frank Tashlin when he similarly decided to take control. Within a few years, Lewis went from being a top comic to a punchline still used in TV cartoons today. Animation is also filled with folks who felt that the structure of management was too restraining and headed off on their own only to fail. "Creatives" who wanted to be in charge of the whole show run the gamut from Ub Iwerks to Don Bluth. With the creatives in control, Disney produced ROBIN HOOD, ARISTOCATS, FOX AND THE HOUND and THE BLACK CAULDRON. With a management system in place, Disney produced THE LION KING, THE LITTLE MERMAID and BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Of course, examples can also be named of those whose talents were stifled by management - from Buster Keaton to Tim Burton. But the bottom line is there are multi-talented creatives and creatives who do their best work at the drawing board. A truly good production usually comes from a unique blending of talents - artists, writers, managers and producers. A production heavily weighted towards creative or production have equal chances of success and failure. (2/7/9)
Just saw OPEN SEASON 2, the direct-to-vid sequel to Sony's theatrical OPEN SEASON and it is one of the better DTV of late. It is a shame that animated DTVs get such a bum wrap. To paraphrase John Lasseter's comment about 2D animation, DTVs are the scapegoat for poor storytelling. For some reason, the story folks behind the sequels are often even less inspired than those working on the originals. For example, OPEN SEASON 2 has a great ending that shows there was an understanding for the frantic action in the first film. But for some reason, the new team tended to go more towards standard TV writing than freewheeling as the first did. The sequel is pleasant with a few fun moments, but the ending is strong enough to make it a worthwhile trip. (Thought I disagree with the final ending for story reasons.) Oddly, Toon Disney, in its last few weeks before converting to the boy-driving XD, has been showing lots of the Disney sequels. While some, like the ALADDINS and MERMAID look TV driven, others, like THE LION KING, BAMBI and FOX AND HOUND are actually decent films. I might even say that, if you remove the idea of the original FOX AND HOUND, the sequel actually plays as a better film. Again, it is a shame that live action sequels can keep franchise going, but so many poor animated ones have cast a shadow on the entire concept. While John Lasseter's push to stop such sequels, halts some Disney characters who still have some interesting tales. Around a decade ago, I pitched a number to the Disney studio. The execs actually thought my ideas were stronger than the ones in production. But, as they put it, there were certain inhouse folks creating sequels who could get any story through. With the right folks at the helm, well conceived sequels could not only extend a fanchise (always important in today's film world), but could possibly be better films. I think some of the better sequels (like the afore mentioned LION KING, BAMBI, FOX AND HOUND) are better than some Disney originals that deserve a second chance - like ROBIN HOOD, ARISTOCATS, BLACK CAULDRON, OLIVER AND COMPANY, etc. All have interesting characters that could easily cover better stories. And I would rather see one of those than another half dozen Tinker Bell films. (2/3/9)
Once again animation is getting a bum rap. This time from Warner Bros and their home video division. (Course WB video has never been the best place for animation with only a few exceptions.) They just announced a new series of videos called "Saturday Morning Cartoons". The first releases are "1960s Volume 1" and "1970s Volume 1". Not a bad idea... just a bad selection, or reflection on the art. Both sets contain episodes of prime time series that later repeated on Saturday morning, including TOP CAT and THE JETSONS. Instead of lumping all animation into "Saturday Morning" kidvid, why not create a series of "Prime Time Animation". Warners could plug in those TOP CAT and JETSONS episodes, along with things like THE FLINTSTONES, JONNY QUEST, FISH POLICE, WAIT TIL YOUR FATHER GETS HOME, WHERE'S HUDDLES, JOKEBOOK, CAPITOL CRITTERS and others. After all, I grew up seeing such primetime fare as THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, BONANZA, PETER GUNN, DECEMBER BRIDE, and JACK BENNY on daytime repeats. Would anyone place these series in a "Daytime TV" collection? Of course not. They were made for primetime and aimed at a more diverse/mature audience. But it seems as if animation is still just kids' stuff. So sad. (1/26/9)
Synergy meltdown. The falsity of synergy came back to me recently via a comment from a friend in charge of a major animation studio. My friend mentioned a big corporate meeting coming up. As business in the animation business is slow, I suggested that my friend make a corporate pitch to increase production by working with the cable and video divisions to co-finance some new productions. His response was brief and direct - the cable and video divisions would not want to work with the animation studio on any project. Even in tough economic times, studio divisions are as divisive as if they were different companies. In the 90s lots of companies discussed "synergy" and how it was going to improve the world. However, it seems that the term was merely a smoke screen (like low interest mortgages) to allow media companies to grow into monopolies. The suggestion was that all of a media company's various division would work together to create, promote and distribute product. In truth, each division remained seperate and in competition with other divisions. I recall at Time Warner how the Kids WB network and Warners Animation were constantly at odds with Cartoon Network and the Cartoon Network studio. As I kicked about recently, it is a far cry from times past when studio departments and personnel worked together to solve problems. Today, despite many once independent companies being absorbed by bigger companies, business folks and artist working at a media giant still act as if they are seperate entities. And worse, they seem to resent and resist any attempts to work together. Is it any wonder that these giants are now having financial woes... as well as a vacuum in creativity and development. (1/23/9)
Sometimes two news stories about different topics paint the same picture. Recently it was announced that Cartoon Network would be adding more live action programming to their lineup. Of course execs say it will not take away from animation... except every minute used and dollar spent on live action is time and money not available for animation. Around the same time Warner Home Video announced the release of a DVD set of Powerpuff Girls honoring their 10th anniversary. It reminded me of an exec's comments around last Thanksgiving (2008) that TV animation was having trouble because there hadn't been a big hit since SpongeBob. Now there have been occasional cult favorites here and there on various cable channels. But it is amazing to think that last mega hits in animation all took place in the last century. South Park (1997), Simpsons (1989), Family Guy (1999), Powerpuff Girls (1998) and even Rugrats (1991) are all at the least 10 years old. Course animation does seem to go through long periods of flat concepts. After all, once the classic Hanna-Barbera era of the 60s (Yogi Bear, Flintstones, Scooby Doo) ended there are not any real TV animated successes until the 90s. And yes, there are those who will point at a show here or there that was somewhat successful, but none reached the heights of universal popularity. Will there be one in 2009? Will anyone even recognize it when it arrives? (1/20/9)
Hard to believe (at least to me) that I have been a professional costume character performer for over three decades have started at Disneyland in the mid-1970s. My interest in suiting expanded into doing freelance work as well as doing it just for fun. Remember wearing my own character costume (red fox) in the mid 1980s at comic cons. At that time, the only folks wearing costumes at conventions were those dressed as the likes of Spider-Man or Mr. Spock. By the early 90s the idea of wearing such costumes began catching on between anthropomorphic (aka furry) cons in the US and anime cons in Japan. Today, these cons have hundreds of folks in suits. Though the number of these costumes and wearers have increased tenfold, the number of folks who are interesting to watch has not increased much. Of course, as mentioned, doing it professionally tends to make me always look more critically at suit performance. When I first saw Rachel, she was in costume. Her performing abilities stood out from the rest of those in suits. It was one of the first things that caught me eye. Sadly many folks in suits tend to either be "plush", that is lifeless stuffed animals, or spastic, that is they run around like a kid hyped on sugar thinking such over-animation shows skill. To be truthful, even at Disneyland you found both types. In fact, at one event, we ran into a "professional" performer who thought the ultimate action/performance was to "high five" everyone in the crowd. Such actions depress me as I know both types will continue to work as most event managerrs have no idea of what good suiting is. Kind of like an actor who can appreciate a good performance, or a writer who can appreciate a well told tale, costume characters who take their craft seriously are often much more critical of performers around them. I recently bumped into a video on You Tube that stated it was a parade at a recent convention. However, the line of largely dragging costumes looks more like they are going into a theater or waiting at the DMV than parading. They shuffle along as if they were merely wearing pants and a t-shirt, not a costume that probably cost a great deal of time or money. As I haven't really attended a major con in years, I don't know if the current percentage is similar to a decade ago, but it sure seems as if the character has been taken out of most costumes these days. (1/18/9)
What is more important in business - one's head or one's butt? In the early days of my careers, a good head was valued. At Disneyland, my analytical and planning skills got noticed and I was engaged to assist in costume re-development and employee training and testing. When I got into animation, my knack for problem solving and full understanding of the process was appreciated and got noticed by other studios. Not only did we have the likes of Disney TV and Warners come to see how my productions functioned, I was called upon by execs at Disney Feature and Fox to discuss how to handle their production issues. However, as the 90s dragged on and animation studios became invaded by Hollywood and corporate types, the value of knowledge and experience became secondary to the value of "protecting one's butt." (Not to mention kissing butt.) Suddenly any meeting in which I did not immediately agree with the holder, or seemed more informed than the holder was quickly ended. It was a time when it wasn't important if you could do your job well... it was important to prove any problem was the result of someone else's mistake. More and more I see executives, producers, creators, directors and such struggling through productions with little clue on how to make them more effecient (or even pleasant). What they can do is to direct negative attention to someone else when any problem arises. If an exec has under budgeted a production, it is obviously the producer who cannot control his crew. If a production has budget or schedule issues, the producer points to the "out of control" director. If there are creative issues, the director quickly points to artists or writers for lack of quality. (I saw folks create one disaster then move to another studio where they repeated the disaster, and then moved to yet another studio and again created problems.) It seems the days of working as a team on projects, where everyone tries to work together to solve problems, are over. now we have a group of individuals all trying to do what they can (save money, cut corners, over produce, whatever) and blame everyone else the minute the plan has a problem. Animation icon Floyd Norman once commented that the massive task of making a feature was like trying to push an elephant down a football field. The trouble today is that everyone is pushing in a different direction because instead of focusing on where they are heading, they only worry about protecting their backside. (1/14/9)
With the new year comes new things. Have spent a bit of time over the past few weeks adjusting the site here. Re-arranged some pages. Refreshed existing links. Put in some new buttons. Around home, we have been making an effort to clear out half a century (between me and Rachel) of collecting by sorting boxes and increasing the amount of items at my eBay store. Have found time, both physical and economic, have diminished many a former valuable. Audio recordings, both vinyl and cd, seem most hard hit. Print is second. But am still happy to find new homes for items that have, in some cases, been sitting around in boxes far too long. Another benefit of such sorting is finding treasures long forgotten, along with the memories they bring. No matter what changes a new year may bring, memories of past years remain. (1/11/9)
Faces of You Tube. Back in the early 1980s, when the home video market was just beginning, I briefly managed a video rental store in Orange County. It was one of the early ones... when such stores also sold VCRs. At that time one of the most infamous and popular videos (not counting pornography) was "Faces of Death". The video was a crudely edited collection of death scenes - from executions to war footage to accidents. At the time it had a small cult following, and a large amount of critics. I borrowed it one night to see what the fuss was about and could only handle a few minutes. It was hard to believe anyone would want to sit and watch such death and destruction. I hadn't thought about the video in years, but it came to mind because two unrelated events. The first was seeing a very gruesome piece of footage on You Tube. The same day, one of the "educational" cable channels was advertising a new series that just shows scenes of destruction. Once such "trashy" tabloid type footage was considered poor taste and something only the most morbid individual would have an interest in. Now it seems a majority of the population would gladly watch the lions devour the Christians. (1/6/9)
Holiday movies. Over the recent holidays, had some time to catch up on some recent dvd releases. One was HORTON HEARS A WHO. This cgi feature had the same issues as other Seuss projects - to expand a 10-minute story to feature length. (Even when converted to half hour animated specials, most Seuss tales seem padded.) The film was a huge success, so obviously pleased many. For me, it was competent, safe entertainment. Nothing hilarious. But then, nothing really annoying. It was mostly too long. And speaking of long, sat through the newest MUMMY. Unlike the original, which opened quickly and built a nice rhythm, this one took a long time for the set up... and then too much time on overly extended fights and battles. It was sad to see so many great character scenes in the "deleted scenes" section of extras. A director/editor more interested in character and story would have kept them in and trimmed the bloated battle scenes. Perhaps the most successful was the direct to video BEETHOVEN V. A corny film that would have fit well into the 1960 and 70s Disney output, it was generally effecient, and fully entertained Eagle (our oldest boy) from start to finish. Finally, watched A MISER BROTHERS CHRISTMAS, which has Heat Miser and Freeze Miser headlining over Santa in this new special. The special looked consistent with the classic Rankin-Bass look. And the story was similarly obvious. However, the new songs were dreadful. Only the renditions of the classic, "I'm Mr. Heat Miser" (etc.) kept the proceedings lively. In fact, Rachel and I both felt that the special would have benefited if they had just used Rankin-Bass library tunes. With all the holiday specials, they must have a pretty hefty one. Heck. Instead of the lame opening song about Christmas, it would have been wiser to use the classic Rudolph song, Have a Holly Jolly Christmas. (1/3/9)
2009 is here.
I will officially hope that, as the cliche goes, the new year is better than 2008 and will bring positive events. At the same time, I am aware that the year could also be one of harsh realities and difficult times. Again, I hope for the former. Either way, as Shmendrake says in THE LAST UNICORN, "There are no happy endings because nothing ends." (1/1/9)
Back To Main Page