Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Maintaining Guts From Storyboard To Layout


Going from storyboard to layout has similar problems that cleaning up a drawing does. You have to not lose the life of the board (when there is any). It's not the same as tracing though, because you have other problems to solve and sometimes you have to put the characters "on-model" which is not tracing the model sheets! A layout artist has these tasks to fulfill:

1) Functional: The scene has to work
2) Enhance the Storyboard Artists' ideas- this means to take the poses and acting further, which is not easy. There is a lot of analysis involved.
3) Add poses and expressions matching the voice actors' inflections.
4) Make the drawings tight enough that the animator knows where to put the lines. Leave nothing vague.
5) Draw the characters "on-model". That means they have to look like who they are, but without toning everything down. They still have to be alive and constantly in action and thought.



HOW CAN WE CONTROL OUR CARTOONS CREATIVELY IF WE DON'T ANIMATE THEM IN-HOUSE?

Unfortunately for all of us, TV studios don't do animation in house. They send it overseas, or now some move cutouts in Flash. Even some of that is sent thousands of miles away- away from the control of what should be the cartoon director's supervision.

Animation is the most important creative tool we have. That's why we call it "animation" and not "storyboarding" or "scripting". (I stole that from Eddie)

Because we don't do animation in TV anymore, no one even knows what it is or how it works. That is our #1 biggest creative problem and why creatively, TV can't evolve, it can only decay as each successive generation copies the previous one's mistakes instead of learning to animate and adding to a book of knowledge by animators amassed from generation to generation.

ANIMATION'S CREATIVE PARTS

The creative parts of animation comes from 2 basic elements:
1) The drawings - the drawings visually tell the story and the acting
2) The movement- the movement and can smooth out the drawings and color the emotions and acting, but smooth movement without original compelling, entertaining, custom made drawings doesn't hold much interest.

Animation is expensive, because it takes so many thousands of drawings. That's why it is sent to cheap overseas studios to do. So my TV theory is, if you can't afford lots of drawings to make it smooth, then keep some drawings here and make them entertaining. I reasoned that expressive characters will tell the story better than smooth bland ones anyway.


AT LEAST CONTROL THE POSES, IF NOT THE MOTION

When I started experimenting with the TV production system, I realized that the closest thing we had to controlling any of the animation was in the layout department.

Layout is the step before animation. It's where artists plan the scenes and draw the characters and backgrounds in relation to each other. In the early 80s, that was still being done in the U.S.

I figured if I drew funny poses and acting in my layouts, then at least the animators overseas would have something to go with, even if the cheap animation wasn't going to be smooth.


THE LAYOUTS ARE KEY IN TV CARTOONS

By the mid 80s, even layouts were starting to be shipped to Asia and there went the artists' last chance to have any control over the final product of the cartoons. I found myself heading up a layout department in Taipei, Taiwan on The New Jetsons. It was here that I started experimenting with what was to later become the Spumco layout system.

MY LAYOUT SYSTEM-HOW IT EVOLVED (JETSONS)

We had Hanna Barbera send us audio cassettes of all the dialogue from the cartoons and we listened to the tracks and drew poses with lots of life that matched the actors' inflections.

The young layout artists like Bin and Ronald and others all were eager to do it this way and drew some lively fun cartoons.

The trick was then getting the animators to actually use the drawings! They were trained to look for anything that wasn't on the model sheet and then "fix it" - put it on model. So they would undo all our efforts, until I found a sympathetic director who worked extra hard to untrain/retrain the animators and he made them use what we did....then there was another department of assistant animators! and then a mysterious department called "Model fix-up Department"!

Holy crap! The whole system was engineered to bland out any creative input anyone along the way had managed to insert into the product.

MIGHTY MOUSE SYSTEM

On Mighty Mouse we worked on my system and did all the layouts in house. Our overseas director Dave Marshall used my crew of Chinese layout artists, who were now animating and made sure everyone there used our poses. The animation as someone said in the comments was not the smoothest- but at least our cartoons were now acting!

At Spumco I refined the system further, but anytime I worked with any new artists or studios I would have to retrain everyone to get them to not tone down whatever we sent them to work from.

This is getting way too long...maybe later I will tell the whole history of how we had to create this production system and train other studios to follow it.


SPUMCO LAYOUT MANUAL
Hey, I just found a Spumco layout manual that explains a layout artist's tasks in detail, step by step. Want it?

HERE'S PAGE 1...





Monday, October 08, 2007

IPANA

IPANA TOOTHPASTE COMMERCIAL


Not too much to say about this, except it's cute, appealing, innocent and is nice to kids. It doesn't make you want to fast forward through it.

This is Capitalism at its best and smartest! Commercials like this and the Funny Face commercials show that it's possible to please your audience and consumers and still make a buck.

Today's businesses seem determined to irritate us while trying to get us to buy something. I can't make sense of that.

Sunday, October 07, 2007

We Heard From My Indian Pal, Joe

Joe Henderson

said... Woah!!! People are really offended by this??? I'll set the record straight! Im an enrolled member of the Paiute-Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Owens Valley and I find nothing wrong with this image at all. If anything its an image of an Indian smiling unlike all the Hollywood crap they give us where we all are Stoic looking, or even worse the single tear running down our face.

Where is the artist or even this company trying to be racist? Last time I looked, and maybe John could back me up on this, I'm not orange, and I don't wear feathers in my hair.

I'm actually curious to how people here would design an Indian character being completely "PC"???
Let's see it People!!!

Thanks Joe, Here's your reward. See you next week!
Here's an inbred Hillbilly caricature from the same cartoon, so all us ignorant white folk who love Hank Williams and classic country music can be outraged.
Pete Emslie said...

Have you noticed the fact that "Goofy Grape" wears a Napoleon Bonaparte hat, thus implying he's insane because he thinks he's Napoleon? Obviously this Goofy Grape fellow is a slanderous depiction of the good citizens of France!

Sacré Bleu-berry!! :)

TamalH said...

<<>>

That's reverse discrimination.

People just need to grow some balls and stop acting like everyone is out to bully them.

By the way, tell that to all the millions of whites who were slaves to Muslims in North Africa during the 16th-18th century.

And the wonderful serfdoms of the middle ages. Or whites selling white slaves during the very early colonial america (when incoming black slaves were considered incredibly valuable, while white slaves were "expendable.")

Every race has been treated terribly by another race in one way or another in history,so why do we keep blaming people today who had nothing to do with the actions of people from the past?

mike f. said...





I must say - I'm surprised at your crude insensitivity, John. Of course "Injun Orange" is offensive...

I think Freckle-Face Strawberry is offensive, also - to the fair-skinned and the abnormally sun-sensitive. They have feelings too, y'know.

Likewise, Lefty Lemon is highly offensive to right-arm amputees, and people suffering from Yellow Jaundice.



Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry is offensive to cowboys with The Mumps.

Goofy Grape is offensive to mentally-challenged people with Port Wine stain hyper-pigmentation and/or Hemorrhagic Rash .

Jolly Olly Orange is offensive to the Fore Tribe of Papua, New Guinea - who are afflicted with Laughing Sickness. (Also to Viet Nam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange during the war.)

In fact, the term "Kool Aid" itself is surely be offensive to people with HIV-related illnesses, and the spelling-challenged.

Lastly, Loudmouth Lime must certainly be offensive to Matt Blasi - and other humorless, hypersensitive, pro-censorship, "politically correct" Thought Police-types who have nothing better to do than write indignant, self-righteous letters to cartoonists about the outrageous effrontery of long-defunct soft drink packets.



OK MIKE, YOU ASKED FOR IT. HERE'S YOUR PUNISHMENT!



The fella that started all this controversy about colorful kiddie food in cartoony packets posted again and said all the same things he said the first time, even though he's been answered in the comments by many others.


Matt Blasi said...

A few of the comments have been insightful. The rest are (par for course on the Internet) over-zealous, reactionary dribble. Mike Fontanelli and several others clearly don't understand the difference between a discussion and an argument. So, let's clarify a few things.

First, I asked for a clarification as to what John K meant by his statement: "This is considered offensive today. Insane or what?"

That clarification has still not been given.

Second, I asked: what is NOT offensive about it? This means that if you (John K and others) DO NOT think it is an offensive image, I'd like you to elaborate WHY. It also implies that if you DO think it's an offensive image, please explain why.

That should have tipped people off that I was attempting a discussion, not a flame war - that I am not so persoanlly (sic) offended as attempting to create a dialogue of WHY such an image might be considered offensive. But some people would rather jump on their keyboards and rattle off furious responses than contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.

I wrote: "Because it IS offensive. It depicts a parody image of stereotypical Native Americans used to sell a ridiculous product in a humiliating context. What is NOT offensive about it?"

This is part personal opinion, part observation based on how this image is view in the context of our modern society. I believe it if offensive because it isn't simply an image of a Native American. It's an image of an orange Native American wearing ceremonial or traditional garb and decoration. It caricatures an element of Native American culture without consideration for how that culture uses, feels about, or interprets such imagery.

I then reinforced it with the following examples: "if you had an old-timey "black-faced" image on the wrapper and sold it as "Negro Nectar," people wouldn't hesitate to call it offensive. If you had a white face on it and called it "Cracker Cranberry," it would also be offensive."

Based on current American societal decorum, such examples would be considerd racist and/or offensive. Why? Is it that we're simply juvenille book-burners, anti-"barrels of fun" as Mike Fontanelli puts it? No. That's a simplistic explanation devoid of real intelligence.

This remains a point of discussion.

I understand that John K is not making a pointedly political statement here - he was simply showing us a piece of art in emphasize a point. I'm certainly not blaming John K or calling him a racist, and I'm not saying that offensive humor and elements of art should be subdued and done away with. To the contrary, as a poster noted, I'm a fan of Marc M.'s Sick Animation, a highly-offensive collection of art.

Jordan wrote: "But when you make fun of people such as say....native americans, and they are ravaged and murdered (you know the story) and then their image used to sell some american juice drink, THAT'S what makes it worse than say, a white person being made fun of to sell an american juice drink. There IS a difference...It seems more like a "fuck you" to the native americans, haha, now that we killed you all, we'll make fun of you on our products! If it was WHITE GRAPE JUICE and had a nerdy Caucasian business man on the cover, well, what are we making fun of? How successful and in power he is? So, go ahead, who cares."

This is an excellent point. There IS something most people have missed from this discussion. Perhaps its a capitalistic exploitation of ethnic imagery, perhaps it's simply that things have shifted in a modern context; what was once inoffensive is now offensive. My comment is not centered around capital (product) as Krieg stated.

John K. loves to talk about the terrific animation and art principles in the cartoon "Coal Black," and he's right - those principles are terrific! But it doesn't mean the film isn't offensive. It is.

John K wrote: "Indians murdered and tortured each other and made totem poles. Are the totem poles racist, therefore? Let's burn the last few and erase them from history."

That's a common argument made when people oppose affirmative action for blacks in the United States. 'Why should the government help them? Africans were enslaving each other before the Europeans go to them!'

True. But there is a world of difference between white European chattel slavery and what Africans did to each other. The two are incomparable.

John K wrote: "Cartoonists and comedians make fun of everything. That doesn't mean we are condemning whole groups of people every time we acknowledge obvious cultural traits.

This thread proves my point of everyday common insanities that we take for granted, like political "correctness"."

John, there's a fine line between acknowledging culture and mocking it. A very fine line. What you're offering is - and you have a bad habit of doing this - a broad generalization where culture, art, and license to interpret are given free reign to interact. I don't think you mean any harm, but that doesn't mean that it's harmless.

I've brought things like this up before and you've waived it away as "mysticism." Your refusal to actually investigate the finer points of your arguments weakens your emphasis that no harm is being done. If you're right, then why not really examine such facets of art-culture interaction? Why not consult outside data and scholarly sources?

Kenneth Clark's famous doll experiment is a great place to examine how images, merchandising, and culture interact in enormously harmful ways.

John K wrote: "Politically correct people are free to condemn the vast majority of humans who just act naturally. Shouldn't we be offended by them? Let's make laws against them."

Another broad generalization in which all "politically correct people" are misers, undermining your sense of fun, and threatening to make the world PG-13.

That's nonsense and you know it.

I'm not supporting censorship. My stance is this: before we jump to ANY conclusions about the effects of art of people, culture, etc., we should make an honest examination of things. IS an image offensive? If it's considered offensive, why? Are there arguments to be made on both sides?

I'm not saying that I, Matt Blasi, am right, nor am I simply trying to be contentious. I'm saying that the relationship between art, ethnicity, and culture - the line between offensive and inoffensive - is a fine line and one that requires more care than simply saying, "This is considered offensive now-a-days and that's nonsense."

I respect your work, John K. I respect your art and your incredible understanding of how to create, conceptualize, and invigorate art. But I'm not an animator and I'm not here (like some posters) to simply kiss behind. If I see that you've made a statement that seems wildly off-base, I call you on it in a respectfu manner (unlike many posters).

MORE PEOPLE TO GET OFFENDEDLUMMOXES
FRENCHMEN

SCOTSMEN

RHINOCERI

GORILLEN

None of the above categories of creatures have ever been persecuted or harmed by anyone else, so it's ok to make funny depictions of them.

Is there a culture or race on earth that has never persecuted, killed, tortured or been persecuted by others? If not, then I guess us cartoonists, novelists, historians, musicians and a lot of other people are out of business because we cannot ever acknowledge them.
I say, why not all us funny looking people get along and agree to enjoy the funniness of every race, culture, costume, man, animal and anything that is fun?

Friday, October 05, 2007

The Mighty Mouse Show presents a Tribute To The Unhinged







Insanity is a common theme in my cartoons, as I said in my last post. Here's a whole lineup dedicated to the insane, with the main feature another Mighty Mouse brought to you by Ralph Bakshi.


Cuckoo For Cocoa Puffs




Night On Bald Pate

This is the first time I ever got to do a cartoon about an insane character. When Ralph read the script he rejected it. (He rejected 2 out of every 3 stories we wrote, I think just to keep us on our toes. I said let me record the voices first. After he heard the cassette of Patrick Pinney playing a chemically deranged Petey Pate, Ralph said "I get it now. Make the Goddamn cahtoon. You're f*****in' crazy Johnny. You'll get us all fired. I love ya"



Ren's Beginnings

REN SEEKS HELP - BIRTH FLASHBACK


Ren's voice delivery in here is inspired by Bela Lugosi in "The Raven".






Here's a clip of a movie that was a huge influence on Ren.
Mad Love

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYGKAD82kVM






The Looniest Duck By The Looniest Cartoonist

http://www.theanimationblog.com/2007/10/02/the-wise-quacking-duck/


The Raven

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1__hAxh7YU


Night On Bald Pate was written by me and that crazy genius cartoonist Tom Minton.



Hey, don't forget to comment, as I am pitching this format for new shows!


Mighty Mouse episode 1 - NIGHT OF THE BAT BAT

Mighty Mouse episode 2 - MIGHTY'S BENEFIT PLAN

Mighty Mouse episode 3 - THE LITTLEST TRAMP

Mighty Mouse episode 4 - THE ICE GOOSE COMETH


I'll leave this to Mike to Answer - and anyone else

I guess someone did find this offensive!
Matt Blasi said...

John K wrote: "This is considered offensive today. Insane or what?"

This statement was made in relation to the "Injun Orange" image found here: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFuftp33TyAEGYYNR0j20rWh2E5d0dg_swX98vo-Be-bmljwn0VTmw2Z1lwzGmP5DC_rbxsV2S6DECeKveYKigmMXQLjzZ1JGdiGgJ86jnpSb8q__w__tbMnCip063J3jemh7W/s1600-h/ffpaxx04.jpg

I'm not completely sure what you meant, John. Did you mean to say that it's an insane image and is ridiculous, or were you questioning how such an image could be offensive?

Because it IS offensive. It depicts a parody image of stereotypical Native Americans used to sell a ridiculous product in a humiliating context. What is NOT offensive about it?

Think: if you had an old-timey "black-faced" image on the wrapper and sold it as "Negro Nectar," people wouldn't hesitate to call it offensive. If you had a white face on it and called it "Cracker Cranberry," it would also be offensive.

Why (if I'm reading your question right) is Injun Orange NOT offensive? Have you asked any Native Americans if they find this offensive and why or why not? I did, here at the University of Florida, and the answers I received were pretty clear: it is offensive because it degrades Native Americans and their culture into a marketing ploy for Pillsbury products.

There's a fine line between comedy and racism, and it requires more care and study than simple opinion.





I'll ask one of my native american friends if he's offended: "Joe, are you offended by a happy generic face with an Indian headress selling Koolaid?"

I would actually love to have a caricature of a marauding Cossack on a Cranberry Juice packet.
No one ever caricatures my roots and traditional native garb and strange marital practices, and I'm more offended that I'm left out!

Hey! Bill Field found one!Finally, I have something I can be offended by! Thanks Bill.
http://billfieldtrip.blogspot.com/

I did make fun of my Canadian culture a few times though and don't remember any Canadians being offended by "The Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen".