The Buzz: April 2005

Loonatics and People-Power

You might know by now that Warner, whose new series Loonatics, was to see the classic WB characters get an angular, futuristic makeover, has bowed to public pressure and announced that 28th Century Bugs, Daffy et al will be re-designed as "softer, less menacing characters", according to various reports. I just got to wondering... this is actually a good thing, right? I guess we'll never know.

The story is almost the stuff of folklore. Warner announce their new series Loonatics, which sees the major Warner characters portrayed as 28th century super-heroes battling evil. The characters in the early publicity shots have a radically stylised look which many find disconcerting, and some plain alarming.

One who presumably fell into the latter category was 11 year-old Thomas Adams of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who, according to a post on The Big Cartoon Database said of the character designs, "Those weren't the Looney Tunes I know".

Thomas started a petition at his school, and after a suggestion from his parents, started a website and petition to ask WB to create new characters for the series, rather than 'ruining' the old ones. CNN ran a story on the matter, and soon afterwards, Thomas had 80,000 signatures on his petition. This week Warner announced that they have "heard the outcry from fans" and gone back to scratch, to make the new characters 'softer' and 'less menacing'.

You can't help wanting to give Thomas a pat on the back for starting a grass-roots, people-power movement which ultimately changed the policy of a giant corporation. There are fan groups all over the world who I'm sure wish that Thomas, and CNN, had been working for them when they were petitioning to get their favourite shows back on the air, or save them from being cancelled.

And when I thought about it, that is what's a bit weird about this petition. you always hear of fans pressuring companies after shows have been cancelled, and you sometimes get conservative non-fan groups getting upset about what they think might be in forthcoming shows, but how often can you remember actual fans getting a company to change their show before it's made?

I mean absolutely no disrespect to Thomas, but consider: Loonatics (and I'll admit I didn't like the look of it either) wasn't set to replace the classic WB characters: they were to continue in new episodes on Cartoon Network. The new show was going to supplement it, and presumably still will, in its new form. Will it be a success? Who knows. Would it have been more or less successful before the re-think? Again, who knows? But you can be sure that had it bombed, it wouldn't have lasted.

Now - just a hypothetical. Back in 1990 there was no web, and few enough people using the internet that it's doubtful anyone could have garnered 80,000 signatures for any purpose. But supposing Warner announced a new show with radically redesigned traditional WB characters, and suppose there had been a huge fan outcry sufficient to get them to change their minds about the project...

Tiny Toon Adventures was the show which revitalised Warner animation, and perhaps along with The Simpsons began the great TV animation renaissance of the early 90's, which led directly to Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, and arguably Ren and Stimpy, Rocko's Modern Life, and a plethora of classic early 90's cartoons which completely rejuvenated television animation. A revolution that isn't over yet.

Am I a huge fan of Tiny Toon Adventures? Not really. Am I glad it got made according to the studio's vision? Absolutely! Had they buckled to public reaction to early publicity shots, and redesigned the characters as teenagers, or invented new characters who didn't resemble the old, classic WB ones, perhaps the show would have bombed, Warner's rebirth wouldn't have happened, and most of my favourite cartoons would never have been made.

Who knows what a show will really be like until it airs, or what its repercussions will be, down the line? Quite possibly this petition was a good thing. Like I said though, we'll never really know whether Warner's original vision would have turned out better or worse.

BCDB reports that 'Thomas is thinking about becoming a cartoonist or comedian some day'. I sincerely wish him all the best, which I think would have to include not having his visionary project of 2025 run into a petition before he gets a chance to make it.

posted: Apr 30, 2005 by lupercal

Boy, this looks great.

Dreamworks have announced their next project - a 3D feature called Bee-Movie, co-written by Jerry Seinfeld. Obviously trying to establish a tradition of classic film titles (Shark Tale, Bee-Movie - aren't they hilarious?), Dreamworks have also managed to snare most of the few remaining Hollywood live-actors who haven't appeared in one of their earlier films. Will the result be the must-see movie of of 2007? I guess it's logically possible.

When I read about this new Dreamworks project on Animated News yesterday I nearly had a stroke. They've got Jerry Seinfeld to co-write this? And they've got Alan Arkin, Kathy Bates, Robert Duvall, and a constellation of equally well known but somewhat less esteemed actors to do the voices?

Did any of these people see 'Shark Tale' before they signed on?

Have Dreamworks tapped into some sort of self-destructive instinct in veteran actors? Robert de Niro and Martin Scorsese in Shark Tale wasn't bad enough? They have to shatter my respect for Robert Duvall and Kathy Bates as well? Please, someone hide Al Pacino and Sean Penn from them!

Maybe it won't be so bad. Maybe the fact that Shark Tale was perhaps the worst major animated movie of my lifetime - maybe that was a fluke. After all, PDI/Dreamworks started off very well with Antz, back in '98.

And Jerry Seinfeld is writing! Jerry! Wow! I'll be the first to say it. Seinfeld was the best sitcom of the 90's. That finished in about '98, too, didn't it? Anyway... since then co-creator Larry David is into the fifth season of his award-winning and very funny Curb Your Enthusiasm, and of course Jerry has done... err.. actually... let me check... err.. looks like two extended 'American Express' commercials. And now a Dreamworks feature! Why would I be a little more hopeful if Larry David were riding shotgun on this?

Ok. The plot. According to comingsoon.net, 'Bee Movie' is the comedic tale of Barry B. Benson, a graduate bee fresh out of college, who is disillusioned with the prospect of having only one career choice -- honey. On a chance opportunity to go outside the hive...

Wait, hang on...

Ok, just wanted to check. Thought I was reading the synposis of Antz, there, but apparently not.

Anyway,

Barry's life is saved by a woman, Vanessa, a florist in New York City. As their relationship blossoms, Barry's eyes are opened to the world of humans and he soon discovers that people partake in the mass consumption of honey. Armed with this information, Barry realizes his true calling in life and decides to sue the human race for stealing the bees' honey. As a result, the bee and human communities get involved in ways they never had before, each one of them pointing a finger at the other. Barry gets caught up in the middle and finds himself with some very unusual problems to solve.

What do we make of that? From the sounds of it, it could actually be a very clever piece of social satire wrapped up in a kid's movie package, or a witty attempt to reconcile social liberatarian ideals with the reality of the free-market economy. Or it could just be another really, really bad movie like Shark Tale. I'm going to go out on a limb here and and guess the latter, and hope everyone forgets by 2007 if I'm wrong.

Look, I'm sorry for dissing this movie before it's made, but after having to sit through Shark Tale, which was really honest to God traumatic, and after reading they're going to do a spin-off movie for Puss'n'Boots - (I could watch it, maybe, if he spends 87 minutes flagellating himself for appearing in Shrek 2 for no reason) - I think I could be excused for instinctively dissing the next Dreamworks film before it's even thought of.

posted: Apr 29, 2005 by lupercal

DTV sequels: getting better?

Direct to video sequels have had a lousy rep for so long that it's second nature to groan in anticipation when the newest one is announced - but have they lifted their game after twelve years?

Back in 1993 Disney released its first DTV sequel, The Return of Jafar. 12 years later, it's sitting on the bottom of Keyframe's ratings pile, voted the worst DTV ever by our readers, with the single exception of the universally loathed 1998 Secret of NIMH 2, which wins because twice as many members think it's equally as bad.

But has there been a gradual improvement in DTV sequels over the years? From here, it looks that way. In 1998 Simba's Pride became the first animated sequel to draw expressions of "Hmmm.. not so bad I guess" from a decent number of animation fans (and made Disney a cool $300M in the process).

It was obvious now that DTV sequels were a very viable proposition, and especially with the death of Disney's 2D feature film dept, they might even be the immediate future of quality 2D feature-length films in the US.

But has the trend continued? If 'Return of Jafar' and 'NIMH II' are the worst of the bunch, which are the best?

The Lion King 1.5, released in 2004, not only tops our member's DTV rankings, with an average of 3.5 stars - it actually equals its parent's rating. The first, and so far the only time we've seen this, but also on 3.5 stars, Balto III: Wings of Change is nipping at its heels, and our members' reaction to Mulan II has been fairly favourable, too. All three of these films were released within the last year or so, but along the way there have been a few others that have been surprisingly strong, as well as a fair smattering of modern stinkers. But the average does seem to have lifted since those grim days of the mid 90's.

Is this new genre doomed to extinction, though? What happens when Disney runs out of 2D films to reprise? Then again '3' has been a good number for 'Lion King' and 'Balto'.

Seen any good DTV's lately? Any atrocities? You can always write a review and help steer your fellow members in the right direction.

posted: Apr 20, 2005 by lupercal

Definition of an Animator

This little blurb is currently taped to the side of my animation desk. I wish I could take credit for it but I found it many years ago on the recruitment page of the Naughty Dog website, (the famed makers of such video games as 'Jak & Daxter'). Don't waste time looking, I think they've since taken it off their site. At any rate, it is the best definition of an animator that I have found.

1. One that provides or imparts life, interest, spirit, or vitality.

2. One, such as an artist or technician, who designs, develops, or produces an animated cartoon.

3. One who has a keen eye for details, a fertile imagination, a borderline obsessive-compulsive desire to recreate motion, the ego of an actor but with a withering case of stage-fright, a truckload of toys and knick-knacks on their desk (often still in the box), Xeroxes from Illusion of Life tacked up on the walls and a copy of Preston Blair's Cartoon Animation at close hand, a severe case of eyestrain, a propensity for looking at themselves in the mirror constantly, saying it's for lipsync and not narcissim; a love for cartoons that did not end with the onset of puberty, the notion that no animated scene is ever finished, only abandoned; the opinion that motion capture is a tool of the devil, often films themselves flopping around like a fool and calls it "reference", uses "research" and "supporting the industry" as excuses for seeing even the worst animated films, the ability to listen to the same voice track over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over without going completely insane, and the occasional moment where they wonder how they managed to get paid for doing something they really enjoy.

posted: Apr 19, 2005 by athena