Zblog

Comments #12

2005-12-11T14:40:00.000-08:00

Mark's Post: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16264925&postID=113350247956765877

Joshua's: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16447028&postID=113401815691060960

Blog #12 - A surprisingly interesting semester

2005-12-08T06:42:00.000-08:00

So I was looking at my previous blogs, as well as classmates' comments, and I noticed that I actually put more thought into these than into my other classes. I was surprised by this because I expected to coast through this class without wasting any of my mind's boundless energy. But after the first couple of posts, I began to feel more comfortable expressing my feelings in them, and this actually made me look forward to posting. Even when we watched something in class that I didn't like at all (Bullwinkle...), I wanted to look for the details that I could criticize later. Then, I had fun saying how much I thought something sucked and why. Given the topic, I think that blogging about it, while annoying at times, is the best way to focus attention and expand the thoughts of students.

I realize that my positions on certain issues aren't popular, but I was glad to get forthright responses and some reasoned argument. Without it, I certainly wouldn't have put as much thought into what I wrote as I did. The whole "censorship" (in quotes because no one here has advocated further government intervention) debate interests me a good deal, because I am thinking about having kids soon, and I have begun thinking about how much of our modern culture is going to make my job as a parent more difficult than it "should" be. This is one of those things that I see so clearly, but some comments that were made made me think a second time. Also, the Pocahantas screening and posts were interesting because everyone seemed to have at least a slightly different opinion than everyone else, and I liked throwing in my two cents.

Another thing that I noticed in my posts/comments were inconsistancies in my own thinking. Not logical inconsistancies, but actual contradictions in what I believed from one time to the next. I think I called the characters in Pocahantas (am I spelling that wrong? because I feel like I am) deep on one comment, but shallow on another. I don't know what I was thinking... maybe I was thinking of "deep" in a different way each time or something; but I don't know how I would have applied that to characters from that film, no matter how I thought of "deep." But I actually look at this with some satisfaction, because I always seemed to make sense (at least to myself) in my posts, even if there were differences between them.

I'll end with a joke:

Q: Why does Snoop carry an umbrella?
A: Fo' drizzle

Keep it Real

Comments #11

2005-12-04T18:52:00.000-08:00

Isaac's post: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16452030&postID=113259190531923404

Charla's: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16180592&postID=113320935128429686

Blog #11 - Now that I think about it...

2005-11-16T22:58:00.000-08:00

So, as usual, I spent an unbelievable amount of time thinking about what to write for my blog, and then an idea just came up out of nowhere. I was going to write about the "new" classics compared to the "classic" classics. As I scanned the current animated landscape for such a show, I realized that nothing on TV now fits that category, except The Simpsons (For the purposes of this post, I will exempt it by calling it the exception that makes the rule). I had to go back to He-Man and Thundercats, but that was, like, 20 years ago; and both had more of a "cult" following, like X-men, today. Since then, what animated show can we reasonably call a "classic" (or soon can)? The quality of animated TV series', like pop music, has diminished to such a point that we are relegated to singing the praises of the likes of South Park and Family Guy (like Young Jeezy and Fall Out Boy) both of which, by justice, should be taking a sound thrashing in the ratings.

Live-action TV shows have gotten so much better, in terms of produciton quality, character development, story, creativity, entertainment value - any aspect that you can think of. Take Lost, 24, Rome, Prison Break, West Wing, for examples. Even sitcoms have stepped it up: Seinfeld, Married with Children, Drew Carey, and Friends (sorry, I hardly ever watch sitcoms anymore, but they are still recent) are all very well done, though technology for sitcoms can't add that much effect.

So given the facts that TV production, generally, has drastically improved, that the creativity level has drastically increased (partially due to the availability of new technology), and that new technology can add so much to animated shows, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that these shows should have advance along with the rest of the sector? Even in films, animation seems to have kept fairly close, partially by declining in quality in recent years along with live-action films.

When will another Popey, or Bugs, or even Mighty Mouse come along again? WB made an effort in the early/mid nineties with Tiny Toons and Animaniacs. Both of these were pretty good, but I seemed to get sick of them pretty quickly. AH! Maybe that is it. Maybe our attention spans have shrunk to such a level that unless someone makes us pay $25 and sits us in a dark room with a tremendous screen, we just won't watch a bunch of drawings do stupid stuff. Whatever the reason, it is certainly unfortunate for the kids today who have to stay up until like midnight to catch a rerun of X-Men and The Tick.

Comments #10

2005-11-10T21:07:00.000-08:00

Here: http://www.blogger.com/publish-comment.do?blogID=16173746&postID=113159762559259728&r=ok

and Here: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16431597&postID=113158295389532011

Post #10 - C'mon, it wasn't that bad...

2005-11-09T19:12:00.000-08:00

Perhaps it's because of all the warnings we got about how bad Pocahontas was going to be, but I thought that it was, at least, decent. On a 4 star scale, that would be 2 stars. The aspect that I liked the least was the amount of unbelievably cheesy lines the film had; but this can be said of most Disney movies, or animated films generally. The song that Prof talked about was pretty bad, but they were simply making the point that there was a mutual ignorance shared by these two parties. Other than that, the soundtrack was first rate (Vanessa Williams' version of Colors of the Wind is one of my favorites), the animation was good, and the characters were clear but not over-exaggerated, the one possible exception being the governer. I think that a lot of people don't like the historical inaccuracy of the film, and that is legit, but I don't know if it is fair to burden a review of a film that makes no claim to be a true account of the legend with such a criteria. I was actually pretty entertained throughout the show, and cartoons usually have a hard time holding my attention. This is my most important standard, and Pocahontas meets it, so I think that some of the pre and post-viewing criticism was mistaken.

Now this isn't to say that I liked the movie. Why Pocahontas didn't just say "pops, this dude didn't cap your soldier, another white guy did" or words to that effect, is still racking my brain. I think that she just says "He was trying to help," and things of that nature. The tree's joke about her BARK being worse than her bite was almost as bad as this:

Q: What did 50 cent say to his grandma when she gave him
a sweater?
A: G-U knit!

Sorry.

So there were plenty of things to take issue with, but was it really worse than Rocky and Bullwinkle? The only reason I didn't go to sleep during that one was because I forgot to bring my snow gear to class that day and my body froze in the "awake" position. No one had a problem with the historical inaccuracies there. Sure they were part of the joke, but Pocahontas' were part of the entertainment.

Plus, even detractors would admit that the raccoon (sic?) was pretty funny, and the whole cast of animals worked out well. The sideplot of them becoming friends was additional depth. Like the humans' "coming together," it was a little bit "Oh, Please"-y for my tastes, but I can accept it like I would any worldview that differed from my own.

All in all, I can't see what was so bad about the film. It was certainly no Lion King or Aladdin, but it had its good aspects, and it kept me interested, so I was able to look past some of the horridness that I saw and take in an incredibly average film.

Comments #9

2005-11-05T15:55:00.000-08:00

Jesse: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16179908&postID=113099409890163944

Eyma: http://erafi.typepad.com/hist389/2005/11/post_9_comment_.html#comments

Post #9 - Flag-waving Fievel?

2005-11-02T19:58:00.000-08:00

I was expecting something a little bit less patriotic when the movie was first discussed, prior to viewing it. I was surprised that America was basically portrayed as a decent, free nation, of which the new immigrants were lucky to be a part. It sounded to me like there was going to be an expectation of said decency and freedom, but upon arrival they would realize that America was only a good place for the rich, or something like that. Maybe I have just become cynical about Hollywood's intentions, but I was pleased with the notion portrayed by the film that America is basically a place where one can live in peace and happiness, and if there is something unfair, one can do something about it. This is pretty much what I think of when I picture American opportunity.

Films like American Beauty, Crash, Roger and Me, etc., are closer to the norm than films that show America to be a wonderful place to live; and they certainly seem to garner more awards. American Beauty was frustrating because there was nothing "American" about it. Basically everyone in it is a psychologically challenged hypocrite, except the heroically independent drug dealer. I still don't understand the point of Crash, other than to make the same point about hypocracy, adding in an element of base violence. Roger and Me is a documentary about a factory in (if I remember correctly...) Detroit that was losing money, but Michael Moore didn't want to be closed down because it would hurt the people who it employed. Extrapolations, of course, were made throughout the film about how poorly America, generally, treats its workers. These movies, and countless others like them, tend to make me assume the worst about Hollywood's take on any issue regarding America's role in people's lives.

Fievel, however, met nice and mean people, and was able to get rid of the mean people by utilyzing the prominently displayed right to speak and gather freely. He, the little guy, came up with a plan to eliminate the coercive elements of their little society, and was able to get this plan implemented by gathering support from other free people. The family was disappointed because America wasn't everything they had "heard" it to be, but we knew from the beginning that their expectations were completely unrealistic (no cats, bread crumbs all over the place, cheese-streets, etc.).

I saw this movie when I was younger, and I don't remember extracting this sort of message from the film, but I'm sure that things like this are what made me into the flag-waver I am today. I think that it is good for American kids to get a positive feeling about their country while they're young, because this gives them much needed confidence for their future. There will be plenty of time to study the negative aspects of America in high school and college, the latter being almost exclusively oriented in this direction, but as impressionable youngsters they should learn the lessons of Fievel. Of course, some negative aspects of America were shown, notably the Tamany Hall Democrats, but this doesn't reach kids, and won't change the feeling that they walk away with.

I know, you say "Clayson, kids deserve the truth, not some sort of Red White and Blue propaganda!" I agree, but 5-10 year olds aren't exactly experts at discerning nuance, and extrapolating concepts from examples. They remember the impressions that they are left with, and I think that America deserves the good impression that Fievel gives. They should not be lied to or misled, but focus on the basic goodness of our country, I believe, isn't too much to ask for.

Comments #8

2005-10-26T21:52:00.000-07:00

On Lauren's Blog-addendum: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16099873&postID=113035619781182507

On Charla's excellent view of the X-Men (toward the bottom): http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16180592&postID=113017732528102580

Post #8 - Untitled

2005-10-26T20:49:00.000-07:00

Does anyone still think that cartoons have gotten worse since, say, before the sixties? I think that besides Warner Brothers', the cartoons that we have seen are pretty bad. Snow White was a good example because it seemed as though they added extra time into the movie to make it feature length. I don't mind the cliche (pretend the 'thing' is over the e) storyline or the dated animation; the film was just boring. That frickin song is still in my head... and it's only one line. The animated shorts have been frustrating as well. Popeye is good, and the WB is good, but the Disney cartoons, and especially Rocky and Bullwinkle are just plain boring. I seem to remember people enjoying the silent cartoons and that "early" period more than today's shows; do people think that about the recent screenings ("midrange") as well?

I want to focus on Rocky and Bullwinkle for a little bit because it was appallingly bad. Usually I can put myself in the mindset of a child (my wife thinks that is my mindset), and ignore some of the aspects of cartoons that we would consider 'stupid.' Like when I watch spiderman at 7:30 every morning, and everyday ignore the fact that he shouldn't be able to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge and just shoot a web off the screen and have it attach to something. I get over that and resist the urge to change the channel to The Fresh Prince. But I couldn't take Bullwinkle's unbelievably predictable comments about how smart he is, right before he blows himself up or something. C'mon, that got old today, and we only saw, like, 2 episodes.

And I have to say, the effort to educate youngsters about Napolean's pants, while noble, was disappointing because the idea of a genius dog and a boy is funny. Family Guy pulls it off in an amusing way, but Rocky and Bullwinkle just made it to about... "almost funny."

I say all of that to say this: it's easy to look at early animation and place it above current shows because the difference between them is so great that any advantage they have is much more noticeable and easier to appreciate. So anything that one considers impressive, for back then, is given more weight than it otherwise would be. However, the "midrange" animation, though more entertaining than early cartoons, is on a much more level playing field, in terms of the shows' looks and style. So this means that simply doing something creative doesn't have the same effect, if you are comparing then to now, as early productions. I think that this standard that people seem to utilize, is a bit too relativistic to be relevant to somone like me, who just wants to know what to watch.

Late, but here... my lost comments for Posts 1-4

2005-10-25T20:42:00.000-07:00

Comments #7

2005-10-19T21:24:00.000-07:00

Lauren's blog: http://www.blogger.com/publish-comment.do?blogID=16099873&postID=112959936992643216&r=ok

Travis' blog: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16187019&postID=112975277908888972

Blog #7 - Disney vs. Nazi or ... Then vs. Now

2005-10-19T20:11:00.000-07:00

So I was impressed by the amount of good propaganda Disney put out in order to support our nation in a time of war. Dehumanizing Nazis is an excellent way to gin up support for an effort that would go much smoother with a united nation. I even bet that if we detained some Nazis at Guantanamo Bay, then some MP flushes pages from their Holy Book (Mein Kampf) down the toilet, Disney would cheer and make a cartoon about it. I can't really see an outcry about "human rights" emanating from any incident like this. Piling them up into a huge pile of Nazi nakedness? Okay, that might raise some eyebrows, but mostly due to the wierdness of it, probably not the lack of human rights. I hope, by now, you see where I am going with this. The entertainment elite, during WWII, did what they could to assist the troops and the country, by trying to keep the public motivated, positive, and united about the war; today, the entertainment elite do whatever they can to undermine the effort, and divide the country, by harping on things that are currently irrelevant (WMD's, etc.) and showing their hatred for the President any chance they get.

I can already hear someone saying that I want to censor someone. Of course I don't, in fact Al Franken is even growing on me a little (VERY little), since "Starz" (I think) started broadcasting him. And I don't have a problem with someone speaking their opinion on political matters, when appropriate. I even agree with many points that the anti-war movement has, though these tend to get drowned out by the extreme aspects of that crowd. But please, Farenheit 911, The West Wing, Commander-in-Chief (which hired several Hillary staffers) are all anti-Bush propaganda, F-911 being absolutely off the wall (and yes, I did see it).

Today, can anyone imagine that sort of dehumanization being applied to Iraqi "insurgents" (they would have called them terrorists before) or even the Taliban? I can't see many elements in our pop culture taking such a stand. I think that it was appropriate during WWII, and is perfectly appropriate now. The only exception is Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who do a good job of dehumanizing Kim Jung-Il in Team America, but that is it, as far as I can see.

I assume that this change started when America was fighting communism while Hollywood was becoming Communist, but I could be wrong. I am looking forward to learing about animation during the cold war, because I think that there will be a clear difference between how they treated the Communists and how they treated the Nazis. I still cannot understand why this might be, despite asking several people, so if anyone knows let me in on it.

Comments #6

2005-10-15T09:37:00.000-07:00

My link to Michael's blog is http://www.blogger.com/publish-comment.do?blogID=16431597&postID=112905717673408566&r=ok

My link to Lauren's blog is http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16099873&postID=112908963577611230

Blog # 6 - A note on the First Amendment

2005-10-12T23:55:00.000-07:00

After reading several blogs, so far, that deal with "censorship" and what children should be watching, I think that it would be good to bring the discussion back to reality. I don't like saying this in a college setting, because it is usually irrelevant, but I am conservative. I feel a need to say this at the beginning because most of the blogs that deal with this issue tend to imply something about my species that I think needs to be corrected. I will side with many (not all) conservative groups when they whine about this or that being irresponsible to show to kids, but I have never actually done anything to promote their view. The biggest problem, that I have seen, is that people respond to a "straw-man" version of the "religious right's" position by saying things like "we need to be careful when we cry censorship."

I would like to place on the record that not one mainstream conservative, religious or otherwise, is calling for some law to be passed banning Family Guy. The FCC has to monitor and regulate network TV because the airwaves are "public" (Not many people would think that we should allow, say, 2 kids having sex while drinking beer and shooting heroin to enter our network air). Beyond this function, we don't want any government action, which is what censorship is. We just want to enlist enough public support to discourage media outlets from putting on the air things that are corrosive to a child's development. Of course, this will be a subjective standard, but the point is that if enough people agree that the line has been crossed, then stations will want to listen.

A similar situation happened last Christmas when Macy's (I think) announced that it would no longer display a Nativity Scene. They recieved a backlash of public dismay over their decision, and backed off of their original position (to what extent, I cannot recall). This is the kind of action that we want to see with some cartoons. If you don't agree, then simply don't join the fuss and, if enough people do that, whoever is calling for the change will look foolish, as conservatives so often do; but you shouldn't misrepresent our position.

On another related topic, I read Lauren V's blog #5 (sorry, but I stopped making attempts at linking long ago) and have some questions that would like to throw out there to others. First, the idea that communism isn't bad, or at least wouldn't be if people weren't so damn greedy, seems rather common. I, of course, hold to the view that communism forces the "able" to live for the "needy" (of course, someone has to define both), in effect making them slaves. It is not people's inherent tendency toward "greed" that keeps this system from working, unless someone is greedy simply for not signing up to become a slave, or their beneficiary. I believe that any country whose government is defined by slavery can be neither just nor practical, and therefore communism is evil. After all, it led to the deaths of about 100 million people in the 20th century alone. What causes you who don't agree with me to think positively, or even neautraly about this system? Is it the intentions of the theory? Is it that you see success where I don't? Why is their so much less outrage about positive implications about communism in entertainment, than there rightly would be if Nazism was shown similarly? What is the difference?

Comments #5

2005-10-07T13:24:00.000-07:00

My essay on Lauren V's blog is at the bottom of the following page: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16099873&postID=112848394546028169

Charla's: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16180592&postID=112794436167954331

Noah's: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16180592&postID=112794436167954331

Blog #5 - Clash of the Titans: WB vs. Disney

2005-10-05T23:31:00.000-07:00

This is the second time in a row that I have waited until after class to post my blog, and again I am glad. I hadn't thought about it until today, but Disney never came up with any particularly outstanding cartoons, other than films. Mickey Mouse, of course, helped to pioneer the industry, but I think that if he came 15 years later, he would not have been as popular. Contrasted with the charisma of Bugs Bunny and Friends, who could have come at any time and been popular, I wonder why Disney was able to produce the best animated films. Warner Brothers certainly had distrobution power, as evidenced by their live action films, as well as star power and name recognition. It's true that their characters could not be morphed to fit other stories the way Mickey does (Mickey and the Beanstalk, etc), but that is only a small aspect of Disney's arsenal. WB clearly made better animated "shorts," and clearly had better characters, but never had the grip on the industry that Disney had.
If you can place Disney's characters (not originated from a film) in a sort of hierarchy, Mickey would be on top, but who would be next? I would guess Winnie the Pooh, then Donald Duck, then Goofy and Pluto. Can any of these characters compete with any of the Loony Toons? Not only do the Loony Toons each have their own "charisma," but they seem to work extremely well together. Bugs' confidence and cleverness makes him entertaining no matter what; Daffy's frustration at the world makes him a perfect complement to several characters; Fudd, and the rest are excellent "role players." Taz is, perhaps, the funnest cartoon just to watch; and the comic teams they developed with Sylvester and Tweety, and RoadRunner and Wile E. Coyote, are always amusing. Marvin, Pepe, and Porky each added an excellent dimension to already entertaining episodes. Disney's cartoons were "cute," but WBs' were truly funny.
If I were to try to list Disney's cinematic accomplishments, my blog would be an essay, but, suffice it to say, they were (are) the most prolific producer of quality animated films ever; when people think about animation, Mickey/Disney is the first thing that usually comes to mind. So far this semester, I have consistantly defended Disney from attack, but in this case their output does not live up to their reputation.

Post #4 - The Transition

2005-09-28T18:47:00.000-07:00

I couldn't think of anything interesting to write about this week, so I decided to let today's class give me something that I could focus on. I am glad that I did. Am I the only one who was surprised at the quality of both the artistic and substantive aspects of today's cartoons? Even the black and white Popeye was impressive. I know, I know, the film was remastered to make it look better, but even beyond the production quality, the actual animation seemed to fit the characters perfectly. The gags in Popey were surprisingly funny as well. Perhaps I am surprised by this quality due to some sort of generational condescension, but both Popey and Superman amazed me with their animation and their overall quality.

I think that there is a tendancy, on the part of most people, to equate modernity with "the best." I know that this is often the case with me. But when I see a "classic" that can rival its modern equivalent, my eyes do open (literally, in today's case). For example, Popeye's "Sweet Pea" actually made me laugh several times, particularly when the crocodile was rubbing his belly. This sort of simple cleverness seems conspicuously lacking in modern cartoons. There are much more complex situations and gags today, but sometimes simple is good; especially when the subject matter is meant for children. His tune at the end about not having babies was truly funny as well (yes, even without a broadway production going with it).

Superman is simply the best, though I did not know that it was also the first. The transition from comic book to the screen was very smooth, but maintained the look that comic fans would want. One of the things that surprises me, is that kids like series' of shows with identical and predictable plots. Apparently, Superman served as an early model for this type of storyline. It is in every superhero show out there: problem is presented, the level of danger is increased, hero gets in trouble, insert slight twist here, hero overcomes it all to save the day in the end. The foresight of the studio to invest in this prototype character goes to show that sometimes, the studios can get it right.

Post # 4 comments

2005-09-27T18:26:00.000-07:00

I finally figured this out (thanks Mark). My comments are http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16180592&postID=112776580954989128">here http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16099873&postID=112779651787979537">here and http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16101551&postID=112786553501074999">here

Blog #3 - The new generation of satire...

2005-09-20T16:47:00.000-07:00

For the past few Sunday nights, I have had the time to watch American Dad on Fox. I still don't know what to think about it. Like Family Guy, I think that it should be on at a later time due to the adult themes the show focuses on. If you don't know, the premise is an absurdly patriotic and caricatured conservative husband and father ruins the lives of those he loves by adhering to these silly principles. For example, last Sunday he gave his adolescent kid a broken arm by informing him that his palms would get hairy and his eyes would melt if he "satisfied his own urges." Leaving aside, for now, the notion that there is nothing wrong with this sort of thing being advertised to kids and shown on primetime network t.v., the show just isn't that funny. Don't get me wrong, when the CIA operative dad (I don't know his name, so he can just be "the dad") expresses his amazement at the texture of an acquaintance's hands by saying "Sweet Sean Hannity those are soft hands!", I was on the ground laughing. But classic satire is less explicit in its political implications. South Park, most of the time, has the same problem, in that the political perspective of the writers is made immediately clear without having to make the connection through a series of amusing implications. Unlike Max Fleicher's famed modesty (Of Mice and Magic, pg. 83), animators today seem absolutely determined to show everyone their socio-political beliefs, despite an obvious decline in artistic standards in this regard.

I have no idea what the ratings for American Dad are like, and if it is doing well, then good for them. However, I think that the bar has been set by The Simpsons, in terms of a successful (unbelievably) animated satire, and American Dad is not even in the same category. The Simpsons will mock conservatism and serious religiosity, but they do it with subtlety and grace. For example, Lisa is the constant voice of reason, and she is presented as a wholesome young lady who is full of common sense. The comparable voice on American Dad is the teenage neo-hippie daughter who shows off her belly button ring. I have nothing against belly button rings (or neo-hippies), but this image goes against what American culture assumes to be wholesome. I assume that this is the point of the image, but that makes my point. Whereas The Simpsons takes most modern American cultural assumptions and uses them to make their point, the point of American Dad is to mock many of these assumptions.

What's the problem with Disney?

2005-09-13T16:43:00.000-07:00

It seems that this is one of those topics that can really push some people's buttons. In fact, last week I wrote about a related, but seperate issue, and I got a comment saying "Down with Disney." I can understand someone disliking Disney movies (except, of course, Aladdin and The Lion King), but Disney is the largest employer of animators in the industry, it has a successful history, and it revolutionized the medium. I don't believe that it takes an active role in the destruction of innovative young animators, so what is the problem? Is it that they don't employ people that they think will lose them money, regardless of talent? If they put profit second, then they might lose money, in which case they would have to cut jobs and take fewer risks on pioneering ideas. This begs the question: How would anyone, including the industry as a whole, be helped if Disney simply disappeared?
Besides, simply because someone is talented at something, doesn't give them a right to earn a living doing it. I am a talented writer and know a lot about basketball, but its not ESPN's fault I don't have a job as a sportswriter. By the same token, Disney has no obligation to anyone to employ them simply because they believe in their own talent.
I think that if someone believes that I am wrong, and thinks that these unknown artists will make a studio and distributors money, then they should do it themselves and employ these people, and pretend that Disney isn't there. If the product is good, according to the public, then money can and will be made. If not, then maybe some pious college students would sneer this imaginary studio for firing its unproductive artists and "selling out."

Was Winsor right? - Blog 1

2005-09-05T15:34:00.000-07:00

"Animation should be an art....what you fellows have done with it is making it into a trade....not an art, but a trade....bad luck ." Thus Winsor McCay, father of the animated cartoon, pronounced the doom of the very industry he had inadvertently helped create. - from Michael Crandol, 1st place essay on the history of animation, 1999

In expressing such a pessimistic opinion about the future of animation, Winsor McCay either refused, or was unable, to see its long-term potential. Of course, there is a certain obviousness to his accusation of turning an art into a trade; however he seems only to have seen the negative aspects of this fact, and ignored possible positives. For instance, the market would (and did) allow access to the benefits of animation for the masses, on their demand. His five minute shorts turned into full-length feature films, available anywhere in the country, and beyond. It forced the unbelievable facet for creativity in Hollywood to express itself in as many forms it could, and allowed the viewer to determine their life-span. Had McCay had his way, one has to assume, a sort of oligarchy of "artists" would have decided what constituted a worthy product, and the rest would have been shunned by the community as sell-outs.
Also, the argument about art losing out to trade seems somewhat contradictory, in itself. If McCay doesn't want animators to primarily consider the viewer in the creation of their work, then he should not be concerned with what happens to their sect of the genre. He can continue to produce features that he is satisfied with, and whatever happens in the market can happen. Others can produce features that they want people to consume, and whatever happens in the market can happen also. It seems to me that the "artist" should produce what he/she believes to be good, and if people want to consume it they can, but the creator is satisfied with his product regardless of its marketability. The "trader" is the one who's satisfaction is determined by the public, and that should be pain enough. Those, like McCay, that want to see and produce "art," can do so for eachother and themselves, and let the traders deal with us, the ignorant masses. So my question to McCay is this: who, exactly, was this turn of events bad luck for?

Got my blog URL!!

2005-09-01T16:51:00.000-07:00

I got my Blog URL: It only took me an hour and a half, too...