animation
- Don’t change anything unless you have to for technical reasons. If the book is worthy to adapt, why would you change anything that wasn’t already constrained by the animation process, and we both know that animation offers no constraints. Period. We can do anything in animation.
- Don’t modify the plot, motivation or conflict so “modern” audiences can “relate” to it better. Again, if we love the tale, what benefit comes from modifying a major part of what made it resonate?
- Any character description should be taken as canon, everything else is fair game. If the author doesn’t mention any particular aspect or aspects of a character, you can flesh them out how you like, but if something is clearly stated, it needs to be there. Taking a text description into a fully-realized visual world means a lot will need to be filled in. The book, after all, is for the theater of the mind, so some expanded development is almost assuredly required for most any book.
- Don’t feel stuck making a film. In fact, DON’T make a film. Make a series, and make it as long as it needs to be to fit everything from the book in. Some books will lend themselves well to adapting a chapter to an episode rather neatly, while others might need more creative solutions. Trust the viewers to watch as little or as much as they prefer, much like reading a book!
- Hire the best voice actors for the cast, not just the “best” celebrity stand-ins. Name one time someone told you that the only reason they went to see a film was because actor X, Y, or Z was in the cast and no other reason. The draw is the tale itself, not whatever A-lister is attached to it. Sure, it’s a force multiplier, but this shouldn’t be about massive, unlimited profits, but the artfulness of the work and how it reflects on our human existence or shows us parts of ourselves that might help us better understand us as living, thinking creatures drifting through space and time just hoping the ride is mostly nice along the way. I don’t doubt, however, that money will be made.
- There are lots of reasons for anything and no single thing can ever fix another without causing issues elsewhere.
- Video games don't make kids psychotic. Chance does.
- Animation isn't an art form strictly limited to juvenile fare. It's just a visual storytelling medium.
- Video games do not create people. People make people. Therefore, video games do not create psychoses.
- Leaving bullying and all forms of abuse uncorrected creates an enormous hole into which people can fall.
- A strong support net that educates kids without coddling them is critical to the development of a well-rounded person.
- We don't learn by being shielded from everything.
- Biology cannot be stopped.
- The cause of a behavior is almost never the most obvious thing.
- Society can change to make things better, but we must be willing to make those changes, no matter how hard.
- I'm a huge nerd.
Watchmen Chapter I, a review
What can I say about Watchmen that hasn’t already been said… is what I would say if DC hadn’t just released the first part of an animated two part adaptation of what is considered one of the finest comic books of all time. But let’s talk about the comic book first.
Released as a 12-issue limited series in 1986 and rendered into a trade paperback combining all twelve issues in 1987, the creation of writer Alan Moore, artist Dave Gibbons, and colored by John Higgins, Watchmen was a critical and commercial success and has remained so since its release. It would win a Hugo Award in 1988 and be added to Time Magazine’s 100 All-Time Best Novels list.
An Open Letter to Blue Sky's Chris Wedge
Hey look! It’s you!! Chris Wedge!!! Nice pic. Great movie.Dear Chris,
I heard the news. I’m sorry I didn’t write sooner. Things have been a tad crazy of late, what with the pandemic and gun violence and political division and illegal wars and whatnot. I started writing this before the war and Uvalde, but I felt it was important to acknowledge these facts of life and death we are facing before I launch into this escapist fever dream. Anyway…
Disney can be quite the pain in the ass these days, what with all the acquisitions and late-stage Capitalism and all. I recently read the Paste piece, An Oral History of Scrat Tales: The Death and Legacy of Blue Sky Studios, and I feel for you and your peeps. For the record, I don’t think it was a mistake to be hopeful that Disney would act to protect contemporaries of the modern animation industry. You know, because Disney is one of the most prolific animation studios ever.
Such presence gives you the impression that they might commiserate. In retrospect, they did end up protecting a legacy, namely their own … by engaging in predatory catch-and-kill just to shut you down and absorb your valuable intellectual property and talent. But hey! Live and learn, right? We just have to process and integrate the setbacks and and keep pushing forward while keeping a sharp eye on our past, as it informs us of potential futures and how to avoid them. (If that’s what “we” want, that is.)
And there’s nothing Disney can do to erase Blue Sky’s legacy as one of the few smaller studios that could offer the big players a challenge at the box office, to be sure alongside Chris Meledandri’s Illumination. Thirty-five years, thirteen theatrical films, more than $5 billion in revenues, and two Oscar nominations, Blue Sky was no joke. Dude! You yourself won a freaking Oscar for Bunny back in 1998 only to release Ice Age two years later. And I don’t care what anyone says, but 2005’s Robots is a just a masterpiece. One of the truly underrated greats, in the same vein as The Road to El Dorado, The Iron Giant (Vin Diesel’s best role by far), or Disney’s own The Emperor’s New Groove, to name a few.
You, sir, are a force in the world of animation.
But, here we are. It’s 2022 and it has become clear that being a force for anything offers no friction to Disney’s ambitions. If they want to take on or end something, they can simply buy it. It’s like Disney went to the park with its ball, had a great time with everyone else while doing their damnedest to ignore you, and when he took his ball to go home, took your tricycle for good measure. And it’s not like the pandemic has been ‘helpful.’ I wouldn’t be shocked in the slightest to learn that aspects of Disney’s decision to close Blue Sky was to let them shunt more cash into their cash strapped amusement park division and fretting over content for their then upcoming Disney+ streaming service.
Looks like someone needs a new tricycle…
So, this is a pitch… of sorts. But it’s not a pitch for me. I’m simply offering the concept. I have no skills aside from stringing some vaguely comprehensible words together in sequence, but I do have an imagination. No, it’s a pitch for you.
Animate books.
Now, I’m not talking about the atrocious adaptations (not ADAPTIONS, people! A-dap-TAY-shuns, for cryin’ out loud) that plague our cinematic past, or even the really good ones, for that matter. Regardless of the quality, or lack thereof, these adaptations necessarily strip out loads of context, interactions and impressions, additional plot lines, and almost everything else to focus on the core story because, you know… two hours.
So, as insane as it sounds, what if you don’t do that. Instead, adapt the book as closely to the written work as possible. Take the dialog wholesale. Design the scenes to appear as described in the pages. In other words, use the book as the script, stage direction and all. Make each page fly out of the book and into a tangible world where the rules make sense because you know the story in static form.
A few more suggestions:
If I, as a complete nobody that brings nothing to the fore, were to opine on a first step, I’d say take it slow. I’d shoot for a few test scenes from a book of your choice. If I were to choose, I’d start with Isaac Asimov, preferably Caves of Steel, the first in his Robot series.
The description of Isaac Asimov’s “The Caves of Steel” taken from GoodReads.com — “A millennium into the future two advancements have altered the course of human history: the colonization of the galaxy and the creation of the positronic brain. Isaac Asimov’s Robot novels chronicle the unlikely partnership between a New York City detective and a humanoid robot who must learn to work together. Like most people left behind on an over-populated Earth, New York City police detective Elijah Baley had little love for either the arrogant Spacers or their robotic companions. But when a prominent Spacer is murdered under mysterious circumstances, Baley is ordered to the Outer Worlds to help track down the killer. The relationship between [Lije] and his Spacer superiors, who distrusted all Earthmen, was strained from the start. Then he learned that they had assigned him a partner: R. Daneel Olivaw. Worst of all was that the “R” stood for robot — and his positronic partner was made in the image and likeness of the murder victim!” The novel is one of Asimov’s many “proofs” that science fiction can be applied to any genre, not just its own, not that Asimov needed to prove anything to anyone :)
Simply put, and apologies for being a tad brutal here, but nobody has given the idea of a 1:1 adaptation through the artistry and flexibility of animation a go before, and it’s not like you’ve got much else going on… I mean you’re exec’ing on some Puyo Puyo movie and some “Popeye” thing. That can hardly be taxing.
I kid… a little.
With the right property, the correct treatment, with solid massaging by a quality team that groks the rules, I think you’d have one killer app on your hands, and significant demand for more. But like I said before getting excited again, take it even slower.
Whip the first few chapters of Caves of Steel into storyboard form. Try blocking out some solutions for inner monologues and other “unfilmables”. Cobble out a few scenes, see how they work around the dialog. How much runtime can you get out of a chapter?
Of course, for a storied legend in your field, this would be a cake walk.
;P
Sincerely,
Tyler Knows Nothing
Hotel Transylvania: Transformania | Film Review
Despite the growing recognition in the West that animation is not a medium made expressly for children, there is an expansive industry that revolves around productions that aim specifically for that audience. Ahem… Disney? Heard of ‘em? There are a number of outfits that play in that space these days. Warner, Illumination, Pixar, DreamWorks, Universal, and Sony Pictures Animation, in no particular order, are a smattering. Each studio has their own “voice” but Sony’s Hotel Transylvania franchise is a series of films that speaks in its own voice, and that voice is Genndy Tartakovsky.
And yet, Tartakovsky’s participation in the fourth entry in the tetralogy is limited to writing the story, co-penning the script, and acting as an executive producer. Instead, the helm was handed off to co-directors Derek Drymon and Jennifer Kluska, who are both first timers in the director’s chair (that’s a big chair.) Tartakovsky wasn’t the only one to decline participation in this latest, and reportedly final, installment, either. Most notably, Adam Sandler was replaced by Brian Hull as the voice of Count Dracula and Kevin James’ Frankenstein was replaced by Brad Abrell. Trust me when I say that you won’t miss them. The replacements are almost exact matches, indicating that star power just isn’t necessary to support feature-length animation. All it does it foster bloated production costs.
Sony describes Hotel Transylvania: Transformania as follows:
When Van Helsing’s mysterious invention, the “Monsterfication Ray”, goes haywire, Drac and his monster pals are all transformed into humans, and Johnny becomes a monster. In their new mismatched bodies, Drac, stripped of his powers, and an exuberant Johnny, loving life as a monster, must team up and race across the globe to find a cure before it’s too late, and before they drive each other crazy. With help from Mavis and the hilariously human Drac Pack, the heat is on to find a way to switch themselves back before their transformations become permanent. [SOURCE: IMDB.com]
At its core, Hotel Transylvaniais both an homage to classic luminaries of the Golden Age of animated shorts like Wily Coyote, Tom & Jerry, Popeye the Sailorman, and even more contemporary adherents to classic animated hijinks like Roger Rabbit and Ed, Edd, & Eddy (a meta turducken, if you will) and entirely its own thing, something like Rush is to rock music or Ben Folds Five is to alternative.
Nuts & Bolts
As the fourth entry, HT4 is a solid evolution of the defined art style, but it doesn’t stray from the franchises established parameters. This is no Spider-Verse and yet the color palette is rich and bright, lighting and luminance effects are excellent, and the correct application of bokeh and the lens effects bring believable depth to most scenes. It’s clear, that Sony has been working hard to refine their process. That said, some of the textures don’t look great (the rock slide in the opening musical number looks like crap) which is a big oversight on such a high-visibility production.
Character designs, on the other hand, are peak franchise, hewing closely to the immutable nature of classic cartoon character design that said characters are iconic and must remain recognizable. They only change in service of a gag and always return to their pristine base form when the gag is complete. This is the same basic rule that defines all character designs from all cartoon where these icons always wear the same clothes, et al. Imagine Fred Flintstone wearing actual pants or Jessica Rabbit wearing something other than her signature red, sequined dress… oh. Well, not that, but you get the idea. Thanks, Disney Whitewashing Division…
The story telling is solid, if a bit on the basic side, something I’d expect of Illumination’s work. It’s not bad, but it’s also not sophisticated. The comedy revolves almost entirely around the physical gags which, in turn, defines the entire film. In a film that is more a buddy adventure flick, ala the far superior Emperor’s New Groove, then another entry in the HT canon it works to a degree, but not entirely. There’s little to no meta humor that pleases both adults and kids alike, depending on your depth of knowledge. It comes down to the gag, and that gag is always a physical comedy bit. The approach takes away from the core conceit; two people coming to terms with each other by walking in each others shoes.
Unexpected hair loss syndrome…If anything jumps out at me it’s that the film feels claustrophobic. We start in Drac’s house, then the hotel, the plane, the provincial town, the bus, the jungle, and the cave, then back to the hotel. While the story is about Johnny and Drac and their journey towards acceptance of their differences, and spending time in each others shoes, it pulls back from the more expansive world-building as exemplified in the Tartakovsky-helmed entries. Since each scene needs to serve the setup for the next visual gag, any potential avenues for additional, foundational scope and scale is ditched in favor of setting up for the next gag.
And that’s where it lies; at the intersection of storytelling and spectacle, with the visuals winning over the written by a long shot. It’s not a terrible movie, to be sure, but you won’t derive much but the most deconstructed joy, the kind that makes a little kid roll around in the dirt with the giggles but generally doesn’t survive the transition to higher modes of cognition that come with age.
It should be a hit for years to come as a go-to for quiet toddler mommy hours worldwide.
Anime and video games don't make people psychotic
Western societal ideals have always been broken when it comes to animated content. First, there is the core element that states when you are no longer a child you leave childish things behind and grow up. Adults aren't supposed to like the same things when they were children. Kids drink juice boxes. Adults drink coffee. Kids watch cartoons. Adults watch TV dramas. It's not okay to retain your childhood because that means you aren't responsible. This infects the entire scope of western animation production because it is a core principle that we perpetuate. If you liked Toy Story when you were a kid, it's only valid to look back on it with nostalgia as an adult or share it with your kids. Watching it alone, however, is deviant. Cartoons, after all, are for kids.
Adult animation is an alien concept to much of Western Society.
Of course, that all ignores the reality that is the human animal. First, and most critical, we are not static samples of a human being. We shift and change and grow, but a lot gets locked in by 30. That's not to say we don't add new likes and dislikes, but the range of categories/genre/ideas we accept are generally solidified. As an example, I'm turning 50 on the 14th. I play video games and watch loads of animated content. I've been doing those things since I was a kid and nobody told me to stop doing that and grow up. Do I play the same games and watch the same things I did when I was 10? Of course not. My tastes in animation have grown to seek out the beauty of traditional animation and more complex storytelling.
Now, watch this...
If you can't tell, Doki Doki Literature Club, or DDLC, is a dating sim style game. This is a common form of game in Japanese society, where 13 is the age you are considered old enough to take on real responsibilities by yourself. This idea pervades Japanese media and storytelling, where young protagonists feature everywhere.
But, I digress...
DDLC is a dating sim where you play as a character and interact with other characters. Yet, DDLC is also not like other dating sims because it subverts that genre by introducing psychological horror. The makers of the game clearly state that this is what they are doing and aren't trying to fool anyone. The concept behind the game is the experience, not a Sixth Sense grade twist. When I started playing it, I was already filled with a sense of dread because I was caught up in looking for signs that my mind was getting screwed with. That's one hell of a trick to play on a gamer, and it's effective.
But it is also not a game for kids, and the definition of kid in Japan is 12 and under, so the makers of the game clearly state that this game is for people 13 years of age and older. Period.
That's because the adults are expected to actually parent their children, teach them right from wrong, teach them real from fantasy, teach them how to learn, and foster their growth as individuals. Not only that, but 13 makes a great delineation for adulthood because that's when puberty happens and we become physiological adults, too. Around 13 is when everything changes, and there's nothing stopping it, so many societies say "why bother" and prepare their kids for the inevitable adulthood that comes whether they like it or not.
We look at it differently. Because of our puritanical roots, we don't like what puberty brings, so we construct arbitrary boundaries for adulthood, like the age of 18. It's no surprise that most developed societies apply age limits to a range of things like driving and smoking and drinking and buying guns, but these are things we use and do, they aren't what adulthood is all about. We don't turn 21 to drink beer legally. We turn 21 because that's going to happen no matter what, and having 15 year olds running around drunk driving and smoking while shooting guns out the window seems like a terrible idea.
But applying that arbitrary delimiter to a biological eventuality is just crazy. It only make sense to plan in advance for said eventuality. Treating puberty as if it can be delayed simply adds several layers of complexity to the process of growing up, and that brings the potential for divergence from a neurologically stable place. This is, I propose, one of the key reasons why so many kids get in trouble for fooling around, getting caught drinking illegally, delve into drug use, and many other things westerners see as the problems they are trying to solve with the aforementioned limits.
You go through puberty at 13, but you can't do anything with it until your 18. That should go well.
But, I digress.... again...
The point I am trying to make is two-fold:
You can't blame video games for your kid committing suicide just as the world can't directly blame the parents of the suicidal kid for following through. It is, however, important to note that these two factors are not on the same scale. The video game is a static, external object. The parents, on the other hand, interact with their child daily (I would hope) and their choices go much further in influencing their child's choices and actions, but they didn't murder their child. At the very least, they could be held responsible for not noticing the signs of depression that lead to suicide attempts.
We don't know the recipe of life that leads to suicide in kids, but we do know some of them. Bullying, sexual/physical/verbal/psychological abuse, neglect and abandonment are all serious issues young people face, and how they deal with them depends almost entirely on the foundational development they receive from their parent/parents, friends and family, and other caregivers/educators. If there are too many holes in a kids support net, there is more and more room for bad ideas to pervade.
But even those numerous elements aren't the root/root/root cause. What it really comes down to is the fault of nobody; genetics and environment. Abuse is, without minimizing it, just the operational component. There must also be a structural component upon which the operational crap builds on. It's the same random chance generator that life is that produces kids with Autism or Down's Syndrome or Bipolarity or developmental issues. Psychoses are not, as a rule, created out of whole cloth by a few random interactions. They come from a complex, interwoven, impossibly entangled set of physiological and psychological factors that we just don't understand.
If we all just mimicked what we see in video games, we'd all be dead and the Earth would be a smoking husk. So, clearly, it isn't the fault of video games, and cute stuff isn't specifically marketed to kids, just as vaping juice that tastes like breakfast cereal isn't designed to attract kids. We like the things we like, and some of those things are the same things we liked when we were 9. It's not rocket science. Do you still pick your nose? Did you stop automatically when you turned 18? I do, at least until I found out that I wasn't taking care of my nose properly, and ever since I started using a Neti pot, I don't have to pick any more because I don't produce boogers any more.
Yes, it's gross, but it illustrates my point rather tidily.
So, some of the takeaways:
America's Ghost in the Shell really sucks
As for the whitewashing, it's just plain stupid. Everybody is hating on it, and Hollywood isn't listening. Dumb. You idiots are already losing tons of money because people don't want to spend $50 to watch TV in a big room for a few hours. There's TV at home, and it has better stuff playing. Whitewashing is also racist and puerile. We've got enough hate going around without having it shoved in our faces by what's supposed to be entertainment.
If the racism wasn't enough, there's the shitty, moody pacing and the constant, nagging remedial reminders that "Major" isn't really human and that's what the story is supposed to be about. So, GITS 101... What makes a human human? Can a thing be human if it contains the mere consciousness of a being, or is that just a clever copy that only seems alive? Ultimately, it questions the soul and where it resides, if at all. This is a subtlety that American filmmakers just can't seem to grasp.
See, there's this thing in Japanese storytelling, and even I don't fully grok it but I believe I'm well ahead of the curve for Westerners, that focuses on the experiential aspects of a tale. For example, in Mamoru Oshii's 1995 theatrical version, there are extended scenes which feature nothing but Kenji Kawai's haunting vocal track and scenes of New Port City in Japan. Not a single aspect of this sequence adds anything to the story, considered criminal in Western film-making, but adds both a layer of familiarity and presence to the teeming locale and injects a deeply emotional tone through the score.
Japanese storytelling often features the seasons with special attention to Cherry blossoms in Spring, the beach in Summer, festivals and fireworks in Fall, and Christmas in Winter. My intuition tells me that this is derived from the strong sense of tradition in Japan as native Japanese people culturally seek out the beauty and significance of life, the world, nature, and even human works. These are the bits and bobs that get left out or wholly misunderstood when translating Japanese media into American fare.
And that's all I have to say on that.