The problem with Vilification...

...is you learn, 99 times out of a hundred, that once you start actually talking to someone, they don't turn out to be villificatable (not a word, I know.)

Stephen and I finally connected today.    As you know, part of the reason I want to do the "script that classic" contest is to find that middle ground - prove that words can paint pictures, show that there's a place in animation for scripts.

We talked for about a half an hour - I know this because my Iphone counts upwards - and it was a good chat about animation, cartoons, process, what works and what doesn't.

And while we CLEARLY have different viewpoints, I think that Stephen's world and mine are not as far apart as the internet might make it seem.   So... here's where we're at with this.

Stephen's the judge on this.    That's always been the goal:  Get the guy who is the historian at the ASIFA archive to judge a contest based on words.

I'm the filter - you send the script to me, I "anonymize it" and send it to him.  But I am the moat between submission and judgment.  Which is, as I've said, seasoned to taste.

I know what I'm looking for, so does he.    And you guys know the process.  As of right now, the number of scripts received is... well... LOW.    There are still 12 days left to get me the script so they can be judged.

We now interrupt the update with a side note.

SIDE NOTE:

Interesting point of conversation:

While I believe history is important, I also understand that people are inspired by what they know.  Ren and Stimpy inspired people.  So, quite frankly, did Fairly Oddparents.  Different people from different sides of the isle, to get involved with different sides of the same industry.  Everybody's going to have an opinion as to what's better.

Lets use John K as an example:  I think there are a couple of Ren and Stimpy's that are classics - that work, that are funny.  And then, there was the new Ren and Stimpy, which I could not watch.   There's the ranger smith cartoon which left me feeling icky (sorry, but if we're being honest, that's where I am.)  Then there's spongebob, or Power Puff girls, or more recently, El Tigre  (picking stuff we talked about) that most of the time, I leave laughing.  And impressed.  And maybe even jealous that I could not have done that.

I think most of the time, writers who post are more interested in "There's two ways to do it, and they're both right" more than the artists who post are.  But script writers aren't trying to cut artists out of the picture - their opinion is that the words drive the art.  Which relegates the board and art to a place where it serves the word and script.

Artists that believe scripts have no place in animation want to relegate writers to serving cofee, or at the very least, punch up.

I defend the Family Guy and South Park's of the world as "pop" - they are cartoons of the moment.  And they are as strong if not stronger, to me, than some of the classic sitcoms I enjoyed growing up and SOME of the board shows I see now.  

They are - on an entertainment level - STRONGER to me than some of the stuff that he holds up as classics.

I will let him discuss this.

His point is interesting and intellectually valid:  The sitcoms I like have actors interpreting the words.  And then, there was a moment where I realized - a good board artist / story person  is the person who takes the words in a script and turns that cartoon character into an actor, the same way Woody Harrelson did on Cheers, or Kramer on Seinfeld.

I hadn't really thought of it that way, honestly.  And, to be fair, I don't know that I care too much about that while I'm laughing my ass off at the cartoons I like.   Moreso, I don't know how you make an adult, prime-time, sitcom style cartoon with those goals, or if that even matters.

There are scripted shows I don't like, and board-driven shows I do.  And vice versa.  It's all about personal taste.  What I don't like is anyone telling writers their contributions are invalid, or unimportant.

So now, we're having dialogue.  Which I think is important.

So, the contest continues.  The criteria is admittedly arbitrary.  But the goals are concrete.

Me?  I'm looking for a script that best shows "Falling Hare" in script form.  So is he.   And as long as words are used to do that, we're all on the same page.

Tomorrow:  I'm going to talk about my view point about the difference between "Animation" and "A cartoon."  They can be, in my mind, two different things.  They have different criteria.    And neither are wrong.

Glad to be back.

   - Steve

P.S.  Taking down the moderation now.

Contest: SCRIPT THAT CLASSIC!

So, by now, some of you have probably figured out what I was thinking about... but maybe you didn't figure out all of the details.

I think there are writers who can write lyrically, visually and well enough that they can script out a classic.

I am not so vain as to think it's me.

But I do believe that person is out there.

And so, in honor of this week's "Annie Awards," which also includes script writing as part of its list of honors... I'd like to propose, announce (and God Help Me, fund) the First annual Script That Classic Contest!

And the classic I'd like to propose be scripted - retrofitted backwards from classic cartoon (as listed by our friend and periodic poster Stephen Worth) is "Falling Hare."



The rules are pretty simple:

Watch the cartoon. Write a script in Final Draft, or in RTF format. Mail it to me at Marmel@marmel.com. Include your name, address, contact information, etc.

I will then log it, anonymize it (remove all names, etc.) and then submit it for judging.

And while I plan on reaching out to other board artists, directors and story people to help go through the stuff and give opinions, I would like the final judge of this to be Stephen Worth.

Pick the best of the bunch. Show script writers what's right.
And in return, you can take the worst of the bunch, and gut it.

Here's what happens when a winner is picked.

The winner will be announced, and un-anonymized. I will see that the winner is paid a "teleplay fee" for a short-subject script - as determined by the IATSE/TAG 839 rules. I think it's a little less than $2000. This may be out of my own pocket, but I'd like to see this person be paid to punch up an existing project. (Note: If the winner is from out of state, travelling to a punch up meeting would be on them.)

I will personally make an in-kind donation to the ASIFA-Archive.

I humbly ask other producer on this 'blog to chip in work as well. (Hell, the more that gets chipped in, the less out of pocket I face. I'm not an idiot. :) )

But it boils down to this: I will only do this if Stephen judges, in deference to his knowledge of the past. I freely admit - I know less about this than a lot of people. So I'll need the assistance of people with artier minds than I.

The cartoon is picked - one of the classic cartoons of all time. Chosen by someone with not only an encyclopedic knowledge of animation... but who directs the archive that honors it.

I'm in for the parts I can bring to the table. My time. My scripty-producer head. Cash. And opportunity.

Stephen? Whattya think?