The ASIFA ARCHIVE AGENDA

*sigh*

I'm a member of ASIFA. I've hosted the Annie Awards. I like a lot of the people involved in it. I support the organization.
But god almighty, I cannot stand the narrow, if you can't draw you don't even deserve to be a part of animation history attitude of their Archive. So... I'm tossing it out here for debate.

To see their top ten "most important topics," click on over here. There is intelligent, decent commentary, as always. Stephen Worth is a library of information about the history of this business which - even though I couldn't draw if you put a gun to my head - I love being a part of.

But, as always, there's this abject hatred of animation script writers that drives me nuts. Apparently, here was the big point for the top ten discussions about animation: #8 - Animation writing.

That being said, I'm opening it up for discussion here. And, as a dues paying member of ASIFA, I figure I can cut and paste just like everyone else. My comments will be in BOLD AND ITAL.

2007 Review: 8 Writing Cartoons

As the ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive completes its second year in operation, it's time to review the accomplishments of the past year. Over the next week, I'll be posting a countdown of the ten most important subjects we've covered in 2007. See if your list matches mine. Click on the link to see more on this topic.



NUMBER 8: WRITING CARTOONS

One of the best things to happen to animation in the past few years is the growth of blogging among animation professionals. Topics that used to be discussed only in obscure trade journals or at private symposiums are now discussed publicly on the internet, where participants from all over the world can benefit from the exchange of information.

Agreed. Regardless of your opinions, it's been nice to share stories, history and information. Hey! So far, we're on the same page!

One of the principle catalysts for discussion on the net is John Kricfalusi's blog, All Kinds of Stuff. A series of John's posts on writing for animation created a wave of comment across the "blogosphere". (1)

Good god, I don't know where to start. But what the hell... lets try.

(1) Agreed. And I like John K's blog. Most of the time, it's informative. It's fun to read. Yes, everything is touched with his opinion and point of view, but the guy is talented and smart and I like to visit his blog. Besides, who's blog ISN'T touched by the bloggers P.O.V.? I'm just as guilty.

A prominent cartoon scriptwriter vehemently disagreed with John's opinion that cartoons should be written by cartoonists. (2)

(2) I have my doubts about this. I would be willing to say that "prominent cartoon script writer" (whoever it was) was more trying to make the point that there are more than one ways to write a cartoon. And if he disagreed with anything, it's the same thing I vehemently disagree with, which is that script writers have no place in animation.

Maybe that person DID say that cartoonists shouldn't write cartoons. But if he did, that makes him a moron. Okay? No animation script writer truly thinks cartoonists shouldn't be writing cartoons.

Are we clear? Can we move on?

But when he was asked to name his favorite golden age cartoon writer, the scriptwriter was unable to come up with a single name... This isn't particularly surprising because THERE WERE NO CARTOON SCRIPTWRITERS prior to 1960. (3)

(3) So what if there were no cartoon scriptwriters before 1960? What does that mean? There were no computers either. Or Wacom tablets. Or internet. Or, courtesy of the era, probably not a lot of minorities and women in positions to create cartoons either. Should we go back to that, or how about we just accept the fact that things evolve and there's more than one way to do something? Good Christ, it's like listening to my Grandfather complain about new music, children and all their "hipping and their hopping."

Many people working in animation today have very little idea of how cartoons were made in the first half century of the medium. But Walt Disney was happy to tell you how he wrote his cartoons...

...and it was the same at every other golden age animation studio...

Here's the Terry-Toons story department...

...and a "script" for an MGM Tom & Jerry cartoon...

...and a page from the "script" to Max Fleischer's Mr. Bug Goes To Town...

...and this one from Warner Bros by my pick as the greatest cartoon writer of all time, Warren Foster. Check out the link below for a complete storyboard by Foster from the pilot episode of The Yogi Bear Show.

For that, you should go to the ASIFA ARCHIVE SITE - It's their images and film, it's worth watching, and it deserves your support.
After the first of the year, I'll have some more storyboards to post.

Stephen Worth
Director
ASIFA-Hollywood
Animation Archive

So, to Steve, I say this:

There are people who got into cartoons because of The Simpsons, or South Park, or Family Guy. THAT is the animation writing they aspire to. That's what THEY find funny.

There are also plenty of people who got into it for Spongebob, and Ren and Stimpy, and the Flintstones and the classic Warner Brothers cartoons. Hell, that's where my initial love of cartoons began.

But what *I* like in a cartoon, and what I enjoy seeing in a cartoon, is different now. It doesn't EXCLUDE the classics... but includes stuff being done right now that I think has it's own level of importance.

It doesn't make me the absolute authority on all things writing, it doesn't make me "the rightest person in the debate." But it doesn't make me wrong, either.

So I propose this to the director of my archive. Post five scripts you like. FIVE. Five scripts that were written since 1960 that you, as the director of this archive is open minded enough to look at words on a page that turned into cartoons and go "Hey, this is good enough to be recognized."

Use that encyclopedic knowledge of yours and give me some examples of scripts you think deserve to be archived as well.

Come on, man. I'm giving you 47 years of history to find five cartoons where the scripts were written first, and animated later. Give script animation writers some examples of what they can aspire to, since we're part of ASIFA as well.

I bear the Archive and it's director no ill will. And I also know, by the way, that I am WAAAAY out numbered in this discussion on the blog-o-sphere - that's simple math. The artist to writer ratio on any cartoon is heavily (and justifyably so) tilted toward artists.

But what I'm asking doesn't seem unreasonable. Can you do it? Will you even try?

And now, a word from... your guess is as good as mine.

(Posted on the TAG board. Only of interest to me because tomorrow, they announce the election results.)

Anonymous said...

most animations studios have more than a few artists whom are independent creators outside of their studio jobs and can write just as well, if not better than the jaded, tunnel visioned writers from the WGA.

the majority of WGA writers working in animation are hacks. after years of hearing most of them freely admit that they would love to be writing for films or other projects over animation, excuse me if i'm not ready to heap respect upon them. as a visual artist and creator i've had to continually correct edit these jughead's "scripts".

one of the few places where John K. is absolutely correct in his convictions is his opinions on animation 'writers'. with few exceptions, they simply don't undertsand the artform.

And now, I'd like to dissect this, but going backwards:

one of the few places where John K. is absolutely correct in his convictions is his opinions on animation 'writers'. with few exceptions, they simply don't undertsand the artform.

Bad is bad, my friend, whether it's bad board-driven writing or bad script-driven writing. But I like how you say "one of the few places where John K. is absolutely correct," as though you disagree with him elsewhere.

Of course, If you do disagree with him, it could be because you're a Cal Arts graduate and he loves to piss all over that school. In other words: "When he dumps on you, he's right. When he dumps on me, he's a dick."

the majority of WGA writers working in animation are hacks. after years of hearing most of them freely admit that they would love to be writing for films or other projects over animation, excuse me if i'm not ready to heap respect upon them. as a visual artist and creator i've had to continually correct edit these jughead's "scripts".

Two points on this, if I may:

1) I don't know what position you've had to "correct edit jughead's" scripts (I don't even know where to start trying to correct and/or edit that) but was it your job to do so? On a script driven show? Then, thank you. Because we're all on the same team here.

2) And of course the majority of WGA writers working in animation freely admit they would love to be writing films or other projects. They are paid more. And get residuals. And a better pension. You gonna tell me an animator wouldn't step over the face of a basic cable executive to get a shot at a feature film? Of course he or she would.

most animations studios have more than a few artists whom are independent creators outside of their studio jobs and can write just as well, if not better than the jaded, tunnel visioned writers from the WGA.

I love the math here. "A few artists" who can write just as well than the entirety of the WGA. I'm sure there are. Emphasis on "few," just as I'm sure there are a few WGA writers who can draw better than some artists. Writing is art, just as drawing is art, just as timing is art, and editing is art, in its own way.

I'm sorry you can't respect anything that you can't or won't do, but that's your bag of cats, not ours. And finally:

Anonymous said...

Of course.

Why I didn't really like "Boo Boo Runs Wild" - This May Be My Last John K post for a while

The usual caveats: I know many of the people who worked on this cartoon, and can’t speak highly enough about their talent, and that includes John K.

But on John’s blog he holds up Boo Boo Runs Wild as what really works in a cartoon. I remember watching it a few times – once, the first time, in shock and awe that he got away with what he did. And then, afterwards… Well, that point is for act III of this post.

I have to say, he’s pretty good at making his case over time. I was wondering where this whole “gruntspeak” posting was going – being baffled by how much time and effort he spent discussing the grunting bear in Roger Ramjet.

(For the super hilarious SOMETHINGAWFUL.COM version of these posts, click HERE
and root around. It's awesome.)

Then, of course, I figured it out. It was a couching mechanism for him to pat himself on the back for previous work and point out how words and writers are unimportant in a cartoon.

Fair enough. It's his blog, and it's moderated and doesn't allow anonymous comment so there's no point in even trying to have this discussion there.

So we'll have it here.

But if this is the case, and this is the cartoon is the example of what goes right with animation:



…then lets talk about that.

The cartoon starts at :24 as we pan past a bunch of signs – and ends on a “no shaving” sign on a moose’s ass punctuated by a Bullwinkle Moose, “Hey Watch it!”

From 1:09 to 3:30 – Yogi and Boo Boo wake up, do a funny walk cycle WITHOUT their clothes. There’s a (to me) really funny verbal joke about how all bears must wear at least one human item of clothing, and the bears return to the cave and walk out, repeating the funny walk cycle. We’re 3:30 into the cartoon now.

3:31 – Ranger Smith spends 30 seconds talking to the camera, letting them know he can’t wait to see Yogi screw up.

4:08 – 5:00 – We spend a minute learning “There’s only one thing bears like more than picnic baskets.” Only to have Ranger Smith plop a sign down that says “No tearing of bark.” This sign is never read. And for a cartoon, there’s a hell of a lot of “read me” jokes in here.

From 5:00 – 7:00 –Boo Boo is tired of rules, and is returning to his bear nature. His lips go gray, his nose blue and he now has a different walk cycle as Yogi looks on in horror.

And so ends Act I of a 20 minute cartoon.

I could keep going. I actually did. But as I went on, I found myself getting snarkier and snarkier, and more petty, and that’s not what I’m trying to do. I swear to God.

I think there are some really funny drawings, some excellent timing and some great comedy in here.

But it’s worth asking this: Does this cartoon work because it’s intrinsically hilarious? No. I’m not saying it’s not funny… I’m saying it’s funny because it’s PARODY. A Moose. That isn't Bullwinkle. Talks in Bullwinkle's voice. Parody.

Things work and are funny here because you know the characters already.

Boo Boo SHOULDN’T run wild. Yogi SHOULDN’T attack the ranger. Cindy SHOULDN’T be swapping tongues with Boo Boo. The Ranger shouldn’t be pulling out a gun to shoot Boo Boo.

In the end, this is a story about:
• Boo Boo meets self
• Boo Boo loses self
• Boo Boo gets self back.

But if you don’t know Boo Boo is the sweet bear, and you don’t know Yogi’s history, this might be amusing, but it doesn’t resonate. Every thing that works in this cartoon works because it’s winking at the past.

It is a cartoon animated to entertain animation professionals and animation enthusiasts. THAT’S IT. While there are great things about this cartoon, it’s not work. It’s REWORK.
Even the Gruntspeak isn’t original - it is admittedly an homage to the Roger Ramjet grunting bear.

This work is exactly, I might add, what writers who write scripts have been accused of doing to destroy the industry.

Does the fact that I don't worship "Boo Boo Runs Wild" as the second coming of the animation Christ mean I can't appreciate the joy these people clearly had making the cartoon? No. Does any of the above discussion mean the cartoon shouldn't have been made? Also no.

Why shouldn't people who love something be able to do it, and within doing that, have fun with it?

But honestly - come on. The difference between a Family Guy parody of Yogi Bear and John K's parody of Yogi bear is the Family Guy parody of Yogi Bear would have been 19 minutes and 30 seconds SHORTER.

I’m posting this for three reasons: One, you can dissect ANYBODY’S work and show how it sucks, or how it’s great. Two: You can do it in a civil way, without taking cheap shots and dismissing an entire profession of people. And three, one person’s “homage” is another person’s “blasphemy” and it’s really in the eye of the beholder.

And with that, I throw to the floor.

- Steve

Bullet Point Beliefs #1

* I believe that just by sheer volume, there are more talented cartoonists in animation than there are writers. But I also believe that when you're talking about who is "great" the ratio of great:good:mediocre is probably equal.

* I believe we are living in an era of disposable cartoons. Shows that are meant to get laughs now, and if they stand the test of time later, so be it. South Park is a perfect example. Many of those episodes won't stand the test of time, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where they didn't do "Trapped in a closet" or the "World of Warcraft" episode.

* I believe if John K thinks you can do cheap animation well (ala Roger Ramjet, and I agree) and that grunting bears are hilarious ("Boo Boo Runs Wild" was a hilarious cartoon.) and that he has the vision and ability to make great cartoons (which I agree) he should stop complaining about what's wrong with animation and use his friends, clout, believers and connections to make a series already. For a guy who hates words, he sure uses a lot of them.

My Dear John letter.

Okay, so… here we go.

To be fair, I’ve been waiting for this because:

a) I knew it was coming (see previous blog).
b) This anti-writer attitude is one of the reasons I wanted to open a blog for writers. (Ahem, other writers, feel free.)

Before I start, I will say this: I am not going to attack John K. personally. I don’t know him personally. I will try to be fair professionally, because while he may not consider me an animation professional, I consider him a peer.

That being said, I’m going to go point for point on this . John K’s most recent post in ital, mine in bold.

“Skills you need to have to be a good cartoon writer:Here's the most important one:

Be a cartoonist

This is so self-evident, it seems crazy that it needs to be explained to anybody, but here goes...You don't have to be the greatest cartoonist, but you should have some experience animating, or at least inbetweening so you know how cartoons work.

That way you won't ask animators to do things that don't work in animation.You shouldn't write for any medium that you don't understand, because the people who have to actually make the medium will think you're an idiot and will waste their abilities trying make your awkward "ideas" seem smooth by patching them together with bandaids. That's the basic system the studios use today.”

Problem with your argument #1 – What makes a writer’s ideas any more or less awkward than yours? The basic argument – which is the only argument made here – is that the worst cartoonist is a better cartoon writer than the best cartoon script writer, and that’s horsecrap.

By those standards, the person drawing caricatures at Magic Mountain has more of right to be in animation than, oh I don’t know, a Paul Dini or an Alan Burnett. (Just to pick two names.)

“Ziggy” is done by a cartoonist. So is “Cathy.” You want to give Cathy Guisewite the money to animate that comic strip, then I say have at it. I'd rather throw that money into an open flame.

“Johnny Mercer wasn't as good a singer as Frank Sinatra, but he played instruments, read music and sang. He knew enough about singing to know what could be sung well by better singers. He knew the language he was writing for. He could carry a tune.

Would you trust a songwriter to write tunes if he had no way of playing you the tune-or even singing it to you?”

Yes, and those people are called “lyricists.”

It’s a small subsection of the musical community that write the words, and then work with people to bring those songs to life.

"Trust me, the tune in my head is really good. I just don't have any musical ability to show it to you. Let me describe the tune. There are some really fast low notes, then they speed up and go higher. Then there's a short fat note that wiggles for a couple beats. I think I mean beats... uh...what's a beat again?"

"That's what cartoon writers who don't draw are asking you to believe-that they have good visual ideas but no direct way to express them. That is exactly how their idiotic scripts read to us and we shake our heads in disgust. It's why the scriptwriters are laughed at by artists. I don't know how these "writers" can walk down the same halls as the artists who know they've had their medium stolen from them and know what charlatans they are.”

Well, here’s how I do it. With my head held high and, ideally, a great working relationship with the people who turn words into cartoons.

With the help of a talented director who has a vision for the show, who can turn the words on the page into the cartoon.

With the knowledge that I look at those people with respect, and understand how hard they’ve worked to get to the point they’re at, and hope that they have the same respect for me.

Knowing that whatever they’re working on is a step between where they started and where they want to be. I’m not so full of myself to think that the person who is working on whatever show I happen to be a writer on is so “honored” to be in my presence that they want nothing else in life.

At no point have I ever deluded myself into thinking that anybody could animate a cartoon… or that I would want just anybody to animate one of my scripts.

But then, that’s me… and a lot of other writers like me. I don’t feel the need to build myself up by pissing on someone else.

“The language of animation is pictures- and simple pictures too, because you have to draw lots and lots of pictures just to make something move. The more complicated the pictures are, the less an animator can do per week and the lousier the motion looks.

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2007/01/great-quotes-from-uncle-walt-cartoons.html

Having experience animating teaches you this fast and cures you of wanting to write crowd scenes and complicated costumes and difficult camera angles.Animation is also potential magic and you need to be able to draw and animate somewhat so that you can take advantage of what kind of magic animation can actually do well. An experienced animation artist's understanding of what cartoon magic is is much different than a non-visual person's is.”

“Here's what Jeffrey Scott and most animation "writers" think is the magic part of animation,

"In live-action you have to write a lot of real-life stuff, like people's problems and crime. But in animation for kids I can make up wild stories, write sci-fi or fantasy, and dream about worlds and see them appear on screen. This would be too expensive in live-action, but in animation it only takes an artist to draw some pictures and there it is!"

That’s one person’s opinion. Just one’s. Just as this blog is one person’s opinion. Mine. I’m not pretending to speak for an entire industry here and my gut tells me, neither was Jeffrey Scott.

“In other words, the magic is that you can slough off all the responsibility of having to know what you are doing on an artist. You don't have to do the hard part. You can write a bad live-action style epic with huge elaborate sets and a cast of thousands, and magically some poor artist (or hundreds of them) is stuck with making it happen - at 12 drawings a second.”

Here's a news bulletin for all cartoon writers: ANIMATION IS NOT CHEAPER THAN LIVE-ACTION. GET THAT CRAZY IDEA OUT OF YOUR HEAD. WE HAVE TO DRAW A PICTURE FOR EVERY 12TH OF A SECOND, SO MULTIPLY YOUR CROWD SCENES BY 12 AND THEN AGAIN BY HOW MANY SECONDS OF SCREEN TIME THE CARTOON IS ON FOR.

I am aware of this. I work with budgets and stay within them.

Lets play with some definitions here.

Instead of calling it the “hard part,” lets call it “labor intensive.” On a show where the story board artists aren’t writing, and are working from a script, this is a complaint about the amount of work that needs to be done, not the quality of the materials being produced.

I agree with the point about elaborate sets and crowd scenes. I agree those can be crutches. But if a writer on a script-driven show is working with producers, directors and board artists that are treated as equals and respected for their opinion… those things can be caught long before anybody has to spend too much time for too little pay off.

And if not, that’s what overtime is for.

One person cannot produce an animated series by himself.

“Obviously, drawing a storyboard gives you a much better idea if a scene or cartoon will work than writing it in words. You can just look at the storyboard in continuity and see it.

Even artists who try to write scripts realize this quickly.I learned by having to draw scenes I first "wrote" in words that some things I thought would work didn't. Then when I sat down and drew the ideas I invented many scenes, character bits and gags that I would never have thought of just by typing the ideas floating in my head and wasting time trying to verbalize them.

Somehow, much magic comes out of your pencil without you consciously dreaming it up.”

Whereas for me, that magic starts on the written page, and moves forward from there. You’re an artist. You draw your ideas. I’m a writer. I write mine. Which brings me to:

“Someone who can't draw will try to argue that he thinks visually, but unfortunately for him, he can never prove his point. In order for a blind writer to prove that he thinks visually, he has to get an artist to prove it by drawing the pictures for him. He can't get his wonderful pictures out of his head without the aid of someone who can draw. If the writer doesn't like the artist's interpretation he has no way of explaining how to do it right.”

No, but he or she CAN explain what he wants differently and if the writer created that show, that’s life.

There is a difference between a job, and a career. Don’t think for one minute the person who was drawing a hammer or an anvil for your production isn’t waiting for the opportunity to sell their own project and be in charge.

Every production has people that are doing their job because it’s a job. And if you’ve never heard otherwise, it’s because people are afraid to be honest to a show’s creator or executive producer with the following:

You work on other people’s dreams because you love what you do, but unless you’re dead on the inside, you’re working to get better… so you get your chance to create something YOU want to create, and then get your vision out there.

John, as one human being to another, I’ll say this:

I respect your talent, I respect your history.

I hope someday I create something that matters as much to fans and the industry as much as your work does and did. And I’m not even saying you’re wrong, for your opinion, on how you want to create your cartoons.

But it amazes me how someone who has spent their entire career working in color can be so incredibly black and white.

- Steve

John K writes about writing and writes about how much writers should not be writing cartoons... again.

Ya know, most of the time, I like John K's blog. It's educational, there's history in it... and it only helps nurture a respect for the art form. Plus, it's John K - those first Ren and Stimpy's remain some of my favorite cartoons ever.

Then, he writes about writing.

So... head on over to http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com, and take a peek. Don't go spamming the comment section and kicking up crap there - no good comes of that. It's not a writer-friendly blog. But that doesn't mean the blog doesn't have merit.

Still... take a peek. Because at some point, I'm sure, there's going to be something said there, that's worth discussing here. In fact, there already is.

But it's 6:45 AM, and right now, all I want is coffee.

Marmel: Calling All Cartoon Writers

Okay, so here we go.

I've been an animation writer for nearly ten years. Starting at Johnny Bravo, spending a good chunk of my career on Fairly Oddparents and Danny Phantom, and most recently, working on Yin Yang Yo.

I can't draw.

There are a handful of blogs - John K's blog, and This Doof (who unlike John K, doesn't have the courage of his convictions enough to post with his name) who consider cartoons with animation writers to be the work of the anti-christ.

Which is ridiculous.

There is also CartoonBrew which has, I think, a more even-handed coverage of things... but if you wade into the comments section when they discuss writing in animation, you'd think that writers were summarily killing their puppies or something.

And while plenty of writers have their own sites - my spaces pages, blogs and the like - I'm not aware of a place where we can all post together. So, that's the goal here.

There isn't a writer alive who thinks they can do this without talented animators. And there isn't a writer alive who doesn't think there are talented animators who can do this WITHOUT writers. But in writing, and animation, the people who do that well are few and far between.

Whether I'm one of those people is not the case here. Obviously, I'm proud of what I do, but that's subjective. It's the idea of writing as an artform... that some people paint with WORDS. That writers can have an idea, an image, a visual, or a story in their head and while they may be incapable of taking a pen to paper, or stylus to wacom tablet, it doesn't make them any less creative. It's just a different kind of creative.

So... that's the goal. If you're seeing this, chances are you're one of a handful of writers I personally know that I invited to publish here. But feel free to invite the writers YOU know to contact me and be a part of this.

And to those of you who think there's no place for writers in animation - you're welcome here as well. Post, comment, whatever. But just remember, as you do that... you're WRITING your reply, not drawing it.

- Steve