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.

It's the budget, stupid!

(For the record, I'm not calling anyone stupid. I'm simply recalling the old "It's the economy stupid" comment from lo those many years ago.)

There's been a lot of discussion about how much overtime, and weekend time, the storyboard artist has to put in. I have seen this first hand. I think the previous post did a fairly good job of pointing out that whether a script is 22 pages or 50 pages, it can still end up being a 22 minute cartoon.

With that in mind, lets do some math:

Let's pretend we're working on, for the sake of argument, a show that just got a 20 episode pick up. WOO! Now, lets use the 839 animation guild "average" weekly salary for a production board, which is $1900.00. (Woo?)

You're the studio: Here are your options.

Two board artists doing 11 minute segments in three weeks, or in five. For the sake of easy of math, that means each half hour episode will either cost six weeks worth of work, or ten.

six weeks - 11,400. Round that up to about 14,000 bucks when you start considering insurance, office costs and stuff like that. I dont know the specifics on that as well as I should, so that's a rough guess.
ten weeks - 19,000. 23,000 bucks with the same rough guess.

So what we're really talking about is the difference of about $180,000 in story board artist costs over the course of 20 episodes.

If somebody can tell me what the domino effect of the above is, that would be great. Do the prop / character designers need more time? Do timers? Because if it's just the board artists doing the extra time, then all we're talking about is a hypothetical $180K. Maybe that's a lot, maybe it's not. Depends on the show. But it is several people's salary on a production.

Now, here's the economic reality of it.

At three weeks, it makes sense to bring this storyboard artist into the studio. Figure it's $7000 for the three weeks. But at five weeks, suddenly, that artist is costing $11,500. The average 839 rate for a freelance 11 minute board: $6000.

So suddenly, a money tight studio or production is going to be forced to decide:

* Pay $11,000 more per half hour episode to have the board artists around which, creatively, is a very good idea. It's good to have them in the pitches, it makes the show better... everybody contributes. Artists can talk to the writers and vice versa. The show will, by the nature of the production, be better... how much so, eye of the beholder.

OR

* Freelance the board out for $5500 less per 11 minutes, $11000 less per half hour which adds up to nearly a quarter million dollar savings for a 20 episode production.

A lot of the issues that are being discussed here come down to dollar and cents discussions... and suddenly, it becomes a very distasteful discussion about art and commerce. Maybe my math is wrong. But I think the theory is intact. On a spread sheet, to a buyer, to a studio... if the board artists can't do 11 minutes in three weeks, it suddenly becomes less cost effective to have an internal board team.

What do you all think? How to you twist the math to make it work in favor of what many clearly believe would be a more reasonable deadline?

- Steve