DGA deal - not horrible, but not great. Thoughts

Fact Sheet
DGA Tentative Agreement — January 17, 2008

Wage Increases

* Compensation for all categories except directors of network prime time dramatic programs and daytime serials increases by 3.5%, each year of the contract.

* Compensation for directors of network prime time dramatic programs and daytime serials increases by 3%, each year of the contract.

* Outsized increase in director’s compensation on high budget basic cable dramatic programs for series in the second and subsequent seasons:

o For ½ hour programs: 12% increase in daily rate and increase in guaranteed number of days to 7 days.

This feels good.  It's a substantial raise.  If it transfers to scripts, it will mean some sort of pay increase for writers who make "salary PLUS script"

+ Results in show rate increasing from $9,009 to $11,760.

o For 1-hour programs: 12% increase in daily rate and increase in guaranteed number of days to 14 days.

+ Results in show rate increasing from $18,010 to $23,520.


Residual Increases

* Residual bases increase by 3.5%, each year of the contract, except for reruns in network prime time.

* Residuals for reruns in network prime time increase by 3%, each year of the contract.

Also not bad, if you ask me.  This actually helps non-prime time (IE basic cable WGA writers) more than prime time writers.

Healthcare

* Employers continue to make health care contributions at specially negotiated rate of 8.5%, secured in the 2005 Basic Agreement to address the impact of the growing cost of health care on the DGA Plan. Provisions permitting decrease in contribution rate by employers removed.


Other Provisions

* Second Assistant Directors to manage locations in New York and Chicago.

* Establishes a wrap supervision allowance of $50/day for the Second Assistant Director who supervises wrap on local and distant locations.

* Increases incidental fees and dinner allowances for Unit Production Managers and Assistant Directors.

I dont think this helps that much.

New Media

Jurisdiction over:

* All new media content that is derivative of product already covered under current contracts.

This feels important.  For example, if somebody does an animated something based on a live action something, it would be guild-covered.  That PROBABLY covers animation, or at least, it should.  I'm sure if it does, IATSE will have a cow, but perhaps it can be grandfathered in.

Moreso - this is good news for "off shoots" of TV shows.  For example, if you have a live action show on TV and then start doing web based "extended viewing content," it's covered... if I'm reading this right.

* Original content:

o All original content above $15,000/minute or $300,000/program or $500,000/series, whichever is lowest.

I'm not sure what this means.  The $15,000 per minute is insane.  NOTHING costs $15,000 per minute on the internet.  That being said, $500,000 per series is not bad.

There is a legit concern that low level projects / pilots will be created for online to see if they take, then aired on TV.  But... I can't even imagine a half hour anything being created for 299K.

o Original content below the threshold will be covered when a DGA member is employed in the production.

If this works for WGA members as well, it feels like a win.  For example, I'm a WGA member.   If I am hired for something on the web, then all of a sudden, anything I do becomes a WGA production under those auspices.  It's vague... but it could be cool.

Electronic Sell-Through (Paid Downloads)

* More than doubles the rate currently paid by the employers on television programming to .70% above 100,000 units downloaded.

In success, this is better.  But it's still kinda low.

o Below 100,000 breakpoint: rate will be paid at the current rates of .30% until worldwide gross receipts reach $1 million and .36% thereafter.

I feel like this sucks.

* Increases rate paid on feature films by 80% to .65% above 50,000 units downloaded

So if a movie sells 50K on Itunes (or anything else for that matter) the rate on movie doubles?  And what does that mean for writers of the WGA?  Not sure.

o Below 50,000 breakpoint: rate will be paid at the current rates of .30% until worldwide gross receipts reach $1 million and .36% thereafter.

Ick.

Distributor’s Gross

* Payments for EST will be based on distributor’s gross instead of producer’s gross, a key point in our negotiations. Distributor’s gross is the amount received by the entity responsible for distributing the film or television program on the Internet. We would not have entered the agreement on any other basis.

This is good.  Producer's gross blows.

* Companies will be contractually obligated to give us access to their deals and data, enabling us to monitor this provision and prepare for our next negotiation. This access is new and unprecedented.

This is good.  Because buckle up - the next negotiation is less than three years away.

* If the exhibitor or retailer is part \ of the producer’s corporate family, we have improved provisions for challenging any suspect transactions.


Ad-Supported Streaming:

* 17-day window (24-day window for series in their first season).

A little weak.  The majority of streaming would happen in the first three weeks.

* Pays 3% of the residual base, approximately $600 (for network prime time 1-hour dramas), for each 26-week period following 17-day window, within first year after initial broadcast.

This is low.  WGA members made another 50% (I think) the next time a show aired.  So... on a 20K check, they made 10K more.  This is an offer of 10% of that.  Of course, in top 10 shows, it's gonna air again.

The good news for basic cable / kids is... this is the only place where they still rerun the shit out of stuff on TV too.   Weird.  The deal feels like it takes care of non-prime time people better.

* Pays 2% of distributor’s gross for streaming that occurs more than one year after initial broadcast.

Again, good for our non-prime time friends.  Imagine, if you will, a rerun of Hanna Montana.

Clips

* Provides the companies with limited windows where they can distribute clips of feature films and television programs in new media to promote a program. Provides for payment for all other uses in New Media.  

Baffling.  Thoughts?

Sunset Provision

* Allows both sides to revisit new media when the agreement expires.

Um... isn't this what happens when a contract expires anyway?

So... in conclusion:

Lets be honest about what it means to us. All of these raises are awesome, but if IATSE doesn't do something to compensate us - script and story writers - for the gains that they'll probably receive from the DGA bargaining... it doesn't mean dick to us.

If this sticks, and it doesn't stick to us, it will be incumbent upon all animation writers to fight to see a cut of the monies that their shows create. Because if you think about how much a Spongebob or Fairly oddparent streams - if you think about how much they're downloaded... we won't see ANY of that if it's not covered.

We will be forced to go deal to deal, and negotiate this stuff ourselves.  The stronger, more established, more powerful show runners will be able to fight for a piece of their successes... first timers or people with lousy reps will be forced to take what they can get, and what they will get is TAG/IATSE minimums.

In my opinion.

The floor is open.

Is the Simpsons Trying To Be Family Guy Now?

The above clip is pretty funny.

The below clip will be offline soon, I'm sure, but still:



So in this episode, you can see:

Jon Stewart and Krusty.
Dan Rather doing backflips, like Adam West might.
There's a parody of political ad.
A shot at Dennis Kucinich.
A Mayor McCheese joke.
Regan and FDR fighting in a crossfire parody.
A Duran Duran video.
An act break that ends with a weird non-sequitor that we know will end in murder.

I dunno.

The Simpsons doesn't flow like that to me. Which is not to say it can't be funny. The old media is dead clip IS funny. But... it's a slower funny than family guy. Homer is slower than Peter, Lois is faster than marge.

The FG jokes are meaner, much meaner, which I like.

It was a new episode, and I watched it... mostly because there isn't a lot of new scripted television these days. But... I wasn't very fond of this.

I like my Simpsons to be Simpsonsy... (Early first decade, to be fair, but still) and my Family Guy to be Family Guyish... and never should the 'twain meet.

- Steve

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.

An ill wind blows.

But ill for who, when it will start REALLY blowing and how long it will blow, is anybody's guess.

Nobody wants a strike.

But everybody wants a union they believe will fight for all them.

In the Writer's Guild, I am a writer. In 839, I'm a "story person." In one guild, I get residuals, ownership, protection...

...and in the other, I get what I negotiate for. That being said, I am compensated well, and have no complaints. I have a generous employer that respects what I do and pays accordingly.

But the job I do that's covered in 839, is the exact same job I do for the WGA. And quite frankly, I find that baffling.

So on November 2nd, or December, or whatever it is... whenever the strike happens, if it happens...

...every animation writer - storyboard or script - should take a peek and see what the WGA is doing, and whether they accomplish their goals or not.

It affects all of us.

What's your favorite S&P note?

(S&P, BS&P, B&E, legal clearance...y'know, "the censor.")

It's been over two years since we got this one, and it's beome a "house number." We only have to mention the punch-line to relive it:

In an episode in which a character was to play an onerous number of practical jokes (a subject I now refuse to write about), we had him place a "kick me" sign on someone's the back. Not a brilliant bit, but the 22-minute episode needed about fifteen practical jokes. This proved really hard in the harsh light of the "Imitable Behavior" bugaboo.

S&P reminded us that we don't want to encourage violent behavior. "Perhaps the sign could read 'Tickle Me'." Tickle Me. The writers slapped "Tickle Me" post-it's on each other's back all day long after that.

If you're ever pitching episodes to me, don't even try "The Practical Joke episode" it can't work nowadays. We wanted to have a birthday cake frosted with toothpaste--couldn't do it. Money glued to the ground--defacing currency.

Then there's a flip-side to this: all the things you wrote when you only meant the thing you wrote--yet you get the note about a more-obscene variation of your scene which you were not obscene enough to have even thought of.

Pretty much every writer for the tween audience I've ever met takes their obligation to the kid audience seriously, and doesn't want to show the charagter burning himself alive with gasoline--because what self-respecting kid wouldn't want to at least try that if they saw it on TV. Most writers I know laugh at the constant implication that we have a secret agenda of corrupting the audience.

Sure, there are the rare occasions where scripts are turned in with the attitude of "Hey, it's funny, it's on the line, let's see what the studio thinks." Still, I'll bet every writer reading this has met the Unbelievable S&P Note.

The Nevermending Story

Logic--the bane of a cartoon writer's existence sometimes. The argument, "it's a cartoon" too often fails to win the day when trying to justify actions in the script that defy logic--even if you're writing about a dead child's ghost who befriends a suburban everykid.

Oftentimes, when presenting scripts to studios, it feels like the goal isn't to entertain kids, it's to make sense. Are kids tuning into their favorite shows because, "Hey, this one makes sense!" "I love Skippy & Flippo because it's so LOGICAL!"

The link below will download an article by Andrew Nicholls, who's wrote the book I posted about last week, "Valuable Lessons."

Click Here for The Nevermending Story

Here's an excerpt:

Meanwhile, you are trying to think of a way to have a character who’s never been on a date or talked to a girl stun an auditorium full of kids with his dancing skills. Sorry; skillz. And the same people who want you to do that because it will be funny (actually, because it was in a movie they saw) urge you to keep it “truthful.”

Hard work and craft get us through 99 percent of our days, but every writer prays for an epiphany. Over the past year – my tenth writing animation, overlapping 30 years of live action – I’ve begun to have a heretical one. It’s that when we alter reality in order to entertain, Story cannot be fixed, not properly, anyway. It’s not only broken, it’s inherently broken. The best we can ever do is to find the least conspicuous fudge to glue it back together.

Andrew Nicholls Valuable Lessons

Andrew Nicholls & Darrell Vickers have written more television than you. The number of shows they have on their resume is in the hundreds. In the past ten years, many of those shows have been animated series for the very company you're trying to get to hire you right now. Since I'm not their press agent, I'll stop there, except to say this--they've written on a lot of shows. They're also wickedly funny, prolific and fast. In the time it's taken me to write this post, they've finished act two.

Andrew Nicholls wrote the tell-all book "Valuable Lessons" about their life in television, and the fun people they've met along the way, I predicted success. I was wrong, but Andrew's loss is your complete gain. He links to the manuscript for a free download on their website, and you should read it. The book is eloquent, acerbic, terrifying and depressing, as he tells the stories about the rollercoaster ride of their career. He talks about money, he names names, he shares his valuable lessons.

If you would like a free download of the manuscript no publisher has yet been smart enough to pick up, then go to their download page, and click on the button for "Valuable Lessons" for immediate download as a .pdf. NichollsVickers.com

When Roy and Vincent agree, a new post must be created

roy quoted:
::Getting footage back that is 3 to 4 minutes short is a bitch to deal with ::

Then roy said:
I've never, EVER seen this happen. Every single artist I know in the industry complains that their scripts are too long and they work their asses off on whole sequences that just wind up getting cut for time.Are they all just full of shit or lying?I doubt it.

They're not lying. But I can tell you, there is a mentality of "I would rather be over than under," and while I'd like to not be three or four minutes over, I like having extra footage to cut.

And as frustrating as it must be for an artist to see their work not end up in the cartoon, it's easier to subtract than add.

The way I protect myself against that so I don't have to go way over on a cartoon? I try to make sure there's at least one or two gags in the show that can be elongated... In that "It's funny, it's not funny, it's funnier" sort of beat structure. I'm aware, at the animatic phase - what things I think can be used, used again, and used in future episodes for cutaway gags.

For a 10:20 cartoon, we tend to get animatics back at 11:00 and, once we fiddle with it, it still ends up about ten to twenty seconds short... most of the time.

Roy quoted:
::perhaps we have learned from experience that one minute per page doesn't work for the kind of shows we work on?::

Roy replied:
How would a writer know? Since when do writers deal with the animation timing?

Well, as a writer that deals with the timing of my shows, and since the shows I do are in flash, giving me the ability to sit at a computer with my editor and say "add four more frames of hold," or "make that fall happen in two frames," - I think it goes writer to writer.

Like I say over and over again... I'm trying to learn the skills, and the language, to make better cartoons.

Roy Also replied:

I'd also question your definition of the term "work"... does a "working script" in your opinion require a bunch of editing and rewriting and revising once the storyboard is finished?

Somewhere else, Vincent said:

I've worked on Script shows and I've worked on Storyboard shows, and I feel the Storyboard shows are funnier. The more funny people you have trying to push a shows humor forward, the more chance you have for said show to be funny.At Spumco everyone looked at everyone's boards and if they thought of something to push the story or a gag, they would share that thought. If it made the finale product better, stronger, and funnier it went in to the show. It was a constantly growing and morphing process.

And that's how I define "working" the story after the script is finished. After the record, we look at the board and punch it. After the punch, we look at the animatic and punch it. After the take one returns, we look at the cartoon and we try to plus it - and if we want to create new animation and place it in the cartoon, we have an in-house flash team that can aniamte stuff.

The show isn't done until it delivers.

Vincent also said, somewhere else:
On script shows the polar oppisite is true. My experience has been that once a show is locked into script, very little is going to done to plus the content. Everyone starts to worry that THIS is the Approved Script, we shouldn't alter it.

In fact when I got into this business, if as a Storyboard Guy you started altering content of a script, you wouldn't be around long. I would get red scribbles on Slimmer Storyboards from the writer showing the angle he preferred the scene to be staged.

Ick. When a storyboard artist points out something in a script that's going to be a nightmare, I try to listen. When a board artist has an idea that makes things easier, or better, or funnier or more economical, I listen.

Yes, there are absolutely times that "I want what I want," but that's what comes out of being in charge. I'm either right, or wrong, but the decision falls to me when those responsibilities are entrusted to me.

That being said, if I don't listen to the people who know execution better than I do - people who were HIRED because of that skill - I'm an idiot.

It's funny, because this debate takes two turns:
* Don't lock the script, because it might change.
* If you change the script, your script sucks.

I think the answer is this: On a script-driven show, the production has to be just as flexible in changing things as you would on a board driven show... especially in comedies, you have to look at the script as you would a "thumbnail pitch" and know minutia of the script might change as the story unfolds. If the story changes? That's a crappy script.

One of the reasons I don't like outlines in 11 minute cartoons is that I think the story goes where the story goes and nine times out of ten, that outline goes out the window. It's a waste of time and I don't make people writing on 11 minute comedies write them.

Let me repeat that, because it's important: It's a waste of time and I don't make people do it. Economy of production starts there, and hopefully, continues all the way through

It's animation. You can go anywhere and do anything. Why would you ever lock a show at the word stage when you can continue plussing it when the actual animating is happening?

Vincent also said:
The point you're all failing to see because you're so defensive about these issues is that these rules are GENERAL guidelines. A good animator can look at a script regardless of how many pages it is and tell you if it's likely to be too long or too short.The real point is that if someone tells you your scripts are coming in too long, you SHORTEN THEM.

But, yet again, here you have another issue where the overhwelming majority of animators are telling you what one of their problems with writers are and your response is simply to say "There's no problem. We're right, you're wrong."

Nah, I'm not. And it's absolutely something I could be better at.

Almost finally, Vincent also said:
I have been handed 62 page scripts for an eleven minute show. When I pointed out that this would be a problem, I was brushed off with "Oh but we're not doing one of those Nick type shows."

I don't even know what that means. Were Rugrat scripts 11 pages because you could write "The baby crawls" and know that would take 30 seconds?

When I started, I wrote some HEINOUSLY long scripts. It took smarter people than me to break me of that habit, and they did... for the most part.

And Finally, Vincent said:

We all over-write. I do it, you do it. One of things that seperates a good writer from the pack is the ability to say more with less, or you can just change the font size. Hahaha.... uh ya, that's not funny.

Well, I don't know who said it, but all writing is rewriting. Anybody who thinks their first anything is finished is either lazy, or fooling themselves.

And I might consider going back and looking at my responses, but... at least in this instance, I'm gonna be a little lazy.

Tad Stones: directing on the page

Director Tad Stones, he of the animated Hellboy, and one hell of a nice boy himself, has a great and relevant post about directing on the page. He says the kinds of things I'm not only always trying to do myself in scripts, but always trying to get everyone who writes for me to do.

I've found that if you're writing a pilot, or other type of first draft that needs to be a "fun breezy read" then heavy directing on the page is going to send you into revisions. However, for most animation scripts, this here's the gospel. Folks aspiring to be seen as someone who knows how to write animation should check out the link below.

Click Here

--Evan Gore

And now, a word from John K's pesonal Anti-Christ, Jeffrey Scott

So, in the midst of all of this, I figured it was only fair if Jeffrey Scott had the chance to weigh in on things, since, you know, his name has been used as a hammer in this whole debate.

His response?

Steve

I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to respond to John's comment.
Truthfully, I don't have the time nor interest to respond. I'm too
busy writing. John doesn't understand me, nor does he understand writing.
Ironically I was a cartoonist before I was a writer.

And thanks for saying hi.

Best wishes,

Jeff

Wow! Seems like a real jerk, huh? (Note: I am using a writer's tool called "Sarcasm" where I exaggerate to make a point. He is not a jerk. He seems like a class act.)

The point is this - you can talk until you're blue in the face about how writers don't belong in animation, but there are people out there who have been doing it just as long as you... but just in the written word.

And they are just as passionate about the form of entertainment as anyone else... and probably slightly less exclusionary than others.

- Steve

P.S. For more information about Jeffrey Scott that's not tainted by fury and hate, you can either go here: Jeff's IMDB site Or to his actual website: http://www.jeffreyscott.tv

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.

Does the cartoon professional who represents themself have a fool for a client?

No, this isn't about the union.

However, in the whole arena of "why do writers seem to get more respect" than animators (I put the word seem in there, pointing out that again, from my perspective, there is respect), I think the above question is valid.

Most writers have agents. Most animators don't.

When those of us with representation walk into a studio, by the time we've gotten there, we've had somebody besides us hammering the studio for the best deal, a clear delineation of our duties, our pay, our end dates... all the important stuff. In my mind, this gives us a few legs up at the start of our term of employment:

* At no point did we, personally, have to compromise with anyone for our jobs. We stayed out of it. We walk in knowing we got the best deal we could get, and weren't taken advantage of by past relationships.

* Our agents deal with the studio (or production company) - not the line producer. Which means you're not negotiating with the person that you're going to end up working for. It takes the "what if I push too hard" out of the equation.

* Having a lawyer that works in entertainment in conjunction with an animation agent, or an agent that does more than just animation, means you have somebody negotiating for you that treats the deal like a "television deal," not a "cartoon deal." That person isn't going to care about minimums, they're going to fight for what they believe you deserve. They're not going to settle for "the raise everybody else gets," they're going to push for what you want.

All of that, I think, adds up to that person walking into their first day of the job with momentum, respect and boundaries.

My point isn't that people who take jobs without an agent get screwed - only the person with the job can answer that. My point is, with representation, you're walking into a negotiation the same way a writer, a director, a producer or an executive producer, walks into that job.

Yes, an agent costs 10%. A lawyer costs 5% or, perhaps, an hourly fee. The question then becomes... is it worth it?

Again, I want to stress - this is not a slam at the union. Unions represent everyone (ideally), but they have to do so with minimums, and broad ones at that. I believe that you need someone in your corner that goes for the most you can get, not the least that's allowed.

But I also believe that person cannot be you.

Those are my thoughts. Yours?

Writers Versus Artists Versus Writers... Cause And Effect?

So, now that the whole anibation thing seems to have imploded into a free porn site (wow), I'd like to pick up where the angriest man in animation left off...

...take the rubble and maybe build something a little less angry.

But the one thing I've figured out in the last 48 hours is... there is a huge sea of untapped resentment and anger about non-drawing writers and producers in this business.

So perhaps that's a good place to start figuring out what THIS blog should be, now that apparently, Voldemort has disappeared for a bit.

Cause and Effect #1 - Doors and Walls

Writer Ingredients: New writer comes in to studio, instantly gets an office.
Artist Ingredients: Artists, regardless of time in the industry, find themselves in cubicles, or jammed two to three in a room.

This one's easy to figure out, I think. A pilot gets green lit to series through the work of an EP, and maybe ONE writer... then produced by a talented team of artists who see the vision through. It gets picked up, more writers are brought on...
...and then each of them, including the story editor, gets an office, while artists are placed in group rooms, or in cubicles based.

I think two things happen here:

1) The writer gets into work but... as always, these productions are lower budget, he or she has to hit the ground running, so as soon as that office is functional, the writer is squirreled a way in there, writing like a mofo, to catch up.

What it looks like, of course, is that the writer could give two craps about the rest of the crew, because the door is shut and he's "busy." The mistake is not to leave the door open, to meet the crew that will be turning the words into animation.

2) The artists see the writer disappear into the office with maybe a quick smile, but in general, disappear to work, or go away to work with the executive producer/creator of the show and by the time that first script is ready, there's already a "writers get access to EP, writers get to do what they want" hierarchy (real or imagined) in place and an attitude (assumed or real) that needs to be addressed.

Personal story: I've been lucky with that - all of my offices have been next to and near artists. Next to the art director, across from the character designer, spitting distance from the board artists...

...close enough to the color and background departments that when a script came in, and they could tell, in advance, what a nightmare it would be... I would hear it. Even if I couldn't do anything about it, I'd figure out SOMETHING else to do to make amends for it.

The common area for the crew was outside my office where I had brought in a Tivo so everyone could watch what they wanted to watch on their breaks. (Me: Daily Show and Venture Brothers.) Lunches were had together where we just hung out.

Consequently I felt like part of a team, rather than somebody who tossed words from on high and then went on with my life. I felt that I was creating on a show, even if it wasn't by drawing. Because these people weren't just humans huddled over a pencil or a wacom tablet or a stack of boards, they were people I saw every day, ate with occasionally, and went out for drinks with on occasion.

And because of that, I think people knew my door was open to hear story ideas for the shows I was on, and I learned more about the process, and the reprecusions of typing "1000 Zebras of Different color do individual dances down a flowered hill." Artists pitched premises. And at the same time, I pushed for doing a few board driven scripts.

I'm doing that on Yin Yang Yo right now.

Maybe I'm incredibly lucky, and incredibly blessed, and maybe I'm naive. But the easiest way to beat this part of the equation is simple:

Writers, make sure you mingle with the people who make your words animation. Artists, do the same and if you think a writer needs a little "impossible to draw 101" let them know in a proactive, constructive manner.

God knows that would have saved me years of figuring it out, and a lot of people pages worth of bullsh*t.

However, if in the process of reaching out to you, you find your hand slapped by ego, they have a word for that person. And it's not "writer" nor "artist."

It's "dick."

Lets all try not to be one!

Marmel: Okay, Anibator... I accept your challenge.

Marmel: Okay, Anibator... I accept your challenge.

So… to be fair, this guy's site (and I say guy, because his hatred of women in animation is clear indication of his phallitude) is one of the reasons I really wanted to do a site for writers, with writers posting.

With that being said, and the following permission:

>

I proudly present counterpoint to the following post:

"ANIMATION WRITERS" - WHAT A BUNCH OF OXYMORONS

Nice title. So… right there, you know it's gonna be even handed.

Where do I even begin...Okay, I see animation writers the same way I see animation executives... if they are GOOD, I not only don't have a problem with them, I am grateful for them.

The trouble is, "good" animation writers are extremely rare... in two-and-a-half decades of experience, I think I've worked with four good writers at the most. And they, naturally, were either drummed out of the industry by producers who don't know a good storyteller from a hole in their ass or they got smart and moved into other mediums.

Nice try. So… I'm going to assume you're 45 years old, and in those 25 years you've only met four good writers? I've been in the business for a decade and met many more than that. I've also met a lot of 45 year old artists who gave up their passion around "Snorks."Something tells me you were too busy being resentful of the writers, to see that they were, in fact, talented.But if you want to share with me their shows - not their names - I'd be glad to know who they are. It would also give an insight into your tastes, which, quite frankly, I'd like to have for my own curiosity.

Please note that when I use the term "good", I don't mean that subjectively... I don't merely refer to writers who create scripts that I personally find entertaining... I just mean "good" in the sense that they can create a script with an actual beginning, middle and end that makes sense, works within the boundaries of the animation medium and fits the timeframe of the project.

Generally speaking, an eleven-minute cartoon script should be around 11 pages long (give or take a page or two). The rule of thumb among anyone who actually understands animation is that you plan around a minute per page.To this day, I have yet to see a script for an 11 minute cartoon that was less than 25 pages long.

Then you clearly haven't been working in animation for a while. Fairly Oddparents scripts come in around 14-15 pages. Yin Yang Yo scripts, the same. Danny Phantom scripts were around 30 or 32.

Rule of thumb for anyone who writes animation scripts on a show that moves as fast as shows move these days knows that 14-16 pages is in the ballpark for a show that moves fast verbally and visually.

Do these verbose hacks think that somehow within the animation process that time and space can be magically bent to fit our agenda?

It's not your agenda. It's the show's agenda. When you sell a show that's yours, you can set it up anyway you want. That's the beauty of it.

And CONFUSING... christ almighty... how hard is it to tell a simple story? Who are these idiots who try to fit sub-plots into an 11 minute cartoon about a talking duck? How hard is it to just write something that makes SOME logistical sense?Now, unlike some animation cult members, I see the value in writers... particularly for television wherein the deadlines are tighter and there isn't nearly as much time for 'development'. But animation writers need to realize that they are WRITING FOR ANIMATION! ADJUST YOUR TECHNIQUE TO FIT THE FUCKING MEDIUM YOU LAZY HACKS!

Yes, actually, I do feel there needs to be a subplot in an eleven minute episode about a talking duck, because I like shows where the narrative isn't so linear. The subplot doesn't make it NOT make sense… bad writing makes it not make sense.And when you say to adjust the technique to fit the (expletive) medium, what you're really saying is "Adjust the technique to fit my vision for somebody else's show." To you, my mid-40s friend, I say evolve.

Most animation writers are sad, sorry, failed stand-up-comedians who couldn't break into sit-coms, so they're angry as hell that they must debase themselves by writing for these awful cartoons. They give animation their 'C' material (and their 'A' material usually sucks to begin with) and just keep their fingers crossed that one day they can get a lunch meeting with Sarah Silverman.

Ah, the cheap shot.

Back-story - Standup comedy is how I got my start.

An executive saw my routine and thought I could be good at it. I wrote the show bible for Johnny Bravo, and ended up writing on the first season of the show.But I like writing for animation. I've watched it my whole life, I buy a stack of comic books every week, I watch cartoons every day.

Just because we can't draw doesn't mean we don't have a passion for the art form.Everybody comes from somewhere.

What's even more infuriating is that most of these illiterate clowns go on to become producers. Whenever you see 'Produced by' credits at the beginning of FAMILY GUY or SIMPSONS, rest-assured, that person is no 'producer'... they're just a writer who added one lame joke to an already lame script.

In your opinion. On the other hand, I know a lot of these producers and they are not "just writers." But then, I like Family Guy. It makes me laugh. So you and I will never agree on this.

You see, executives don't REALLY know what makes a good cartoon, so they rely heavily on the written word.

They don't know how to 'watch' a cartoon ("How could the Coyote survive a fall like that?") but they (technically) know how to "read" so they count on these Harvard-Lampoon-Wannabes to put ideas into a form they can understand... ultimately, though, it's like having someone who doesn't speak Japanese translating for you at a Tokyo business meeting.

Or someone with blind hatred of writing, commenting on the writing process.

Of course, most scripts become irrelevant the minute the storyboards are pasted up and everyone sees how senselessly written the story was (the storyboard artist, of course, takes the heat for this and has to cancel his weekend plans to take his kids to the park so that he can do 400 pages of revisions that make even less sense than the original script

Unless the story board artist is working with a director who works with the writing team to solve any of those issues ahead of time. Because it's a process. It might be different on other shows, but I appreciate it when an artist comes to me with questions, or points out something that can't be staged correctly. It fixes problems early but more importantly, it makes me a better animation writer.

But here's the REAL sign you're dealing with a hack writer: SONGS.Ever notice how the last several seasons of THE SIMPSONS seems to have a musical number in every other episode? SURELY you don't think it's merely because these writers actually like musicals do you? Lord no.Y'see, writers jam musical numbers (which, as we all know, are a pain to animate and usually REALLY gay and awful) into shows and films because the RESIDUALS on a songwriting credit are HUGE.All you need is writing credit on ONE song and you've got a steady check for LIFE... every single time the song is re-run on television, the writer gets another check. Can you imagine if you wrote just ONE song for ONE episode of The Simpsons (which reruns about a million times a day all over the world) what the cash flow would be?It boggles the mind.

So does your logic. See, in the Simpsons… or Family Guy… in prime time animation, those writers GET residuals. So when they write a song, it's because they like writing a song. And if you think the music residuals for a TV song is enough to set you up for life, then I have to say: What you want in your life has to be pretty low.

Another surefire sign of a hack writer is CROWD SCENES.It's always easy to make a shitty script seem 'eventful' by having big, huge crowd scenes (riots, amusement parks, concerts, etc.) which, again, are the hardest to animate and most boring to watch.I don't disagree with this.What's particularly obnoxious about writers is hwo smug they seem to be about their so-called 'talent'... they're convinced that they have some sort of special gift given by the gods.I'll accept that kind of attitude from Kurt Vonnegut, but not from some dude who shit out a script for 'The Mighty Ducks'.

Anybody who believes in themselves has to have confidence, just as any artist does as well. You're more annoyed with the hierarchy of a script driven show, than you are the attitude of the writers.And have you even seen the Mighty Ducks? Me neither. But a lot of people did.

And, of course, most writers hate artists and will not associate with them. And with good reason. Artists are the only ones who realize just what a scam the writers have going. If more artists managed to become writers (good luck), it'd be over for them.

Incorrect. However, with the above attitude, I can only guess that most writers hate YOU. All of this is you specific, attempting to paste the entire industry with your petty frustrations. People are people. Individuals are individuals.I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, but I find it to be ignorant, ill-thought out and poorly executed. Maybe you should put it in a script, so you could critique it.

Once again, however, I should point out that there are one or two good ones out there... we should be kind to them and nurture them.But they are the VAST minority.

Have the balls to write me and let me know who you are - trust me to keep your identity secret - and we'll see how you react. But I don't need your kindness and your nurturing… I'd rather just have your respect, as you would prefer mine.

But enough of my blabbing... tell your writer horror-stories here and, if you feel compelled, name off the ones you think are the worst of the worst.

Puss move, anonymiddleagedguy.

Have at it!

Consider it had.