Hey, gang!
Jim Hill here. Last week’s letter from Floyd Norman got such a huge response from JHM readers that I asked Floyd if he would consider contributing a regular feature to JimHillMedia.com. Norman’s response was the article that you’ll find tacked onto this intro. Which (I guess) means that Floyd decided to take me up on my offer!
It is genuinely a thrill for me to have someone of Floyd Norman’s caliber come on board at JHM. Why for? Because Floyd’s not just some book-smart weenie (like me). He’s a guy who’s actually lived and worked in the animation industry for over 40 years now. Which is why Norman can actually see the forest through the trees.
So — in the weeks and months ahead — I’m sure that we’re going to get some truly great stories out of Floyd. Where Norman — in his own inimitable style — will explain how Hollywood’s major animation moguls can be pretty minor when it comes to the brains department.
Okay. Enough with my own brain-less yammering. Let me get out of the way here so that you can read Floyd’s official JHM debut piece.
Enjoy!
Long a stepchild in big time Hollywood, animation finally received its own category in the Academy Awards in the year 2002. The coveted Oscar was awarded to “Shrek,” a digital movie produced by DreamWorks. Moreover, digital films dominated the category. What ever happen to traditional animation pioneered by Disney?
In today’s animation business there continues to be a buzz about traditional vs. digital. Many mainstream studios have announced digital animation as the wave of the future. With the recent success of the Pixar films and Blue Sky’s “Ice Age,” many think these ideas are well founded. After all, the public seems to like digital films. Such films are cheaper to produce and require less time and smaller crews. Traditional animators should put down their pencils and start learning Maya or Softimage. To all this I say, Bunk! What we are going through today is nothing less than an animation revolution. Yet, it’s a revolution where the studios will come out the winners, and the animators, as usual, will be the losers.
So, what’s the real reason behind the digital revolution? The same old reason, of course. Power. It’s all about who holds the power. Still not sure where I’m going with this? If you’re old enough to remember the early days of animation, or, if you happen to be an animation geek who knows the history of our medium, you’ll remember the black and white photographs of young artists seated at rows of drawing boards working away on animated films. These were the nineteen thirties and forties, the pioneer days of our fantastic medium. The studios could have been Disney, Harmon-Ising, Warners or Lantz. You’ll notice one thing they all had in common. Rows of young artists toiling away at their boards. For the most part, these animators were anonymous. Sure, you might have heard the name of the studio boss. Heck, if you cared enough, you might even have known the name of the director. The animators were anonymous, and remained so.
I’m old enough to remember going to the movies in the early fifties and hearing the applause from audiences when a Bugs Bunny cartoon burst on the screen. People were becoming more sophisticated about animation, and practically anyone you talked to could tell you that an actor named Mel Blanc provided the voice of Bugs Bunny. In time, other names were known. Directors such as Tex Avery, Chuck Jones and Friz Freleng were known by the general public. Unless you were a kid in art school with the hopes of a cartooning career, no one knew the name of a single Warner Bros. animator. Today, the public knows just a little bit more about animation. They may have heard about Disney’s “Nine Old Men,” or that Richard Williams directed the animation in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” but that’s as far as it goes. Mention Pixar, they’ll say John Lasseter. Talk about “Ice Age” and Blue Sky, they might have heard the name Chris Wedge, but I doubt it. Try and name one animator from “Ice Age.” Better yet, try and name one from “Finding Nemo.” Again, animators are anonymous.
When Disney Feature Animation under the leadership of Jeffrey Katzenberg, started churning out hit after hit in the early nineties, animation was enjoying incredible fame and success. Talented animators were highly valued and sought after. For the first time in animation’s history, top animators were represented by agents and lawyers, and commanded a salary commiserate with their talents. It was the age of the animator as a Super Star. A six figure income was becoming almost standard in the industry. A gifted few could even ask for a million. People began to know the names of Glen Keane, Andreas Deja, John Pomeroy and Eric Goldberg. The “Making of books” put a face on the artists, and people became aware of Mark Henn, Tony Bancroft, and others. Studios needed good animators and the animators knew it. Something had to be done. If animators had become valuable –how could the studios devalue them?
Back in 1994, I had the opportunity to watch a story reel of a new animated film. I had no idea what the movie was, except that I was impressed by the story telling. I simply assumed this was a traditionally animated film, but I was wrong. The movie was Pixar’s “Toy Story.” Up to this point, I had only known Pixar as a software company. Now, they had become a movie company, and used their cutting edge technology to produce a successful film. Studio bosses are dense. They failed to see why this movie worked. We didn’t love Buzz and Woody because they were digital. We loved them because they were real. Yet, the success of Pixar, PDI, and others, launched a digital revolution. Soon, every major player in movies had to have their own digital studio, and the word went out across the land proclaiming traditional animation dead.
Do the producers really believe every digital film will be a hit? Of course not. Even they know there’s no guarantee for a hit movie. They do watch the bottom line, however, and that’s what this is all about. Remember those faceless, anonymous young animators toiling away at their drawing boards back in the thirties? Now, replace those drawing boards with computer work stations and you’ll get the picture. Can you imagine Walt Disney replacing Milt Kahl in his prime? What about Frank Thomas or Ollie Johnston? Today, rows of young digital animators sit toiling away at work stations. Should any one of these digital hotshots get too big for their britches, another young tyro just out of art school will easily replace them. Learning how to “pull the strings” of the digital puppets will take a few months. The public won’t even know the difference, because these animators are as faceless as the digital warriors in George Lucas’ “Attack of the Clones.”
Now you know why traditional animation has been proclaimed dead. Now you know why computer animation is Hollywood’s hot new toy. Now you know why an animator’s talent has been devalued by an industry that cares more about commerce than it cares about art. A truly talented animator has to work for at least ten years before becoming a master. When you consider what they do, what they add to the bottom line of any studio, most animators are underpaid. Yet, the media loves to talk about the bloated salaries of the artists in animation.
Yet, the outlook is not bleak. The public still desires good animated entertainment, and good films will be produced. The digital fascination will wane, much like George Pal’s “Puppettoons” back in the forties. Hollywood is all about the latest fad. Only the good films will endure.
|
By the way: Floyd Norman isn’t just a brand-new columnist here at JimHillMedia.com. He’s also the author and artist of a wonderful new collection of animation-related cartoons, “Son of Faster, Cheaper.” If you’d like to pick up your very own copy of Floyd’s book, simply click the image link to the right to be taken to the store, where copies of “Son of Faster, Cheaper” are available for sale right now. |