"That's [David and Goliath] where we feel a connection to these cartoons: the little guy can win (or at least survive) to fight another day." Gene Deitch (1924-2020)
For 80 years now, Tom and Jerry have been going at it with one another and entertaining kids and adults of all ages. Everyone has their favorite era of Tom and Jerry and yet the Gene Deitch era is often regarded as most people's least favorite. In this post I'd like to explain the merits of these 13 cartoons and why they still stay true to the original formula thay made this series last for so long.
After the original run of Tom & Jerry was discontinued in 1958, MGM hired Czech illustrator and cartoonist Gene Deitch to make a batch of cartoons between 1961-1962. At first he wasn't a fan of the series, thinking they were "needlessly violent" but he soon came to realize that nobody took the cartoon violence very seriously. The end result was 13 unique Tom & Jerry cartoons with creative uses of slapstick and a memorable soundtrack.
The animation in these cartoons is more jerky than it is fluid, giving it a more surrealist style. This was not Deitch's intention though as time and budget restrictions prevented him and his team from going all out. Deitch's cartoons were made with a budget of $10,000 per cartoon ($86,326 in today's money) where as the Hanna-Barbera cartoons were made with at least 4x that budget. In addition to that, Deitch had to make about twice as many cartoons as Hanna-Barbera in a year; instead of 6 per year, Deitch and his team had to make 12 (source: https://web.archive.org/web/20091226202824/http://genedeitch.awn.com/index.php3?ltype=chapter&chapter=20). Given those obstacles, the fact that Deitch and his team were able to complete 13 cartoons at all should be commended.
The cartoons themselves still maintain that cat and mouse game dynamic and the gags are still pretty funny. One element that makes these cartoons stand out are the sound effects, as Deitch and his team utilized more comical sound effects such as springs and vocals from Deitch himself and Allen Swift. These cartoons also put Tom and Jerry in more exotic locations instead of the typical house in the suburbs. These include the jungle, in space, and even on Captain Ahab's ship from Moby Dick. There was also the replacement of Mammy Two Shoes for a bald, round shaped, short tempered, middle-aged white man that brutally punishes Tom for messing things up (similar to Spike the Bulldog). People tend to call this animal abuse but this round shaped man is tame compared to the times Spike pulverized Tom.
All of these cartoons tended to end with Tom losing as opposed to the Hanna-Barbera cartoons were sometimes Jerry loses. This probably would've changed had MGM renewed their contract with Deitch. As is, the 13 Gene Deitch cartoons developed a cult following in later years and for good reason. Despite the animation being a bit choppy in parts, Deitch's Tom & Jerry cartoons still maintain the core essence of these iconic characters. The humor is still on point, the sound effects and score are well handled and the exotic locations were a nice change in pace for the duo. Sure, they're not everyone's cup of tea, but they're still worthy additions to the Tom & Jerry legacy. If I could say one thing to Gene Deitch, it's thank you for your contribution to this ongoing series and making your mark in animation history. I salute you 🙋♂️
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Sunday, April 19, 2020
The Importance of Strong Supporting Characters
Supporting characters aren't always talked about when it comes to discussing film or television. Which is unfortunate because the film/tv show in question would feel empty with them. In this post, I'd like to discuss why the supporting players are just as important as the protagonists and why they shouldn't be treated as an afterthought.
The supporting cast in a film or tv show are often assigned to help the protagonist(s) on their journey or otherwise to help expand the world. Two of the most famous supporting characters in all of fiction are C-3PO and R2-D2 from Star Wars: A New Hope. In addition to being integral to the plot, they are also funny and well developed characters with C-3PO being the most relatable to the audience until Luke shows up.
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D Season 1 is often regarded as decent at best compared to the MCU movies at the time. Having caught up with the series recently on Netflix, I think I understand why. Outside of Coulson and May, the other cast members weren't as interesting in Season 1 as they would be later on. I understand the reasoning behind this as Season 1 was basically the audience being introduced to these characters through the perspective of Skye and as time went on, they grew on us like they did her. That said, it's still a tedious process having to live with basic supporting characters for almost a whole season.
For stories that aren't necessarily plot driven, it's crucial that the supporting characters offer more substance than their initial one quirk. I recently binged the first season of 12 Forever and while I like it as a whole, the characters on Endless Island held it back from being great. Most of the inhabitants range from dull to annoying and they didn't grow on me by the season finale. While I don't expect to fall in love with supporting characters right off the bat, I should at least like something about them. Otherwise, I might end up not caring about them at best or downright despising them at worst.
I understand making a character intentionally unlikable, that is if said character has some charm or relatability to them. Suffice to say, this is not an easy thing to pull off. Take for example Paul from Pokemon: Diamond and Pearl. He is a terrible trainor who doesn't care about his Pokemon and verbally abuses them when they fail him. Nothing about him is either charming or the least bit relatable. If it was the writer's intention for me not to like this character, why? He never learns to treat his Pokemon with respect, we don't get any backstory or explanation regarding why he treats his Pokemon like dirt and Jullien Rebolledo (English dub voice actor who plays the character) plays him too straightforward to be any fun to hate. Sure, some people are going to be like that, but that doesn't make for good entertainment in my opinion.
Supporting characters aren't just their to fill up the screen with more than one character, they're there to, well, support the main character. While 1 supporting character not being as interesting or well developed is forgivable, everyone else should at least have one redeeming quality.
The supporting cast in a film or tv show are often assigned to help the protagonist(s) on their journey or otherwise to help expand the world. Two of the most famous supporting characters in all of fiction are C-3PO and R2-D2 from Star Wars: A New Hope. In addition to being integral to the plot, they are also funny and well developed characters with C-3PO being the most relatable to the audience until Luke shows up.
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D Season 1 is often regarded as decent at best compared to the MCU movies at the time. Having caught up with the series recently on Netflix, I think I understand why. Outside of Coulson and May, the other cast members weren't as interesting in Season 1 as they would be later on. I understand the reasoning behind this as Season 1 was basically the audience being introduced to these characters through the perspective of Skye and as time went on, they grew on us like they did her. That said, it's still a tedious process having to live with basic supporting characters for almost a whole season.
For stories that aren't necessarily plot driven, it's crucial that the supporting characters offer more substance than their initial one quirk. I recently binged the first season of 12 Forever and while I like it as a whole, the characters on Endless Island held it back from being great. Most of the inhabitants range from dull to annoying and they didn't grow on me by the season finale. While I don't expect to fall in love with supporting characters right off the bat, I should at least like something about them. Otherwise, I might end up not caring about them at best or downright despising them at worst.
I understand making a character intentionally unlikable, that is if said character has some charm or relatability to them. Suffice to say, this is not an easy thing to pull off. Take for example Paul from Pokemon: Diamond and Pearl. He is a terrible trainor who doesn't care about his Pokemon and verbally abuses them when they fail him. Nothing about him is either charming or the least bit relatable. If it was the writer's intention for me not to like this character, why? He never learns to treat his Pokemon with respect, we don't get any backstory or explanation regarding why he treats his Pokemon like dirt and Jullien Rebolledo (English dub voice actor who plays the character) plays him too straightforward to be any fun to hate. Sure, some people are going to be like that, but that doesn't make for good entertainment in my opinion.
Supporting characters aren't just their to fill up the screen with more than one character, they're there to, well, support the main character. While 1 supporting character not being as interesting or well developed is forgivable, everyone else should at least have one redeeming quality.
Wednesday, April 8, 2020
Opinion: The Beanhead Design Is NOT Lazy
In 2010, Ren & Stimpy creator John Kricfalusi coined the infamous term "CalArts Style" to point out how Disney animated films were recycling techniques done in the 60s and 70s. He apologized to students at CalArta but that didn't stop the Internet for misusing the term when referring to shows with a specific character design in the 2010s. This design involves a character with a bean shaped head and an ovalish mouth and is found in shows like Star vs. The Forces of Evil, Steven Universe and Gravity Falls among others. When detractors of said shows use this term, what they actually mean is that the design is "lazy" orthe character designers put no effort into designing the character. Let's dive into why this is an insulting sentiment and this beanhead trend is actually happening.
Firstly, let's talk about a character designer's job. In the animation industry, a character designer is in charge of, well, designing the characters. Specifically, designing them in a way that gives the animators something to work with and in some cases is easier to draw or render. Animated shows on television are inherently cheaper to produce than feature films because it's television. See, after a network picks up the show (in this case an animated series), that show has to finish production on an episode before the scheduled premiere date. This is especially a grueling task for animation because in the world of business time=money. If character design is taking too long to animate, it's costing the network more money and the profits aren't always going to cover it. This is why shows like Megas XLR and Invader Zim got the axe after 1 or 2 seasons. The sad reality is if the network is losing money on a show, there's no point in continuing to produce it, regardless if the show develops a devoted fanbase.
Many show creators learn this lesson the hard way: the show doesn't have to look extravagant to be good. Sometimes being simple is not just a must be it can make the show better as a result. Take for example Steven Universe, one of the prime examples of the beanhead trend. The design of the characters in the show (particularly the title character) was always meant to have a simple design based on the style of the show's creator, Rebecca Sugar. The design of Steven himself was based (and named after) Sugar's brother, who designed the backgrounds on the show. Steven's bean shaped head was designed to be expressive and bursting with personality. It also helps that his head gives the animators (specifically Summin Image Picture and Rough Draft Korea, both based in South Korea) an easier time animating the facial expressions and mouth movements.
The Amazing World of Gumball also has characters with bean shaped heads. But here's the kicker, this was more beneficial for the show because it allowed the characters to be more expressive and have more personality than they did in the pilot. Seriously, the difference between the pilot made for Cartoon Network and the actual first episode of the series from a visual standpoint is like night and day: https://youtu.be/bPX7hmNdpPk. If Gumball and Darwin maintained their original designs from the pilot, I don't think it would've last very long on CN. This is due to the most crucial aspect of character design: appeal.
Now appeal is tricky to nail because nobody knows what everybody wants. What's considered cute for some might look uncanny to others. Most people don't mind that the character has a head shaped like a jellybean, but other's feel differently. That said, one thing that a character designer should NEVER be labled is lazy. Many people online seem to put lazy in the same category as unappealing, when there's a significant difference between the two terms. An uncanny character design (i.e. 12 oz. Mouse and Mr. Pickles) signifies the character designer still did their job, while lazy implies they didn't do their job at all. Just because some characters have a bean shaped head, that doesn't mean the character designer was lazy. Yeah, Steven's head is similar to Star Butterfly's. Big deal. Similarities in different cartoons are more often than not coincidences than blatant rip-offs.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions so here's mine: 👏every👏character👏designer👏deserves 👏respect. You can criticize a character for not looking appealing or uncanny all you want, but calling it lazy or uninspired is not the least bit constructive. If you're not a fan of characters with beanheads, there are a plethora of animated that don't follow this trend. You'd be better off watching those shows instead of throwing students at the California Institute of the Arts under the bus by saying "the CalArts Style sucks." And one more thing, the "CalArts Style" does not exist. A film school doesn't teach you how to make films or cartoons a certain way, it teaches you about the history of filmmaking, the tools used and how to use them wisely. Tim Burton is one of many alumni of CalArts and not a single one of his films looks like they were made in the style of anyone other than Tim Burton.
Firstly, let's talk about a character designer's job. In the animation industry, a character designer is in charge of, well, designing the characters. Specifically, designing them in a way that gives the animators something to work with and in some cases is easier to draw or render. Animated shows on television are inherently cheaper to produce than feature films because it's television. See, after a network picks up the show (in this case an animated series), that show has to finish production on an episode before the scheduled premiere date. This is especially a grueling task for animation because in the world of business time=money. If character design is taking too long to animate, it's costing the network more money and the profits aren't always going to cover it. This is why shows like Megas XLR and Invader Zim got the axe after 1 or 2 seasons. The sad reality is if the network is losing money on a show, there's no point in continuing to produce it, regardless if the show develops a devoted fanbase.
Many show creators learn this lesson the hard way: the show doesn't have to look extravagant to be good. Sometimes being simple is not just a must be it can make the show better as a result. Take for example Steven Universe, one of the prime examples of the beanhead trend. The design of the characters in the show (particularly the title character) was always meant to have a simple design based on the style of the show's creator, Rebecca Sugar. The design of Steven himself was based (and named after) Sugar's brother, who designed the backgrounds on the show. Steven's bean shaped head was designed to be expressive and bursting with personality. It also helps that his head gives the animators (specifically Summin Image Picture and Rough Draft Korea, both based in South Korea) an easier time animating the facial expressions and mouth movements.
The Amazing World of Gumball also has characters with bean shaped heads. But here's the kicker, this was more beneficial for the show because it allowed the characters to be more expressive and have more personality than they did in the pilot. Seriously, the difference between the pilot made for Cartoon Network and the actual first episode of the series from a visual standpoint is like night and day: https://youtu.be/bPX7hmNdpPk. If Gumball and Darwin maintained their original designs from the pilot, I don't think it would've last very long on CN. This is due to the most crucial aspect of character design: appeal.
Now appeal is tricky to nail because nobody knows what everybody wants. What's considered cute for some might look uncanny to others. Most people don't mind that the character has a head shaped like a jellybean, but other's feel differently. That said, one thing that a character designer should NEVER be labled is lazy. Many people online seem to put lazy in the same category as unappealing, when there's a significant difference between the two terms. An uncanny character design (i.e. 12 oz. Mouse and Mr. Pickles) signifies the character designer still did their job, while lazy implies they didn't do their job at all. Just because some characters have a bean shaped head, that doesn't mean the character designer was lazy. Yeah, Steven's head is similar to Star Butterfly's. Big deal. Similarities in different cartoons are more often than not coincidences than blatant rip-offs.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions so here's mine: 👏every👏character👏designer👏deserves 👏respect. You can criticize a character for not looking appealing or uncanny all you want, but calling it lazy or uninspired is not the least bit constructive. If you're not a fan of characters with beanheads, there are a plethora of animated that don't follow this trend. You'd be better off watching those shows instead of throwing students at the California Institute of the Arts under the bus by saying "the CalArts Style sucks." And one more thing, the "CalArts Style" does not exist. A film school doesn't teach you how to make films or cartoons a certain way, it teaches you about the history of filmmaking, the tools used and how to use them wisely. Tim Burton is one of many alumni of CalArts and not a single one of his films looks like they were made in the style of anyone other than Tim Burton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)