StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I notice that vast majority of America seems to have fallen into the concept that animated means either Pixar for features, or kids cartoons for TV (or stuff like Family Guy).

The question I have is do you think there's a market for animation, particularly for TV, that doesn't involve using visual or dialogue gags or has actual overall plot and story arcs, somewhat like Avatar? Do you think there would be an audience if animated shows had more substance and sophistication to them?

There might be a market in the audience (Stuff like BTAS, Avatar, etc. tend to pick up audiences outside their demographic, despite only actually being marketted to kids), but I doubt you could sell it to a network.

It might simply be too expensive. Why should a network shell out lots and lots of money (which a high quality animation series would cost) if they can attract a similar number of viewers with crappy, cheap game shows, reality TV, sitcoms and similar dirt?
We might just have to wait some years until good animation becomes cheaper.

Because they used to do just that and make a killing, near as I can tell?

Ok, what was that?

There is the realm of video games to consider. A pretty good chunk of game intro sequences and cutscenes are done in CGI, and they are neither kids' cartoons, Pixar features, or adult comedy.

Then there's my personal favorite of course, blending CGI with FMW... (mmm, Mechwarrior)

The question I have is do you think there's a market for animation, particularly for TV, that doesn't involve using visual or dialogue gags or has actual overall plot and story arcs, somewhat like Avatar? Do you think there would be an audience if animated shows had more substance and sophistication to them?

As I recall, they tried this with Batman: The Animated Series, airing it in a prime-time slot. It had poor ratings. How much of this was due to it being an animated production and how much of it due to being aired opposite 60 Minutes, I couldn't possibly guess.

Maybe Americans just can't get used to a movie genre where they attempt to funnel high drama through animated faces that are capable of only two or three expressions. I know I have serious trouble with it.

Two or three? I'm sorry, but if your art department can't at least do the six basic expressions (anger, fear, disgust, joy, sadness, surprise), you need to start laying some people off. That might be a bit of a nitpick, since exaggeration is often needed to make up for the limits of animation, but a decent animator (or any artist for that matter) should nevertheless be able to express a far fuller range of emotion than you give them credit for. Not all animated shows have to look like they were done by Hanna-Barbera, you know.

I point to the fact that Adult Swim is actually the ratings king for the midnight time slot, somehow managing to get 1 million viewers on a Sunday for a cable channel which is amazing, and most animatiors these days also do CGI work, like video games, so don't assume all animation = drawn or lazy flash work!

Formless wrote:Two or three? I'm sorry, but if your art department can't at least do the six basic expressions (anger, fear, disgust, joy, sadness, surprise), you need to start laying some people off. That might be a bit of a nitpick, since exaggeration is often needed to make up for the limits of animation, but a decent animator (or any artist for that matter) should nevertheless be able to express a far fuller range of emotion than you give them credit for. Not all animated shows have to look like they were done by Hanna-Barbera, you know.

Oh puh-lease, I've seen anime, including the bullshit by Mya-whatever his highly regarded name is, and they have no range of expressions at all. Being able to show someone sad or angry does not mean you can show the range of expressions required for high drama. They cannot come anywhere NEAR substituting for the range of facial expressions a good actor can produce, and anime faces are generally limited to binary conditions, ie- on/off sadness, on/off anger, on/off happiness, etc.

At least animu and cartoons would make an excellent venue for "more sophisticated" animation like the animated version of a Ruthless 80s Action movie?

while good voice-actors can enhance for the lack of expression for animated characters (be it traditional or CGI), good voice-actors tend to cost and alot of good voice-actors tend to cost more. Now add to that what good animators and decent if not good writers will cost and you get the idea.

and it doesn't help that animation is thought to be "for kids".

Lord Revan wrote:while good voice-actors can enhance for the lack of expression for animated characters (be it traditional or CGI), good voice-actors tend to cost and alot of good voice-actors tend to cost more. Now add to that what good animators and decent if not good writers will cost and you get the idea.

I don´t know if there´s much leeway in the future to decrease costs for traditional animation but high quality CGI is becomming cheaper and cheaper. As the computer programs needed to create CG content become more and more powerful and more user friendly the costs for good CGI go down. Furthermore the hardware itself, the computers on which the CG gets created become more and more powerful making it easier or even possible to handle complex files. The infrastructure for creating CG has developed, and will develop further.
Need to render 2000 Frames until tomorrow morning? Used to be a real problem a couple of years ago. Now you simply send your file to an internet renderfarm and a couple of hours later you get your stuff back.

Nowadays a one man show can produce what 10 years or so ago a team of 10 could only have dreamed of.

Darth Wong wrote:Oh puh-lease, I've seen anime, including the bullshit by Mya-whatever his highly regarded name is, and they have no range of expressions at all. Being able to show someone sad or angry does not mean you can show the range of expressions required for high drama. They cannot come anywhere NEAR substituting for the range of facial expressions a good actor can produce, and anime faces are generally limited to binary conditions, ie- on/off sadness, on/off anger, on/off happiness, etc.

Who said you had to use a Japanese style of animation? There are plenty of others to chose from. Disney's style for example looks nothing like anime, but has been used in the past to make very iconic sophisticated animated work. The DCAU was again distinct, and did not have the severe limitations you have ascribed to the Japanese. And then there is even full blown CGI and the numerous opportunities that opens up to. I'm not going to deny that animation has limits compared to what a good actor can do (never mind the issue of finding good actors in the first place), but I think that your focus on anime is constraining and does not necessarily reflect the true potential of the animated format with regards to sophisticated storytelling. The only reason it gets brought up, besides its popularity, is the fact that it is proof of concept when talking about sophisticated animation for adults.

Hell, I would even go so far as to say that if you really wanted to be successful in America you probably would want to start with a style that has already done well here and go from there. Loath as I am to say this, I actually think of King of the Hill as a good starting point since the animation and aesthetic of the show was fairly muted and realistic when compared to its contemporaries like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park. I find its comedy and its writing gag-worthy, but it had quality production values.

Japan has been able to do so much with the medium through a lot of cost cutting and volume. You can read about the state of its industry here and here.

Didn't Hannah-Barbara go bankrupt trying to do this about twenty-five years ago?