It's easy to understand why Teletoon is doing this. The TV winds are all blowing the Disney Channel's way, with live action tween fare pulling in the ratings. The corporate commitment to anything only lasts as long as it is profitable. If animation ratings are down, animation is not the business to be in.
The Cartoon Network has already gone this route and is reportedly upset that their name is so explicitly tied to animation. Teletoon has the same problem and one more. It is chartered by the government and its mandate is to be an animation channel. The following quote comes from an email newsletter I get from C21media.net. Here's how Teletoon will be positioning their live action content so as not to get in trouble with the government:
"We don't have to air just animation; we will do fully live-action series. It would be really interesting to hear more pitches on things like that," says Teletoon's director of programming Caroline Tyre, outlining a new drive to think outside the box.So the purpose of Teletoon isn't to broadcast cartoons, it's to broadcast programming based on cartoons. See? That was easy!
"She points out, however, that there still must be a connection to animation, whether it is a toon/live-action hybrid or simply based on a concept that comes from the world of animation, such as a graphic novel or a pre-existing cartoon property."
There are reasons why an animation feature director would try out live action. First, there are just more live directing gigs, which means that someone with a successful box office track record has a good chance of landing a project. Brad Bird will be directing a live action film called 1906 and Rob Minkoff has helmed several live films such as Stuart Little. Even Frederik Du Chau, whose animation track record is hardly stellar, has managed to carve out a place for himself in live action.
The Invention of Hugo Cabret is a good book with the potential to make a good film. However, it's nothing like the films that Wedge has co-directed at Blue Sky. That's another reason why live action is attractive: a greater range of subject matter.
That might be the most pertinent issue. As much as we want to believe that animation is a medium and not a genre, maybe everybody outgrows it after a while. Which isn't to say that animation isn't capable of more than it's currently doing, but looking at what's out there now, it's not hard to sympathize with directors who want to try something new.
Posts
10 comments:
Hi Mark, interesting post. Insofar as broadcasters changing their mandate - they're in a battle for 'eyes' and have to do whatever they can to keep the ratings up. Business is, unfortunately, business.
About directors, filmmakers, etc., branching out into live action - as artists, they'd naturally want to expand and explore the medium. There's no reason they or anyone else should limit themselves to animation (or watercolour painting for that matter).
Secondly, present day film technology has blurred the lines between live action and animation. Many films that are considered live action have major animation components to them (Return of the Jedi). There's no reason for an artist not to jump back and forth between live and animation.
I'm just wrapping my film (live action). My next movie will be live action - with an animation component. The one after that will be animated.
I agree with Steve Schnier about the ability of directors to go back and forth between animation and live action. Animation filmmakers have migrated to live action since Gregory LaCava, who animated for Hearst and Bray in the silent days, then directed such films as My Man Godfrey. More recently, abetted by motion capture, live action directors have started going the other way: e.g., George Miller who went from the Mad Max films to Happy Feet.
Considering the abundance of crap that's shown on both networks, does it really matter what they show.
At least by showing live-action, they won't be embarrassing animation anymore.
"That's another reason why live action is attractive: a greater range of subject matter.
What?!? How can you have a greater range of subject matter in live action? Maybe in some people's minds, but this is not the case.
In animation, anything is possible, and the directors you have mentioned know this. I don't think they are turning to live action because they feel animation is limiting. I would guess that the opportunity has presented itself, and they decided to do it for the sake of doing it. It will be interesting to see a llive action film from a filmmaker with a background in animation. You may just get a better story as a result.
That being said, I would still ike to see these directors continue to work in animation. I don't think either medium is an exclusive one.
Hey Mark,
Its an interesting and timely view on the entertainment world, but it also fails to take into consideration live action directors crossing over to the animation side. One highly notable example is Wes Anderson with his upcoming Fantastic Mr. Fox. The screenplay was written by Anderson and his frequent collaborator Noah Baumbach - - also new to the animation. To add to this you still have Tim Burton (no stranger to any medium) putting a lot of faith in Shane Acker’s upcoming animated feature 9. I think things shake up and change in trends but if we truly recognize animation as a medium and not a genre - - which i do - - we can’t be surprised when directors do different things. It should be no less surprising then an artist switching from oils to watercolors, or from painting to photography.
Always worth laughing about is the ignorance of short-sighted executives when they blame a film or tv show’s failure to attract an audience not by merit alone but with what it was painted. Imagine coming to the same general conclusion on a daily basis: “You know, our gauche painting wouldn’t be so damn sucky had it been done up in acrylics like the others! Acrylics are what they want! Give me more acrylics!” While artists and directors will always desire to switch it up, the humorous follies behind business decisions is the one thing that never seems to change.
(also posted as a comment on cartoon brew)
Everyone is making excellent points and I agree with Finn and his reference to "ignorance of short-sighted executives".
This is like a flocking principal where one network is doing something that works for a short period and everyone follows.
I can't help but to think another reason for the need to direct live action films is public notoriety and fame.
live action pays more. people take you more seriously if you work in in. a bunch of pathetic executives are "stuck" working on cartoons instead of living their dreams working some michael bay film dealing with talent or being on set.
These people obviously don't care about animation. Maybe if they just made some sacrifices and busted their balls something would happen, but since they feel so goddamn guilty working on cartoons maybe its better they switch to live action.
leave cartoons to cartoonist. leaving shitty animated programs to executives and shitty live action teen shows to ex animation directors.
it will all work out.
Hi Mark,
I enjoyed reading this post. It's a real shame that companies can't stick to their beliefs. I understand that they need to have good business and search out new, profitable markets, but c'mon, if you're the Cartoon Network, showing anything else confuses customers (advertisers), and confusion makes them nervous. That's not normally a good thing.
sorry about the typos. its upsetting to see this type of mentality in animation/cartoons though.
I also think the TV trend can be attributed to the fact networks (at least the major U.S. networks) have stopped making family sitcoms, leaving a huge market available to kids cable nets like Disney Channel. 20-30 years ago we watched our Saturday morning cartoons and then watched The Cosby Show or Facts of Life or whatever during primetime. Kids today like their corny laugh track sitcoms just as much as we did, but instead of Different Strokes they're watching Hannah Montana. Why wouldn't Cartoon Network or Teletoon want to jump on this bandwagon as well? This doesn't mean audiences don't like cartoons or that cartoons are fading away - if anything, this week's Seth McFarlane deal points to the fact that animation is anything but the bastard stepchild.
Post a Comment