Thoughtful and thought provoking. I enjoyed it very much. When applying the "high art vs. low art" debate to the animation field, I like to categorize (being French, I can't help categorizing...) animated films as follows: some animated films are "jubilatoires" (the old WB stuff, Avery, Freleng, Jones, McKimson, Clampett...), some are "incantatoires" (festival shorts with a purpose), some are "masturbatoires" (festival shorts withourt a purpose). The interesting part is that some films can be all of the above and still be great. So even when admitting that the "exception culturelle" is a valid effort, one can also find some solace in a more dadaist approach to art as a consumer goods (sorry Cézanne, but too many a crime has been committed in the name of religion), a ready-made item that one consumes and preferably enjoys, like a good meal, looking forward to the next god meal.

My boyfriend and I love Bing and Bong and their fantastic adventures, we never miss it! I'd also recommend a visit to www.TinyPlanets.co.uk - a good time can be had by all, even when you're not in the target age group! More Bing and Bong please.

If someone were to suggest that the Spider-Man Comics themselves be made a collection of photographs of models, live backgrounds, and computer generated imagery - all supposedly living up to the same "spirit" of the originals - they'd be called crazy, fans would loath the concept and that would be the end of it. But do the same thing with the film version and suddenly it's regarded as the best possible adaptation. The idea of making the film a drawing (or a million of 'em) is rejected - sometimes harshly - by some of the same people who should most want a movie. I find it a little odd (and even a bit depressing) that an article for AWN mentions a live-action version of Spider-Man with such glowing terms. I was hoping to come to AWN and find opinions advocating the use drawn animation, but instead I find articles celebrating the lack of it. Comic book fans need to take a step back, turn away from the glare of the hype surrounding Hollywood Mega-Flicks and ask themselves if this is truly the best way to adapt the comics they know and love. If they think a live-action film can ever be "true" to the comic like a quality, respectfully made animated film could, they're kidding themselves. The Comic is drawn. Live-Action film is not. The quality of the filmmaking cannot change that fact and will *always* prevent live-action films based on comics from being what fans truly want. (Often without even realizing it!) If what matters is supposedly not the medium but only in how it's done as is always insisted, then why not embrace the concept of the "live-action comic" I describe above? Fans don't, and I don't know if anyone would. Film should be held to the same standard. But I do think that after the initial surge of live-action comic book films starts to die down in a few years an interesting evolution may occur. As more and more of the film becomes CGI, live actors might start to seem out of place, superfluous. The recent failure of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within notwithstanding, a 100% CGI film based on a comic will eventually emerge. Once that step's been taken, keeping the characters to the same proportions as real live people may seem pointless, so why not do as comic book artists do and idealize the characters? Maybe that would be the end of the process, and photorealistic CGI renderings of comic book art is as far as comic book films progress. But it could continue, pushing even closer to the visuals of the comic itself. Do away with the photorealistic textures and lighting, clean up and define the edges and get rid of the murkiness that's carried over by the look of the real world. And then try to get the actual look of artwork, the inking, the shading, the coloring. If CGI can pull off this look then Great! But maybe it won't be able to, in which case the best option is to abandon CGI and use actual drawing in an animated film. ...Say, didn't comic book fans consider drawn animation and reject it? It's a bizarre irony. The solution to what fans want is right here and available now for much less than what Hollywood regularly spends, but the Hollywood system is stacked against drawn animation and most movie goers claim disinterest. Even those who don't assume animation is for little kids stereotype it as the worst cliches of anime or some Bruce Timm stylized series (which look like the Flintstones only taller). Comic book fans may not be more than a tiny fraction of moviegoers, but they are the ones who can lead. What they find entertaining is what the average Joe may as well several years down the line. We're already seeing this with anime. As for audiences, they will accept what they accept. The big box office success of films based on comics doesn't come from any mainstream love of comics, but rather entertaining, well hyped movies created by the smoothly running, well oiled entertainment machine that Hollywood's become. Starved for ideas, Hollywood's latched onto comics' widely known properties that fit into the popular Sci-Fi, Action-Adventure genres and have struck gold. If the change is brought about slowly enough progressing from the CGI they love to the animation they don't-know-enough-to-love-but-should, then drawn animation (or at least the look of it) will have been brought back and will succeed, even with mainstream audiences.

Indeed, we had not found anything new/fresh in american TV animation for adults in a long while. The adult animation market is becoming huge and yet america lags behind in delivering. From Japan all this exciting animation came though unfortunately filled with explosions and shoot outs- Cowboy Bebop was probably the best. So, we created "strange frame" and now are shopping for an agent. Most of the broadcasters will not take calls from producers. They only talk to agents. The difficulty is finding an agent that is saavy when it comes to innovative animated programming. Our show is mostly a rich tableux that relies on atmosphere and art, rather than fenetic kinetic motion which is so prevalent today. I like to think of it as a sci-fi balinese puppet dance. The show is targetted at older teens and adults who would like a story/dialog driven series, rather than another shootout. So we struggled and promoted and called and e-mailed and finally got some one of the top agents in Hollywood to look at the DVD and script. They liked it, said it was very creative, but did not think that a "younger" crowd would watch-ie they watched the DVD, but never read the printed materials! [Our promo pack included a good deal of information about our target market of older teens/adults] Make sure when you are pitching a show that all the materials are going to get reviewed. Do not assume that these very busy execs will pour over each item to gleen all the information before deciding. Good luck yall! Shameless plug- check out www.strangeframe.com for some of what we put together.

Your comments about all animated films, no matter what the technology, utilising the basic animation principles is a really valuable addition to my post-grad research project - everyone seems to have an opinion about this topic, but it helps when it comes from someone with some cred - thanks Gene

THIS IS WHAT I WAS REALLY TRYING TO DO WITH THE EDS. MAKE IT REALLY ARTSY FARTSY. SISSY LIKE. I'M TRYING TO REALLY SHOW A SOFTER SIDE TO MY TORTURED SOUL. SOME MAY SAY MY FEMININE SIDE. WE NEED TO TAKE BACK THE FUTURE.

Again an interesting article, yes animation has been destroyed as an art form by the entertainment industry in America. It takes no risks and its agenda remains conservative and right wing in nature. And this format pulls in the crowds, perhaps the viewer has always been passive it is just the artists who demand engagement. The danger we all face as artists and animators is that popular culture now swamps our everyday lives to the point that all other messages are rendered invisible. But has the entertain industry in america ever been a beckon for artistic values. I would say no, the true works of art remain while the rubbish fades rather rapidly from view. Perhaps it is the 500 TV channels we can now pick from and the multi-screen cinemas that help to drown this alternative message. Maybe the best action to take would be to stop watching rubbish and make our own stuff.

To Tim Gray: You say: Maybe the best action to take would be to stop watching rubbish and make our own stuff. Me: Yes indeed, and I even would go as far as saying that these two actions are complementary. You know the old saying: “Rubbish in, rubbish out!” ;-)

Hello I have read your book incremenitivly 10 time's . I have not yet read For love of prog but I will . your story is truly insparational .

hi greg s. , wow! whaat a great concept-cyber toons-production. this article was read with much excitment,as you gradually introduced the "players" and the clever way ..ALL were worked into the production. now ..i assume that many more creatives will be getting involved,for profit-and especially for the JOY of doing cartoons, with out a 'studio" pressure cooker atmosphere. do i see?..a entire "school" teaching this "way" of production?..and a reviloution going-on? this could literally "shake-out" the whole system of how big studios look at their competition, as the studio way could become inefficient? another comment about creating an -even more simple "immitation" of this new concept, would be for wannabees to get together as a smaller group,with less demanding "professionalism" involved,for the ..SAKE of getting some kind of first-hand experience production,for the sake of seeing their story and concept...materialised! not that this would be ...AS good as the folks who you wrote about -in this article,but simply for getting experience ...toward this professional approach of co-operative animation-making. i see this as a way of bringing new talent and new concepts...a better playing-field. will look forward to reading...MORE about this ,and wonder if...some time in the future, there will be all these "groups" working..and contracting with small-time investors, to do unheard-of concepts? lots of scenarios crop-up, and will look forward to reading..MORE ! thanks. my best dale"dawk" mc farlane

About the only really false note in the entire movie was Flash Thompson -- why did they decide that blonde, blue-eyed, big-man-on-campus, star athlete Flash Thompson would be best portrayed as a lumbering Gudio? A 'Guido' of course being a stereotypical Italian thug of outer Burrough origins. And 'Flash' really was; from his flying wedge hairdo to his cheap jewelry, he looked like he escaped from a viewing of STAYING ALIVE. On the other hand, his unnamed friend was Flash Thompson -- blonde, good looking, casully cruel. Did somebody just mess up the call sheets (blonde guy as Flash, big Italian guy from unnamed best friend) and nobody noticed? Steve Bennett

jean d.,your writings about animation trash, done by the american "toon-goons", big five , and their ability to monopolize the animation concepts are profoundly..."RIGHT-ON!" your statment about "drawing without knowing" hit me as ...EXACTLY what ...I am doing! but i do not "draw" and am not "DRAWING" anything when i make cartoon characters! even with all this new-found reflection on what ..YOU-jean consider deserving -art which should be recognized, and awarded the film festival top honors, instead of all the american redundant simplistics-out there, seems to be a futile attempt at changing the worlds idea fo what animation needs to be? i actually discovered a NEW way to create cartoon characters,similar to what (you-jean) are talking about, yet until now you have NEVER heard-seen my new concept! and you may never see my new concept...because ov the very items you are complaning -writing about;which i see as the commercial-profit motive, verses the art-for-art"s sake. my basic point is; with all the art history and conceptual expertise you posses-jean and that is considerable, you...still have not seen "it-all" when it comes to art concepts! the REASON you -also will never see "IT-ALL" is right here in the good-ol U S A!ti involves companies like ENRON and their executive who can only see the "quikie" style of making money...from animation - they want a sure-thing,instant results-like our fast-food industry,which is in every country in the world. i admire your willingness to attack such a subject, but you have only revealed the "tip of the iceberg" when it comes big business and their..INVASION of animation-cartoons. i'm "teaching" my new concept..person-by person,and knowing ..full-well that i don"t stand a CHANCE...against the "big toon goons" who are willing to crush anything ...NEW, so they can continue their cash machine,with animation like you are "blasting"! good luck, dawk www.stoneclones.com

To Dale Mc Farlane You say: “your statment about "drawing without knowing" hit me as ...EXACTLY what ...I am doing! but i do not "draw" and am not "DRAWING" anything when i make cartoon characters! “ Me: Dale, interesting stuff you’ve got there, and not all that far from the work of many other artists. Sure, you are not “drawing” those stones, but you are definitely “drawing them out.” Just as Duchamp did with his “objets trouvés” (“ready-made”), you are noticing them, bringing them out of the “undifferentiated.” That alone is a big chunk of what constitutes a work of art, but in my book, if it is a good beginning, it is only a beginning. You: i'm "teaching" my new concept..person-by person,and knowing ..full-well that i don"t stand a CHANCE...against the "big toon goons" who are willing to crush anything ...NEW, so they can continue their cash machine,with animation like you are "blasting"! good luck, Me: Dale, you are not as alone as you may think you are, many people are (and have been) doing work that is probing the mystery that life is, the mystery that we are to ourselves, work that is therefore not controlled by a commercial agenda. In a previous reply, I mentioned “Sensitive Chaos” by Theodor Schwenk. Go look it up, you will see how well he shows how water and air create flowing shapes (just like they created those shapes you/we see in rocks and clouds and trees and more). So of course is “our” work “created,” and so are we.. Now, we can “go with the flow” or work against it, but at all times, willy-nilly, “it” is that which “it” is making itself to be, through us (as us?). Don't stop there, you haven't reached "rock bottom" yet! ;-)

You guys should really check out his diary at production IG website "Samurai from NYC". It's very informative and entertaining. And yes, it's in English: http://www.production-ig.com/Samurai_Home.html

Very insightful article - is Paul Feldman gonna be a regular? Great writing on the world's most innovative band. rock

dear jean -- in response to Message #11: when i say 'the problem is how to keep the individual artistic initiative from becoming wrapped up in their own world without being relevant to the public which they serve...' -- then i agree with your comment that 'there is something universal in our particular interest and experience' -- BUT that's the probelm of the artist as an individual isn't it? to transcend what is merely personal, and dwell-in and express this universally humane experience. that is what all the greatest artists do; and when they accomplish it, then i would certainly not give 'too little value' to those accomplishments at all! but not all artists have striven or attained to that level yet, and then as you say... 'it is only the quality of the form of the work'. who is to be the determinant of 'what is good?'. i believe there is an inherent common-life of BEING which guides our intuitions towards 'becoming the most what humanity can be'. when there is movement towards this, i think people can feel it if they have developed a senstivitity for it. when someone helps another person out, has done something right, put themselves on the line for something right, people respect that; and if its not genuine, people sense that too. but that's just me. i've met other people that share it too, including you. and i think it is only in the striving that we attain. currently, what gets funded is determined by marketing. i think, funding should be determined by peer-review of other artists. that determines what gets funding and gets made available to the public for them to choose from for listening. if you fund a common-pool for artists, from which percentages get allocated through peer-review and MERIT instead of Marketing. the only way i know of starting a movement towards such a world, is through SOCIAL THREEFOLDING: http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/Steiner-Social.html otherwise, everything will tend towards 'the lowest price is the law', and if all decisions are made based only on this Lowest-Tier of *Maslows Hierarchy of Human Needs* -- then the non-material needs of humans above this will become progressively sucked-out and shrivelled up in culture as a whole. surgite! john penner.

To John Penner: You say: i agree with your comment that 'there is something universal in our particular interest and experience' -- BUT that's the problem of the artist as an individual isn't it? to transcend what is merely personal, and dwell-in and express this universally humane experience. that is what all the greatest artists do Me: John, not trying to pick on what you are saying here, far from it, but I do not agree with you on this simple thing: there is to me nothing that is “merely personal,” just as there is nothing that is “merely subjective.” Either there is transcendence in immanence (the universal in the particular), and seeing it, we therefore act accordingly, or there isn’t, and may god help us then! The lack of perception of and belief in transcendence in immanence is the root cause of “life is a bitch and then you die!” Trying to pick and choose and say that “some particulars are more universal than others” is to start the whole damn rat race all over again, it is introducing in the act of artistic creation (if not in life in general) an obligation to pick and choose which is utterly at odds with that act, an act that is after all an form of surrendering, a suspension of judgement and of disbelief. This is why I also have an ax to grind with most art schools and their approach to “teaching art” (how dare we even say that?) and to teaching drawing in particular (this will likely be at the heart of the forthcoming part #3). While we ought to learn, by practise, how to surrender to that which wants to realize itself through us, we most often learn how to snuff it out and instead impose our will on the putative work of art, killing it. You also say: but not all artists have striven or attained to that level yet, and then as you say... 'it is only the quality of the form of the work'. who is to be the determinant of 'what is good?'. Me: I’m with you here too, so I may be preaching to the converted, but here goes anyway: it is utterly useless to involve our idea(s) of the others’ response to our work when making the work. We already have a mind that is like a beehive, almost completely crowded by noisy chatter, adding our idea of the others’ chatter to that noise is really asking, and often getting, serious problems. I feel we need to do what we sense is needed, “doing the best we can while following our intuition” (“a path with a heart” as Castañeda’s Don Juan would have said), and if that is not good enough by societal standards, who cares? We can't do better than out best! ("You want to paint the perfect painting? That's easy! Make yourself perfect and 'just' paint naturally!") If we find/create the very best we can and offer/share it with others, then, “the rest isn’t our business” (as T.S. Eliot said so very well). Face it, the artist’s world has been invaded by the merchant’s values, most of the things we do now are either under the control of commerce, or had to be wrestled from its agenda (even that seems to become harder and harder to do). The real bottom-line is the one that finds/gives meaning to our life, especially at the moment of our death. You: i believe there is an inherent common-life of BEING which guides our intuitions towards 'becoming the most what humanity can be'. when there is movement towards this, i think people can feel it if they have developed a senstivitity for it. when someone helps another person out, has done something right, put themselves on the line for something right, people respect that; and if its not genuine, people sense that too. but that's just me. i've met other people that share it too, including you. and i think it is only in the striving that we attain. Me: Yes again, you obviously have been in waters I swim in often. You: currently, what gets funded is determined by marketing. i think, funding should be determined by peer-review of other artists. that determines what gets funding and gets made available to the public for them to choose from for listening. if you fund a common-pool for artists, from which percentages get allocated through peer-review and MERIT instead of Marketing. Me: You may have something there, but personally, I am much too much of a lone-wolf to even want to consider entering a system like that. I find that my efforts may be more “useful” if they are turned towards myself in the sense of “working on my self” (whatever that means). Gurdjieff’s “Conscious work and intentional suffering” have gained meaning for me over the years, and none of what that implies can be applied, in my understanding, to “working on others.” Too many of us right now are too busy working on too many of us (if that makes any sense). You: the only way i know of starting a movement towards such a world, is through SOCIAL THREEFOLDING: http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/Steiner-Social.html otherwise, everything will tend towards 'the lowest price is the law', and if all decisions are made based only on this Lowest-Tier of *Maslows Hierarchy of Human Needs* -- then the non-material needs of humans above this will become progressively sucked-out and shrivelled up in culture as a whole. Me: Steiner’s ideas were great, but as long as they are applied from the top down, they’ll just become yet another structure against which we will be right in rebelling. One of my favorite books (goes back a long way for me) is by someone who was close to Steiner, Theodor Schwenk. His “Sensitive Chaos” is a gentle way of helping us "see" that there is much more to the world than we (think) we understand, and I have found it to be very conducive to trusting a certain “other” in me when it is time to really get drawing (beyond all the tricks and recipes I could not help learn, tricks and recipes I need to drop the use of if my work is to ever get started). I do believe that we are in the midst of a huge struggle between Having and Being, and that for now the pendulum is on the side of Having. Very dangerous!

Ok maby this question will finaly establish me as an ideot . But any time me as the film maker impart's information to the walcher is thatnot in it's self naritive ? isnt the plot just replaced with a theam ? in Cemitary man ( Ok I admit not the best example )the guy gose from one murder to the next even the love of his life keep's on dieing and coming back eventualy the cemitary disaper's the one constant is the bald mute whom at the end die's come's back exept now can speak at witch point the two are shown in a lol snow globe lol . I did not see a plot but the theam shure as hell seamed to be ( and it is a mite over used ) life is redundant sad endles misory endles misory endles misory . despite the almost token obscurety isnt a plot and theam generaly the same thing , Ps. I just saw the trailer for Scoby do . you have said in the past shreck brout up beastality . Man in this movie I saw a woman kiss a dog . So if a dog can talk and stand up and think can a woman cary on with it in a wife's capasity ? Pss . Independance day had a theam inplace of a plot , what is the specific diference between that and your average non naritiive film ? weap weap is it just simplty that every thing must end Fin ?

There is one key point people seem to be missing in this debate. Copyright protects intellectual PROPERTY. And though it frequently doesn't exist in the form we think of "normal" property, it is just that, and individual or corporation's Private Property. Imagine if we applied the same standards of ownership that we use for intellectual property to other types of property. "I'm sorry, Mr. Smith, you won't be inheriting your family's ancestral home, it's "copyright" can no longer be renewed. Yes, we realize your grandfather built it by hand brick by brick, and three generations of Smiths have lived there, but it's time for it to be turned over to "the public". Oh? Who are the public you ask? Well, by and large your former home will be occupied by a rather shady band of looters who will abuse it in any manner possible to make a fast buck. You can look forward to seeing this has-been heirloom used as a flop house, an impromptu hotel, a brothel, and likely a crack house, as the copyright on most the other homes in this neighborhood are about to expire as well. Will they take care of it you ask? No, probably not, they don’t care about it. Hey, they didn’t have to build it, or maintain it, and they certainly don’t have anything invested in it, and it has no sentimental value to them whatsoever, but they’ve waited patiently for the copyright to expire, so it’s their turn now! Hey, your family had their fair time!!" The fact is to seize private property from any person, be that person a natural person or a corporation that was built by someone who may now be dead, is fascist and goes against almost everything else in the constitution. It's about time intellectual property be given the same status as any other property. Think I'm being extremist on this matter? Ask yourself, have you ever actually seen an intellectual work treated with any level of respect once it entered the public domain? I certainly haven't. I've just seen them abused in the interest of making a quick dollar. Some people in this forum have complained that copyright feeds corporate greed. Is that somehow worse than feeding smaller, even less moral looter's greed? Even if the corporations never produced anything new (which by and large they do, or they wouldn’t last too long) at least at some point they did produce something! The looters who gobble up public domain works to be packaged for a fast sale, never create anything. Why is it you feel they should be protected, and benefit by requiring the owners of a work to turn it over to them? They profit from someone else‘s labor and produce nothing themselves. Don't try to pawn these people off as "mom and pop operations," they are far from anything so benign. One painful example happened to me personally. My great grandfather published several books of children's stories he wrote himself. They were reasonably successful in their time, and our family preserved the copyright as long as we could, even though no new printings were made during the last 18 years of the copyright; for no reason other than to avoid seeing his stories mangled by someone who has no concern for the intent or value of the stories. Two years after the copyright ran out, exactly what we feared happened. I found one of his stories published in a compilation book, badly edited along with stories from several other writers. Our family was not even consulted, much less asked for permission to publish (AND EDIT!) the story. Alas, we had no recourse, the copyright had expired. Today, I produce children's videos and books, and unfortunately know my grandchildren are likely to experience the same angst I did when my copyrights run out. Even though I am the one who must labor over my books and videos creation, even though I am the one in who’s mind my characters were spawned, nay birthed, even though I am the one who takes the financial risk to create and publish these stories, I am forbidden from leaving them in perpetuity to my children. Assuming my stories meet reasonable financial success during my lifetime, I can only expect someone who I have never met, who has likely no real knowledge of or care for my stories, images and characters, who never shared in the labor or risk of their creation, to scoop them up once the copyright expires and turn them around for a fast buck. Property is property, intellectual or otherwise. No one has the right to take it away from the creators, or those the creator leaves it to. If the creator wants to release the work to the public domain, so be it. Otherwise, it’s his and his heirs, including his company.

Wow! Excellent article. I really enjoyed reading this article a lot. I am a huge fan of animation! I am a student at C.O.N.A. in Newfoundland and I am studying digital animation and am currently graduating in June. I am really looking forward to seeing a Gorillaz feature length film. They have got to be the coolest band on earth. This article inspired me to get in contact with Passion and send them my demo reel ASAP! Thanks AWN.com