Search form

The Thief and the Cobbler: Fan Restoration

45 posts / 0 new
Last post
The Thief and the Cobbler: Fan Restoration


I'd like to announce that my current DVD project is a restoration of the rarely-seen animated classic The Thief and the Cobbler, created by Richard Williams, who animated Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

It wil be available for free at myspleen.net eventually.

I've finished a rough cut of the movie on DVD, but I'm waiting for some even rarer cuts of the movie to come in - works in progress of Fred Calvert's version which haven't been seen.

I'd like to thank Baby Hum, Chris Sobeniak, Stanch and Eddie Bowers for their help in procuring the necessary materials.

The film has never been seen the way it was intended to be seen. It was recut to death by Disney in an effort to destroy it, and is not well known even today.

I consider it a public service to restore Richard Williams' original vision, on which he spent 30 years. Those who have never heard of this film, maybe you'll discover it in my cut.

I attempted to restore the film six years ago, using VHS type technology. Now I can do it a hell of a lot better, in widescreen.

Here we are then. The Thief and the Cobbler. Recobbled Director's Cut.

THE TRAILER!

Rapidshare link for the trailer!

http://rapidshare.de/files/13429755/ThiefR...railer.avi.html

Now, also ...

I've used Stuffit to upload the trailer in two parts.

http://orangecow.org/thief/ThiefRecobbledTrailer.avi.1 (19.5 megs)
http://orangecow.org/thief/ThiefRecobbledTrailer.avi.2 (6.4 megs)

Stuffit is a Mac program, I hope Winzip can handle this too. Anyway, when you download these two parts, you have to open up Stuffit (I'm using Stuffit Deluxe), click on "Join", and select the first segment. The two will join together into one lovely file.

If you don't have a program that can join these two files, check this one out.

Partial trailer (missing end)
http://orangecow.org/1morestuff/ThiefRecob...bledTrailer.avi (23.7 megs)

This is pretty much the entire trailer. I was able to upload this much to my server before it stalled out. 2 megs are missing at the end. So, if you can't do the segmenting thing, that'll do nicely.

Besides the trailer ...

I'm going to post three clips from the film here.

http://orangecow.org/1morestuff/thiefescherscene.mov

http://orangecow.org/1morestuff/thiefmarch...hofthe1eyes.mov

http://orangecow.org/1morestuff/thiefzigza...gand1eyebig.mov

These are not from the edit I'm doing now, they're from older edits I did. So they're fullscreen, whereas my final edit will be all widescreen.

Enjoy them, they're my three favorite scenes from the film.

THIS SET WILL FEATURE --

Digitally-remastered widescreen version of the original version of Thief and the Cobbler, taken from beautiful DVD sources but matching the workprint ...

AND, ON OTHER OPTIONAL DISCS FOR TRUE WILLIAMS FANS ...

Thames documentary on The Thief, 1 hour long, wonderful and digitally restored ...

I Drew Roger Rabbit documentary ...

A Christmas Carol, in good quality ...

Ziggy's Gift and other Ziggy cartoons, DVD quality

Lots and lots of Williams studios commercials, in, er, watchable-ish quality ...

Charge of the Light Brigade segments in DVD quality, Return of the Pink Panther titles in DVD quality ...

Any other opening titles you think I ought to include?

Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure

"Animating Art" (poor quality but it's about Art Babbit and his work at Williams' studio)

..... and, for those who want them, Arabian Knight (widescreen) and the Princess and the Cobbler (not widescreen).

AND MAYBE MORE.

For more information, visit our lovely thread about this project.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/messagevi...1&threadid=4256

but then again you can't create anything really huge and impressive without quite a lot of money ...

So long as you believe that it'll probably stay true for you...

Are these posts sounding more and more like DDA in his earlier prose on his accomplishments to anyone else?

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

Ars gratia artis...is not a new concept. Certainly many have buckled to the financial powers that be, but there have always been some that have been as true to their art as those cavemen that painted those fantastic paintings in the caves of Lascaux.

If I could ever do anything half as fluid and feeling as they accomplished I could die happy.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

Are these posts sounding more and more like DDA in his earlier prose on his accomplishments to anyone else?

If they did it ended when he showed actual tangible things he was involved with =)

Credit where credit is due. You do seem to be an active creator, although your apparent disregard for other people's copyrights still bothers me. Recutting Williams' film, basing a movie on a Terry Pratchett story... Attribution is not the same thing as permission, you know...

Similar to how garage bands don't mind their music being downloaded on P2P, whereas it would piss off Metalica.

There's more than a small amount of irony in the choice of the band above. Metallica was at the forefront of the fight against Napster/P2P, yet as an up-and-coming musician, Lars was heavily into the tape-swapping scene of the early 80's, where one person would buy a copy of a band's EP and then make multiple copies to trade with friends. Apparently artists not getting paid for their work is only a problem when it happens to him...

Terry Pratchett is aware of my adaptation, though he never saw it. I believe that's the only adaptation I ever filmed.

Yeah!, art and commerce mix /great/!, just ask Saatchi & Saatchi. ;)

I'm doing my utmost to learn how to animate precisely in order to give everything I do on my own away for free?, so um there /are/ people who don't quite meet your logic i guess, it's not an utter impossibility. :-o

I don't think cartooning qualifies as "art" unless it expresses something worthy of the word. Art hasn't "always been linked to commerce", that's silly. :) Caveman didn't paint on walls to sell a blessed thing, neither did the Greeks craft their sculptures to - in both cases, art was a /social/ endeavor, not a commercial endeavor. It wasn't until art became a profession that it was linked to commerce - and then you have, well, centuries of portraits of rich old goofs, with a Bosch or Michelangelo or Rembrandt every couple decades or so. But the greatest artists of recent times have all defied commerce - they had to eat, sure, so they did sell their art, but they didn't create their art /in order to sell it/. It's entirely different nowadays, when art's become a commodity - thanks a lot Andy Warhol. ;)

I don't think just because somebody draws - or even draws well - they're an "artist". I think you have to be the kind of person who'd let the "business" end of your undertakings go to hell so long as you do what you want to do - and say what you feel you have to say. If a piece doesn't "say" something at any expense, how is it art?, it's just a commodity. It's a gallon of gasoline, it's a box of matches.

Tyger, from a mere dreamer of features to a guy who's had the guts and the talent to make them happen, keep it up pal. ;)

Actually Tyger I agree with more than I don't and you have shown that you have created some cool stuff, most of it's live action, but to get that many actors together and actually complete a project is something to applaud.

But you need to find your own individual voice and focus on that, after all that's what the cavemen were doing. You seem to have kind of found your bliss, which I am really pleased to see. Follow it now. Don't try to resurrect someone else's lost project, build your own until it's so high in the sky no one can ignore it.

And Ecec I look forward to seeing your stuff when you feel like sharing it.

Pat

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

The notions of "art" opposed to "commerce" in this discussion are a little off to me.

Being paid for something has nothing to with its status as a "commercial" or "artistic" work.

Further, applying notions of 19th Century Capitalism to pre-Enlightenment society is, as they say, apples to oranges.

One has to look at the work itself to determine where it stands on the meter of artistic relevance.

I would argue that the distinction between the "commercial" and the "artistic" can be distinguished fairly simply. A work of art gives us a better understanding of the human condition. A piece of crafted commerce explains/sells/promotes one idea.

This stems from notions of communication being a trafficking of ideas, and "commerce" being these exchanges. Too much to go into here.

This is why you can go to an art gallery and immediately distinguish great works. This is how you can tell a fraud in a beret.

From this point of view, I have always felt that "The Thief and the Cobbler" was closer to a "commercial" work. It leaves you with one thought -"this guy is a great animation director". I have never gotten much beyond that.

Allow to add, I don't see any inherent quality judgement in either term. Obviously the philosophy aggrandizes "art", probably too highly -as there is great joy to be found in works of commerce as well.

That, sir, is awsome.
It's great that you're reproducing this movie in a fan-version, and as long as you say it's a fan-work you should be okay. That's thinking morally, but the money gremlins out there might say otherwise. Good luck with your production.

I have to express general agreement with Richard. I'd never heard of this film until I saw this thread and watched the trailer - and I couldn't help but be a little embarrassed by how /hard/ the animators were trying to excite me, but how purely technical was the nature of their creation. There was mathematical precision to everything, and I've never watched an animation that played more smoothly - but it was all technical, stylistic gimmick. It reminded me of Fantasia 2000, which had a lot of the same problems - but at least it had one or two nice classical pieces in it. Even in this trailer, the music seemed to be a lot of whimsical bluster - a 'vibe' characteristic of the visual aspects as well.
Almost every expression was symmetrical and every 'extreme' emotion or action meant a super-closeup and the waggling of the character's head back and forth. Like marrionettes - falling far short of what these animators could've done if they'd been a bit more in-tune with, I don't know, human feeling?, instead of drafting? I don't know - it's the animation equivelant, I think, of big-budget Hollywood effects, to place such an emphasis on technical skill and smoothness rather than on truly unique and exciting expressions, actions, and dialogue.
Nevertheless, when the film's made available, I'll watch it - it's interesting, if not, for me, exciting. And I think it's awesome somebody's doing this, and big thanks to him for it - though I can't help but feel a little uneasy when someone who acknowledges the dangers of copyright violation makes a big public statement about their project /before/ it's released, certainly it would've been smarter to wait... Not that I care about copyrights, but the most minimal consideration of the danger should've led anyone intent on such a project to keep their mouths shut until the thing was out. :| But goodluck anyhow!

p.s. and of course it goes without saying that only an utter dilettante who hasn't even started art school yet would type a reply like mine :~)

p.p.s. for the final trailer, might want to cut down on the time your captions linger onscreen. seriously, a lot of one's view of the animation was blocked because words were left up a whole lot longer than needed in order for any reasonably literate person to read them. just a suggestion ;)

The Thief

I still haven't had a chance to see the work print which I would love to. I actually really enjoy the final version (minus the music). I have heard alot about the work print and I couldn't imagine the animation isn't grand.

ecec, I would say go read a little on the history of the movie and Richard Williams. He is very techinical and a master of perspective. One of my favorite pieces of animation is a scene from the title to one of the Pink Panther movies. He did this brillaint turn around with the Pink Panther pointing his cane out.

Well what Mister Williams does, he's great at!, I won't dispute that. I'm just, personally, not excited by that kind of thing, that's not my preference and that's, in many ways, a subjective thing. And like I said I'll still watch this once this "recobbled" edition is complete, it does seem interesting. :)

I wouldn't judge this movie on the basis of this trailer! It is, after all, a trailer made by a fan, highlighting some of his own favorite shots of the movie. The filmmaker himself would probably have promoted the film differently. I did intend it, as a trailer, to be big and loud and impressive - I could have gone the subtle angle, but said "screw it." If you can be big and impressive, I like to go that way.

Trailers are designed to catch a viewer's interest. I wasn't aware that the trailer would become a means of judging the film itself! A film which is generally quite subtle and apt. Anyway.

It's a classic film which an animator can learn a lot from ... a "lost" film seriously in need of unearthing and reappraisal ... and ought to be on your shelf anyway if you've got The Animator's Survival Kit.

Well.

I honestly don't think I'm going to have called this one wrong as far as my own tastes are concerned. But of course I'll still watch it and if I end up liking something about it I'm not going to deny it. :) And I've shown your project to some friends of mine with a lot more education in animation who just can't wait for it to be done. ;D As for me, yeah, I tend to agree with you and I think that something with such highly technical emphasis is probably going to teach me something - there are a couple perspectives and compositions of scenes in the trailer that I dig, for example when the fellow I assume to be the titular "Thief" is running towards as a spherical world reminiscent of rubberlimbs-cartoons rolls beneath him. That's nothing new, really, but I still like the way they did it here. The rolling clouds featured in a few shots really appeal to me too.
And don't be afraid to make us all download something that's 3-4 GB!, if you really want to show-off the movie. :D

And I did as you suggested and just read a bit about the history of the film and, well, fuck me for saying shitty stuff about something a guy worked on for over two decades and then had ruined. ;) It's not what I want in an end-all be-all feature animation, but if somebody goes through all of that to see a vision through to the end, one's obligated to take it seriously and treat it respectfully.

Yep - this picture was the life's work of a great animator, and it's a ridiculous shame that it never got released in any non-terrible fashion.

And that's why I'm restoring it. =)

I know one or two people who worked on it, (-well, who in animation doesn't, considering it took over thirty years to complete?-), and I'm most impressed by its overall style and clean-up quality. It's not that it's a style in which I'd prefer to see EVERY animated movie, sometimes whole scenes melt into a kaleidoscope of patterns and shapes which can get a tad much, but it's an impressive achievement nonetheless. I also like Vincent Price's voice-work, whether it be Rattigan, the Thief or the narrator of Tim Burton's "Vincent".

I should re-iterate, the animation itself is great.

The notion that the big Hollywood studio somehow prevented Williams (who is a lovely and charming man) from the realization of his dream is pure fantasy.

He had been working on the film for 20 years, and may well have worked on it for 20 more. He made a deal to "complete" the picture, got financing to do so, and still could not bring it to conclusion.

Perhaps this is because there was no overall vision for the film, or that it had been lost after all that time. So what we're left with is details, virtuoso animation in the context of narrative mediocrity.

The narrative flaws are not the results of the completion bond takeover, they are intrinsic in the film.

Further, the fetishising of this film throughout the world of animation is, to me, indicative of a larger problem with animators in general -the disregard for the bigger picture of the medium and the obsession with the tricks of the trade, and with the cult of celebrity.

While I'm not defending Completion Bond and Disney's actions, given the history of the production and the state it was in at the time of the takeover, I find it hard to accept that Williams version would have been a significantly better film than the Arabian Knights.

Hey, Tygerbug you have all this time, energy and love of animation, why not do something really unique to you. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the copyright issues.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

Wow - that's a lot of copyrighted material you're messing around with. Hope you've secured all the rights you need to.

oh man, i remember that movie. and I mean that as loosly as possible. The pictures i recall.

I do not remember anything about it though.

"who wouldn't want to make stuff for me? I'm awesome." -Bloo

I know Richard Williams seemed pretty dead set on getting a director's cut of this film finished up and released on dvd.. I have not heard anything about that effort in years though. I would love to see a more true version of the movie.. Is your restoration affiliated with Williams's?

If not, then I just hope he appreciates your effort.

It's just a fan project - the idea is that if this unofficial version gets out there and circulating, is popular enough and copied enough, it might show Disney that there is a market there, adn they might be more inclined to push ahead with a restoration.

There was a major problem with Disney when they told Richard Williams that he wouldn't be paid for his involvement with the recut! Williams had always hoped the movie would be a blockbuster.

I haven't gotten in touch with Williams himself yet, but more than one animator who worked on the film has helped on this version. Wound up in touch with some well-known animators, and even a guy who knew people who worked on the Calvert version!

As far as Hollywood preventing Williams from realizing his dream ... well, they did. The company took it away from him.

The part that's missing from that last sentence is "...because he didn't finish it when he said he would."

For someone with as much moviemaking experience as you say you have, you should know that completion bonds only kick in when the production is way behind schedule. Which is what happened here - Williams didn't meet his deadlines, and the legal agreement he'd signed went into effect.

When you're spending someone else's money, you have to live up to your part of the bargain, or they take away the project. Just ask John K....

It's just a fan project - the idea is that if this unofficial version gets out there and circulating, is popular enough and copied enough, it might show Disney that there is a market there, adn they might be more inclined to push ahead with a restoration.

Or they could push ahead with a lawsuit. It won't matter that it's just "a fan project" if it gets copied enough so that Disney can't make a profit by selling a legitimate version. They could come after you for copyright infringement and ruining the market potential for any DVD they may have planned.

It's great that you've gotten animators from the project involved, but they're not the copyright holders. In the eyes of the law, they produced "work for hire," and have no legal claim to their footage. And talking to Williams won't do you much good, since he doesn't have ownership of the film anymore either.

I'm one of the many that would LOVE to see a restored version of this film. Williams' work is so beautiful and masterfully executed that it makes the Calvert footage look like it was drawn by right-handed monkeys using their left hands. That said, you should be very careful in what you're attempting. Disney's not afraid to use their lawyers, and you won't stand a chance if they decide to come after you.

Williams also ran the most successful and most talented commercial studio in England for over a decade.

One could argue that he had the means to complete his picture independently before striking his Disney deal. As you know, Tygerbug, having completed three feature films in under 24 years, it is not an insurmountable task to keep on schedule.

If I were to play armchair pyschologist, I would guess that he had some deep-seated disinterest in completing the work. Many people, surprisingly strong numbers in this field, have this Quixote syndrome.

>> It won't matter that it's just "a fan project" if it gets copied enough so that Disney can't make a profit by selling a legitimate version.

We both know that would be impossible. They would make a profit if they released it, and anyone who has this version would buy that in a minute.

I shouldn't admit how many legitimate versions of the film I've purchased on various formats.

I don't fear lawyers ... it'll be out on the net long before I'm shut down by anyone.

I don't fear lawyers ... it'll be out on the net long before I'm shut down by anyone.

That's like saying "I don't fear the heated coils on top of the stove because my finger won't be pressing into them for -too- long."

Can't be out too long before the sights get set on it, since you're broadcasting your intentions on the boards of one of the world's most popular animation sites. Evasion usually works better when you don't make yourself a target.

We both know that would be impossible. They would make a profit if they released it, and anyone who has this version would buy that in a minute.

Seems to me they could be ticked off -enough- to do damage if there was even a provable -threat- to their profits...to think otherwise in a world of five-finger-discounts on movies (and that's being rented or bought, not online, the DEN of thievery) is kind of naive.

We both know that would be impossible. They would make a profit if they released it, and anyone who has this version would buy that in a minute.

Tell that to Shaun Fanning and the Napster folks. I'm sure they'd have some stories to tell you...

I'm suggesting you should be careful. Do what you like; it's your future and your finances you're putting at risk - not mine.

I do create original works, constantly.

At the age of 24 I've directed seven features and over thirty shorts. I'm currently working on two animated pilots (looking for animators by the way) and a puppet based pilot.

I am constantly writing screenplays, and have amassed quite a body of work in my time here on this planet.

This project is just a few weeks out of my time to do justice to an animated legend. It's no skin off my back and it's damn well worth it.

As far as Hollywood preventing Williams from realizing his dream ... well, they did. The company took it away from him. He worked on it for twenty-plus years because it was always a side project that he didn't have real funding for. It was used as a training process for young artists. A weird way to make a movie, but it really suited Richard's perfectionist ways, as he didn't have to answer to anyone except himself, and could get it done when he damn well felt like it.

From 1988 to 1992, the project was finally funded, and things REALLY got moving on the project, since it was now the main thing being worked on. Animation was being completed at a much faster speed. Quite an impressive speed actually - comparing the Williams workprint from 1992 (just a few weeks before it was taken from him) with the Fred Calvert workprint from just shortly after, there's a HUGE amount of animation which is suddenly fully pencilled for inking and ready to go (or finished from the pencils), which was done in just those few weeks. Impressive. I've heard stories of the big "final push" there at the studio, and there's your proof of it.

The film was taken away from Williams in 1992, and if it hadn't been, he certainly could have gotten the film done by the time it was actually released in the US, in 1995. This is even taking into account his perfectionist ways, since a fast studio could have gotten it done in half a year rather than 3 years. There wasn't very much work left to go on the film. 15% sounds right.

You can dislike the film all you want, but the suggestion that Williams' version wouldn't have been better than the pathetic "Arabian Knight" is ludicrous. Watching the two versions back to back is seeing a great film and seeing a film which makes you vomit. Why don't you show Arabian Knight back to back with my restoration sometime and see if people think they're equal ...

I'm well aware of the facts of the case. The fact that he didn't have outward funding was a major part of what kept the film in an unfinished state for so long - he states this as the reason in a 1989 doc ("because I didn't have the money to finish it").

He didn't know how good he had it, working on it independently. Getting outside funding made him able to ahead with a full production on it, but it's what got it taken away from him.

Sigh. Anyway.

I don't have any Hollywood experience - my mentioning the seven features/thirty shorts/etc I've directed was my response to "why don't you do something original" ... just to mention that I have and do. I work independently on nonexistent budgets.

This is a great example of why commerce and art can't really go together. Commerce destroys art ...

This is a great example of why commerce and art can't really go together. Commerce destroys art ...

With all due respect, this is a pretty naive statement. Do you show your films for free, always? Give away DVDs of them to anyone who asks? Never charge a penny for any of your work? Of course not. You wanna get paid, right?

Commerce is part of art, and always has been. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know their art history, past or present. Why do you think galleries exist? Part of becoming a successful artist is figuring out how to balance the business aspects of the work with the creative aspects.

So are you restoring it to the original version, like taking out all the songs and making the cobbler a mute?

I think it's great that you love the film so much to do this, but I would just be careful. Disney has been know to set their sights on preschools, and the like, with un-authorized Disney characters painted on their walls.

Aloha,
the Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Several people have tried similar things with this film (I know of a few).

Several other people who had worked on it remarked on what a ridiculous endeavor it is since there never was a "Director's" version and the film itself was mediocre by grown up film standards.

Speaking as someone who has seen hours of pencil test and rough footage of this film, you embark on a narcissitic endeavor lionizing a narcissitic and fatally flawed project.

The animation may be excellent, but really, that's the problem with animators -as shown clearly by this film. They fetishize the technique more than the content.

The only thing you do by exploring or "recreating" the "lost" film is destroy the myth that this is a cruelly destroyed masterpiece.

The powerful animation is there in the half dozen versions that are already circulating, some even without the Cobbler's voiceover (which to me was ten times worse than the music), one I've seen from SE Asia without the songs.

Knock yourself out, though.

Yeah!, art and commerce mix /great/!, just ask Saatchi & Saatchi. ;)

I'm doing my utmost to learn how to animate precisely in order to give everything I do on my own away for free?, so um there /are/ people who don't quite meet your logic i guess, it's not an utter impossibility. :-o

I don't think cartooning qualifies as "art" unless it expresses something worthy of the word. Art hasn't "always been linked to commerce", that's silly. :) Caveman didn't paint on walls to sell a blessed thing, neither did the Greeks craft their sculptures to - in both cases, art was a /social/ endeavor, not a commercial endeavor. It wasn't until art became a profession that it was linked to commerce - and then you have, well, centuries of portraits of rich old goofs, with a Bosch or Michelangelo or Rembrandt every couple decades or so. But the greatest artists of recent times have all defied commerce - they had to eat, sure, so they did sell their art, but they didn't create their art /in order to sell it/. It's entirely different nowadays, when art's become a commodity - thanks a lot Andy Warhol. ;)

I don't think just because somebody draws - or even draws well - they're an "artist". I think you have to be the kind of person who'd let the "business" end of your undertakings go to hell so long as you do what you want to do - and say what you feel you have to say. If a piece doesn't "say" something at any expense, how is it art?, it's just a commodity. It's a gallon of gasoline, it's a box of matches.

Tyger, from a mere dreamer of features to a guy who's had the guts and the talent to make them happen, keep it up pal. ;)

It might not be your cup of tea, but it is a good film y'know. I've always liked it. Quite a lot of people like it, even in the awful quality workprint version. Everything that's been said about much of it (the Thief's adventures particularly) being plotless and just done for the purposes of animating it, is true enough, and that doesn't hurt the film either. I'd rather watch this than pretty much any movie out there.

So, hey.

It's enough to just say "I don't know," and move on. It's easy to catch when people are talking out of their arse, and even easier to blow a million holes in their arse-speak if they develop an attitude.

I learned that from retail =)

If it is easier, then do it?, teach me something I don't know? I'm not just talking out of my ass, I've made a bit of a study and these are the lessons I've drawn from it?
The function of art throughout history has been to express the ideas and feelings of the artist - if a piece isn't doing that, if it's about money, how's it at all the same? Most artists throughout history have, in fact, died poor. But nowadays, "successful" artists aren't doing any art at all, then - from Saatchi to Disney.
An artist has to do mundane things apart from artwork - like eating, like living in some kind of home, perhaps providing for a family. That's always been the case?, but even so throughout history, from the greats, you have behavior like Goya's for example - whose greatest paintings weren't even painted on canvas, but on the walls of his house, on plaster, never meant to be sold. Their function wasn't to be sold, it was to express something.
Nobody knows the names of the prehistoric artists, and the vast majority of Greek art was anonymous - the teachers, the tutors, they're the vast majority of the ones whose names we know. In these societies, it was common for the sections of society with the free time to paint to do so.
And then follow centuries of great artists, who sold their paintings, yes - but that's completely unlike the "art industry" of today, where the deliberate and conscious purpose of the production of the artwork is to sell it - where commerce is it's function. In the field of animation you have, you know, one wretched Flash cartoon or anime knockoff or whatever after another, shows made just to sell action figures, etc., and in the wider artistic sphere you've got nonsense like sharks in jars, spires made of rats, a couple shapes and lines on an otherwise blank canvas...
I dunno - I guess it's easier to accuse someone of talking out of their ass instead of acknowledging a differing view as legitimate regardless of your agreement? :-o
This is stuff I've read or heard at lectures, it's not just a little fable I made up to have something to type. If it's wrong, well that may be so?, but it's not just made-up. :|

I dunno - I guess it's easier to accuse someone of talking out of their ass instead of acknowledging a differing view as legitimate regardless of your agreement? :-o

Who said I was addressing anyone specifically?...interesting, though...

Oh. :-o
Well if you weren't talking about me then nevermind. :~)
I thought you were!, oops. :)

Michelangelo was perhaps the greatest sculptor of all time, yet he spent many years in the prime of his career painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Why? Because his patron, the Pope, required it of him.

Few would argue that the ceiling is not a fantastic work of art, yet it was produced under a commercial agreement between the two parties. The Pope supported Michelangelo financially while he created.

More recently, the salon system of the late 19th/early 20th century was all about the commercial aspects of art, yet there are undisputed masterworks that were created under that system.

It's not limited to the graphic arts either. Mozart was a "court composer", funded by the king.

Van Gogh is the only major artist who has a claim to creating art for art's sake, having only sold one painting during his lifetime. And not for lack of trying - his brother Theo was his patron and representative his whole life, and spent years trying to sell Vincent's paintings in the galleries with which Theo was associated.

Greek society also supported creation of art and sculpture through commissions and patronage.

Sorry, but the concept of "art for art's sake" is a relatively new one. A careful study of art history proves it.

- where commerce is it's function. In the field of animation you have, you know, one wretched Flash cartoon or anime knockoff |

I am waiting to see something original from you. I have seen a lot of dreadful stuff financed by big companies and provided through video, it's easy to sling arrows towards the little guy if no one calls you on it, it's another thing if they tell you to put up or shut up!

I also realise you have been changing your posts I saw one earlier that said your big stories for all your productions etc, was just to get folks off your back.

At the age of 24 I've directed seven features and over thirty shorts. I'm currently working on two animated pilots (looking for animators by the way) and a puppet based pilot.

I want links to your work before I take you seriously.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

Michelangelo was perhaps the greatest sculptor of all time, yet he spent many years in the prime of his career painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Why? Because his patron, the Pope, required it of him.

Sorry, but the concept of "art for art's sake" is a relatively new one. A careful study of art history proves it.

Damn DSB, you beat me to it. I was going to use Big Mike too. I'm bad with remembering numbers, but I thought he painted the Sistine Chapel in either just under a year, or around two years. I have to go check my notes when I get home.

In the old times, there wasn't much free time. People had to hunt, and fish and plant and build shelters and run away from lions and things. Most of the art was practical. Cave paintings were just some guy doodling on the wall, they were sacred rituals to give magic to the hunters so they would have a successful hunt. Granted he wasn't paid to paint, but if you stretch you could say the shammen was paid in food from the hunt. Greek and Roman statues were commitioned by patrons, and artist would paint on bowls and jars to make their wares more atractive to sell.

Of course there are always exceptions, like Goya and others, but like DSB said, art for art's sake is relitively new, pretty much since the invention of the camera.

Back on topic...

It'll be interesting to see your version of this film Tyger, and I look forward to seeing it. I've seen both the work in progress version with no songs and a mute Cobbler, as well as the "finished" version with songs and such. I found myself not really liking either version. The WIP version didn't really hold my attention, and the songed version had problems of it's own. I'm up for seeing it again.

Aloha,
the Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Some of you are being frankly ridiculous. I give up when my words are being misinterpreted on purpose by people who should know better. That's just silly. There will always be people who will want to blame Williams for the collapse of this project. These people are provably wrong, but that's hardly relevant either.

The battle between commerce and art in the film world, and by extension the animation world, is well worn territory known to everyone. Film and animation is most certainly an art form, but it's an art form which can't be done by one person, due to the size of the project - it's an art form which requires huge amounts of money, and needs to make huge amounts of money back. This sets it apart from other art forms, in that there is no singular "artist," and the writer and/or director has to give up creative control to varying extents, with the interference of studio and outside forces possibly damaging and ruining the integrity of the "art." Considering the difficulty of making any film, it's a miracle when a truly original work of art comes out of this insane and difficult process.

The Thief and the Cobbler is a truly original work of art representing a vision of a great animator ... It still has a cult following despite being utterly crushed by the realities of commerce via art.

Richard Williams wasn't creating this for the sake of art alone ... he always intended it to be a huge blockbuster, and spent huge amounts of his own money on it.

To answer an earlier comment, yes, personally I'm not ruled by the bottom line, and I actually do give away copies of my movies for free to anyone who asks. This is because I'm not connected in Hollywood, not a "name," and any exposure helps. Similar to how garage bands don't mind their music being downloaded on P2P, whereas it would piss off Metalica. I'm still very much a lone artist, just because I'm young and undiscovered and poor and doing my thing ... starving artist. I suppose when you're only spending your own money (as Williams mostly did for much of the film's production time), you don't have to answer to anybody and can have creative control, but then again you can't create anything really huge and impressive without quite a lot of money ...

A few of my own "artistic" works, largely done alone and without money. Since you asked.
http://www.ffrevolution.com/1ocpvideos/gods05trailer1.mov
http://www.orangecow.org/videos/squiffytoon.rm
http://orangecow.org/videos/truesong.rm
http://orangecow.org/videos/mort.rm
http://orangecow.org/videos/loverspoison.rm
http://orangecow.org/ocpvideo.html