So, we’ve come full circle.

The first serious post on this blog was published on April 2nd, 2010 and now, fifteen years later, I publish the last serious post on this blog. How amusing that both posts concern the same film, How to Train Your Dragon.

Yes, I saw the trailer during the Superbowl and knew instantly that all the passion is gone.

Many thanks to everyone who’s read and commented down through the years.

Charles

If you work in the animation industry, how worried should you be about AI stealing your job? Well, the answer isn’t a straight one unfortunately, but that doesn’t mean that AI isn’t coming for your job; it just means it isn’t coming for it in the way you may think.

Artificial Intelligence or ‘AI’ is a trendy buzzword to describe a skill that computers have had for decades. (If you’ve ever used a filter in Photoshop, then you’ve used ‘AI’ on a more basic level.) The only thing that’s changed is the massive computing power that’s become possible in recent years, and the ability to parse enormous volumes of data that such power provides.

Years ago, in an article I can no longer find, the author made a point of discussing Michael Bay’s approach to CGI in his Transformers films; in other words, the excessive amount of it. The one point that struck with me from that article was the one that said something to the effect of ‘if you can be replaced by a computer, you will be replaced by a computer’. A scary thought to be sure, and it’s true for every job besides the ones that are physically demanding (although technology has come for those in the past too).

We’ve seen it before

So that got me thinking about how a computer could come for workers in the animation industry. But first, a caveat: we’ve been here before! The prospect of technology cleaving off whole departments is nothing new, even within animation. The Xerox machine (photocopier) took over the role of the inker in the 1960s. Two decades later and it was the painter’s turn as CAPS was developed. Since then there’s been the transition from traditional hand-drawn animation to 2-D and 3-D CGI, and digital projection has supplanted 35mm film.

What’s important to remember is that the Xerox machine, CAPS, and CGI software such as Renderman, Adobe Flash, etc. are all just tools. While they did replace individual workers in roles, they did not replace all of them, and did not do so all at once; Disney animators working on TRON would not become “obsolete” for more than a decade and even then hand-drawn animation continues to be made. These tools also opened up new roles that did not exist before. (Here’s a thought: does a second of hand-drawn animation require more or fewer people to create than one second of CGI animation?)

Is AI simply a tool or is it something else though?

One the one hand it is definitely a beneficial tool to some. Need a story treatment but stuck with creative block? ChatGPT could probably throw you a lifeline with an idea. On the other hand, it is definitely a threatening tool to others. Visual development artists will find intrusions into their work if they have not done so already. After all, why pay someone to create a visual concept for a show from scratch when you can just throw your desires into a machine and have it do the hard work for free? And if you’re a writer, what can help you in one way could hinder you in another as studios no longer look for you to write scripts so much as finesse what a machine drafted first. UPDATE: as of writing, the WGA has decided to strike with one of their concerns being the use of AI to replace writers, and the use of writer’s creations in the training of AI models.

My point is that the ‘AI’ is going to be both a benefit and a threat. The low hanging fruit of static art, music, and the written text is being picked at now. Motion pictures will come later this decade.

How worried should you be?

Perhaps not as much as the media and AI hype men are making out you should be, but also not enough that you can ignore it completely. A computer can apparently write text in the style of a human sort of well, and can even create a new song in the style of Drake. But the text isn’t perfect, and the fact that AI can create a song by a top artist probably says more about the sorry state of popular music than it does about its creative chops.

From the consumer’s perspective it’s a different story. The possibilities include your favourite song being used to extrapolate and create additional, AI-generated variations. As I wrote back in 2016, a company like YouTube is ideally situated to exploit the audience’s demand for more of the same based on the amount of data they collect. It is not a far stretch to see episodes or shows tailor-made for you and you alone. AI will get us there and satiate the intense desire for entertainment.

Except that there is a difference between the kind of content that YouTube contains and more traditional channels. YouTube is the fast food to Disney’s four course meal. As I noted in 2016, a hefty chunk of the audience is more than happy to subsist on fast food with the occasional more substantive meal.

Nibbling Around the Edges

Ultimately what we are going to see is AI nibbling around the edges. Scripts will get some help, visual development will get a shot of interpretation, animation itself will get some AI-infused movement and/or automation (i.e. no more inbetweeners), even musical scores will go through the AI ringer. It isn’t all going to change at once; especially since AI art has a way to go before it can even accurately recreate something that already exists.

Think of it as akin to the switch from hand-drawn to digital animation. A whole slew of young artists got a headstart by only learning digital. Many older workers were able to transition with a bump or two. A few masters couldn’t make the leap but while their skills were no longer useful to production, their knowledge of technique was immensely valuable to younger artists. AI technology in production will follow a similar pattern.

Preparing for the AI Threat

How can you insulate yourself against the AI threat? On the one hand, you can’t, unfortunately; job opportunities will just get fewer and fewer. What you can do, though, is learn whatever new skills are coming to the fore. Check job listings to see what skills employers are starting to look for. E.g. AI can spit out stories, but whoever can input the best prompts and get the best results will get a gig. Knowing how to pull the right levers in the right way in Stable Diffusion will give you an advantage over someone who does not. Look at ways your current skills can translate into new ones. Seek out training or certification on new technologies in the same way you do for animation software now.

A saying I’ve come to respect is the one that says ‘technology never goes backward’. That is, once a technological advancement is introduced, there is no going back. The earth may be dying, but nobody is pulling the air conditioner out of their house. Once people saw talkies, they weren’t going to content with silent films any longer. The same is true with AI and animation: as it changes the production landscape, nobody will go back to relying on manual processes. They either won’t commit the time and resources, or they simply won’t be satisfied with the results. That’s disappointing to write because the immense human creativity out there will take a hit, even if it is ultimately allowed to shine through. It is, however, the best way to understand how change will affect you.

Fifteen years ago, the WGA went on strike partly because they perceived the rise of streaming would have an adverse effect on their member’s incomes (writers at the time did not receive residuals on streamed content; only broadcasts and home media sales. This time around they (personal opinion) are attempting to close the door after the horse has bolted with regard to AI use. A resolution will be reached or course, but will the AI can simply be kicked down the road (for studios to exploit in the interim) or will we see writers having to embrace it?

It’s hard to say exactly when AI will consume current jobs and roles, but preparing for the inevitable is the best course of action. How will you do so?

As a parting message, here is a film created to document the last day of using hot metal type to create The New York Times before the newspaper switched to digital typesetting. It’s a fascinating documentary on technological change:

Readers of a certain age may already know where this ends up but for those unfamiliar, here is a primer:Yes, that’s actors John Goodman and Rick Moranis as Fred and Barney respectively in the live-action Flintstones movie from 1994.

I put out a call on Socel for someone to have a go at my idea since I didn’t think I could do it myself and lo and behold, Wobbe F. Koning replied and delivered!

So can current AI technology generate art that’s close to reality or is if just a whimsical plaything? Here’s the results.

Here’s MidJourney’s attempt:

And here’s Stable Diffusion’s attempt

Will you have nightmares tonight? I think I will.

Add your thoughts with a comment!

It boggles the mind! At a time when every streaming service is racing to cram as much content as they can afford into their services, one decides to go in the opposite direction.

You’ve not doubt seen the stories; dozens of animated shows disappearing from Warner Bros. Discovery’s streaming services, almost-complete films scrapped, artistic endeavours cast off as mere implements of a tax-avoidance strategy, creators finding out their own shows were yanked via social media. All in all, it’s a series of bad news eminating from the company no matter who you are. And before you ask, no, the company’s stockholders didn’t fare any better either.

The most obvious question (why?) is a bit odious. Numbers were crunched, the costs of merging two companies have to be met, and the results say as much. Except the response is near-universal and the only people that are apparently pleased are those at the very top. The less obvious questions concern the decisions that revolve around the strategy. The company cans a load of content to save a buck; then what?

Well, on the one hand, the company thinks that by slimming down their offerings, they can create growth from a smaller core audience. On the other hand, that’s 20th Century cable network thinking in a 21st Century streaming age. Perhaps it’s no surprise given that HBO pioneered the premium approach in the first place by charging more, but offering the kind of entertainment you couldn’t find anywhere else. That’s a business model that’s over the hill though. Streaming is a winner-take-all game that Hollywood only realised too late when Netflix lapped up streaming rights for basically nothing and locked studios out of their own content for those crucial first years.

You see, with streaming, you either offer everything to everyone, or watch consumers use your competitors. Now everyone is playing catch-up and only Disney, with its exceptionally deep pockets, can lay claim to gaining ground. They did not buy 20th Century FOX just for kicks, they needed that company’s library, production capabilities, and brand to expand Disney+’s offerings to truly cater to everyone.

Where does animation fit into all this? Animation tends to appeal to a wide variety of audiences and tends to remain perennially popular. That makes animation good for a service’s library. Old shows can sit there, waiting to be discovered (or rediscovred). I cannot fathom that the marginal cost of storing and streaming content (compared to producing it) is enough to justify removing it altogether. How easy could it have been for WBD to simply stop producing new shows instead of obliterating them like they did?

The other aspect is that kids like animation. They like it a lot. Kids don’t have control over which streaming services they use, but their parents do. It’s not as emphasised now as much as it used to be, but a key focus of Netlfix’s marketing approach is families and Disney have followed suit. How many parents are re-evaluating their subscription to TWD’s services now? Throw in a cost of living crisis and it’s not hard to see where the trimmings might come from. Fast forward 5-10 years and you have a company that’s broken just about all of the Twenty Two Immutable Laws of Marketing.

So is animation a root cause or merely collatoral damage? I’d say it’s a mixture of both seeing as animation is expensive to produce but also tends to deliver greater long-term value; emphasis on the tends to. One could argue that both Warner Bros. and Discovery have failed to devote enough time, energy, and resources to their animated offerings, saw the writing on the wall, and simply decided to give up.

Based on the novel of the same name, Fortune Favors Lady Nikuko is another indie feather in the cap of GKIDS and Shout! Factory.

“Brash single mother Nikuko is well-known for her bold spirit, much to the embarrassment of Kikuko, her pensive yet imaginative daughter. In contrast to her mother, Kikuko wants nothing more than to fit in as she navigates the everyday social dramas of middle school. Life in the harbor is peaceful until a shocking revelation from the past threatens to uproot the pair’s tender relationship.”

Yet again, eastern creators show up just how stale and predictable American filmmaking has become and while Disney’s latest critical success is trumpeted from the rooftops, fantastic films like this continue to find favor with critics and viewers alike. Fortune Favors Lady Nikuko is a quirky film that tells a story and is a refreshing change from films that merely document a quest. Centre stage is of course, Nikuko herself. A somewhat tragic, yet irrepressible character; her boundless optimism in the face of adversity contrasts starkly with her daughter Kikuko who is neither as jovial, or as optimistic, yet is perhaps the real adult in the relationship. Their bifurcated relationship is nonetheless strong made with a unique mother-daughter bond.

The story meanders and at one point I was left wondering where things were going but by the end I realised that it’s less about where things are going and more about where they’ve been.

The animation is lively, and watching this film on a full stomach is required lest the stunning depictions of food overwhelm your experience. Pixar spent however many millions in an attempt to create appealing CGI food in Ratatouille and a traditionally animated film like this comes along and proves it was all in vain.

The only shortcoming is to be found in the writing; it’s serviceable but doesn’t do the story or the characters the justice they deserve.

Fortune Favors Lady Nikuko is primarily a retrospective film and how the various episodes and choices in life invariably lead us to places we never anticipated. One wishes that more western animated films could be as bold.

Fortune Favors Lady Nikuko is available on Blu-Ray DVD combo from Shout! Factory now.

Eighty-something years is a pretty good run though, right?

All good things come to an end and animation at the cinema is no different. Cinemas are struggling and (at least in the US) audiences have been declining for a long time even as studios tout rising box office revenues to deflect attention from that. The COVID-19 pandemic merely bought forward the inevitable switch to streaming by a good five or so years; hastening the end of the every-man multiplex.

Which means the golden age of animation at the cinema appears to be over. The slow return of films (and audiences) to cinemas coupled with numerous studios’ decision to release films directly to streaming suggests that the cinema as a regularly occurring experience is finished.

…the larger discussion revolves around whether studios like Pixar can afford to create, and maintain the infrastructure to deliver, films costing hundreds of millions…

Lightyear is a symptom of this trend. Middling reviews aside, the film leans hard on Pixar’s brand without success. The studio’s other recent films have gone straight to Disney+; leading to staffers moaning on Twitter that the films are devalued as a result.

It’s a bit more complicated than that though. Films costs have to be recouped and the box office was the first route to doing so until now. Netflix demonstrated that film costs could be decoupled from outright performance and instead folded into overall subscriber revenues; you spend the money you have and not the money you’ll hope you have in an effort to maintain and grow income in the future.

Mainstream culture has changed and the concept of a monoculture where we all consume the same media is gone. We don’t all watch the same films (if we can even watch them all) let alone go to the same location to watch them. Complaining about films being denied their moment to shine at a movie house is anachronistic thinking. Parroting their performance when they succeed there is devoid of meaning. Saturday Night Live gets a lot of attention from media that intones a wildly influential show but the numbers watching, and the numbers of real people talking, tell a very different story. It doesn’t matter if SNL is actually funny; if everyone is busy watching something else to care, it can’t be a paragon of culture.

If anything, going straight to streaming is a sign of confidence in quality. Lightyear going to the box office is a sign that Disney figured they had to hedge their bets by recouping at least some of the film’s massive $200 million cost at the box office because their data most assuredly told them such a turkey wasn’t going to deliver any subscriber growth to Disney+.

I don’t agree with /Film’s take on Pixar’s future, especially since it focuses on the box office, and argues that Disney shouldn’t shy away from a studio who’s delivered hits in the past. I think the larger discussion revolves around whether studios like Pixar can afford to create, and maintain the infrastructure to deliver, films costing hundreds of millions if the return on investment isn’t as clear cut or as swift as the weekend box office.

Low Budget =/= Low Quality;

This is what Netflix has wrought: animated films that are decent quality yet low cost and delivered frequently. Large budget films exist because they had economics which supported them. What happens when those economics are no longer there or are unfavourable? Technology has also advanced to the point where technological prowess is kind of irrelevant. Will a $300 million film look better than a $75 million one? Probably. Will the audience notice enough to care…? Illumination’s success provides a definitive answer.

The Future?

What does the future hold? Like Spielberg, I agree (and have agreed since he made the remarks in 2013) that the cinema experience isn’t dead, but it will evolve into something that is consumed rarely; perhaps once or twice a year and with an increased focus on older films people want to see on a big screen with others. This will continue for a few decades until cinema itself becomes an anachronism like vaudeville, jukeboxes, and the cassette tape.

With the cinema in decline, what will animated films evolve into from here.

You can mourn the death of a fictional character but can you mourn the ‘death’ of a fictional character? Mindy Kaling’s ‘reimagining’ of Scooby Doo’s Velma sure seems like the death of the character we all know and love.

Why? I mean, Kaling is not short on talent but she couldn’t have created something original instead? She’s already remaking the character, how much additional effort would be needed to make one truly her own? Not much! one wonders whether Kaling pitched an original show that got shot down for [insert your own reasons here] but got a reprieve when some executive realised they could leverage existing IP by making it about Velma.

And why does it have to be for adults? We’ve seen time and again that ‘adult’ shows are a niche product while shows with broader appeal can be just as ‘adult’ without toeing the line between PG and Rule 34.

ITS AN ADULT ANIMATED SERIES, SEE THERES GORE AND A NAKED GIRL AND EVERYTHING! THATS HOW U KNOW IT'S FOR ADULTS!!

— Frankero 4000 (@FrankeroArt) May 18, 2022

The Simpsons is a prime example. You don’t get much more ‘adult’ than showcasing the effects of divorce on the kids, or even better, political campaigns. I suppose that’s all a bit too boring these days though.

The risk of officially-santioned Rule 34 material is also very real. Ren & Stimpy in its original series was a Nicktoon and while it was infamous for getting crap past the radar, when John K. was given free reign to indulge himself, the results are deeply buried for very good reasons; sullying the reputation of the original (amongst other reasons). The ‘nudge nudge, wink wink’ tone of a series mkaes for a good in-joke but once the secret was out, well, where’s the fun in that?

Will the same happen to Velma and Scooby Doo? What happens when Velma is taken beyond her natural environment of a kids show and relocated to a trope-laden college setting? Will the series be a critical take on female characters like Velma or is it destined to be a run-of-the-mill adult show with no real substance of any kind? Given the raft of such shows lately, my guess is a firm yes.

I like Velma, but can I like Kaling’s version of Velma? It’s too early to tell but I’m not optimistic.

What are you thoughts?

The axe swung hard at Netflix’s animation department this week. Management were forced out and shows either cancelled or cut entirely. Such actions are hardly a surprise given that Netflix subscriber numbers fell over the past quarter, but more intriguing is the news of Netflix’s extensive use of data to create and produce shows. It all adds up to a new era of disposable animation.

Netflix

Animators are a proud bunch and rightly so. Animation is not an easy artform to learn, let alone master. Animators draw upon a legacy that stretches back a hundred years whose earliest works continue to educate and inspire. Live-action can’t quite say the same; nobody makes silent films anymore but while rubber hose animation is antiquated, it never became obsolete either. Such longevity may be coming to an end and while the cause is not a single one, one company looms large: Netflix

Alternatively the hero or villain of the entertainment business, Netflix nonetheless pushed the industry into the modern era by catching it off-guard with streaming. Everyone struggled to catch up, while Netflix attempted to cement its moat with original content in every shape and form. Animation forms a key part of that moat; all the better to keep Disney at bay by acquiring younger viewers before they know who Disney even is. Netflix never set out to replace your favourite cable channel, it set out to replace your entire cable service. Ergo the often contradictory personality of the company’s offerings. High culture critical darlings on the one hand, and bargain basement, lowest common denominator trash TV on the other.

Animation was not going to escape the same fate and for every Midnight Gospel, there were a half dozen DreamWorks spinoffs. Yet the allure of a creative space with minimal executive interference was potent. Numerous high profile creators joined and excelled at Netflix and much like Nickelodeon thirty years prior, the results showed.

A Ruse

Yet, one wonders if their endeavours were actually part of a ruse. Not in the sense that Netflix would cast them off once the audience was acquired (which may or may not be or become true), but rather that Netflix, in its mad dash to build a library of content and reliance on data to get it there, was willing and able to actively devalue their contributions by drastically increasing the rate of production. There was a time when Disney would put out an animated film only once every three years. Then it became one every year, then it became one a quarter. Now Netflix is releasing one practically every week.

The company uses data extensively and in a capacity far beyond what Nielson ratings can ever hope to provide:

To put it simply, if you’re watching any TV show or movie on Netflix, it knows the date, location, and device being used to watch, as well as the time of your watching. On top of that, Netflix also knows about how and when you pause and resume your shows and movies. They also take into consideration if you are completing the show or not, how many hours, days, or weeks to complete the episode or a season or a movie.

Ultimately, it tracks every action taken by the user on Netflix and considers it as a data point. How many metrics will be there in total which Netflix might be using for data collection?

People and the data they produce changes over time though. What you liked as a kid is not what you may like today or what you may like in ten year’s time. Netflix does not care about the past or future though. They only care about the now, or rather, the future as far as it takes to produce and release a film or show. They produce things to appeal to viewers now. To grab their attention now. To keep watching Netflix now.

Netflix’s credo: Why rewatch an old favourite when a sparkly potential new favourite awaits to be discovered?

Caring (or Lack Thereof)

Truthfully, do audiences really even care? Netflix zeroed in on a formula that’s worked and will continue to refine it as the data suggests they should. Audiences demand entertainment; artists are among the few looking for fulfillment and a call to a greater cause. The former are concerned with their immediate gratification, not with the effort it took to gratify them or what happens to those involved thereafter. American football satiates an immediate need for pleasure; the lasting physical and psychological damage done to the players is the last thing on viewer’s minds.

Creators pour their heart and soul into passion projects hoping they will provide a lifetime of enjoyment but the reality is a flash in the pan. Culture moves so fast and things have to hit instantly and powerfully to even create awareness let alone viewership. Hence Netflix’s policy of only starting any marketing efforts a month in advance of release; any sooner and audiences will consider it old news by the time they can watch, if they even want to. Like I wrote in my recent Oscars post: stuff released in 2021 may as well have been released in 2001; that’s how old they appear now. Animation is not safer on other platforms either; all of which have the same library problem Netflix did but additionally face breakneck production schedules to catch up and keep pace with the industry leader.

Consume and Throw Away

What this adds up to is a new disposablness of animation. Artistic endeavours designed to be popular now and not the future, to be binged instantly before spending an eternity in a library; only ever a click away but obscured by a thicket of new content. The latest news out of Netflix reinforces this fear. A fear that even the greatest is simply no better than the average and no less fitting of a similar fate.

A final word of warning: animation is not a genre but may as well be as far as audiences are concerned. Westerns are a genre, and as they increased in popularity they too became formuaic and disposable and have deservedly languished in limbo for the past half a century.

There was a time when the animated Oscars could be considered relevant but those days are over. In case you missed it, this year’s ceremony dispensed with the Best Animated Short category from the live broadcast (relegating it to a prerecorded segment), and the Best Animated Feature went to Disney’s Encanto; the studio’s ninth win in ten years, and 13th win in 15 years (including Pixar films).

Which, if you’re the director of a Disney animated film, almost has to feel like a participation trophy, right? You received it because of what you did not how well you did it. The award may be worth something personally, but to everyone else, it’s like the New England Patriots winning another Superbowl; exciting for them, boring (and skippable) for the rest of us, and a concern for the NFL that needs high viewership. Disney is going to release a film every year, so what’s the point? That’s strike one.

It’s not a perfect system, but at least the Annie’s acknowledge that award ceremonies are capable of becoming dominated by the films intertwined with the voting membership. Hence their ‘Best Indie Feature’ category. The Oscars skates long and hard on its reputation as the pinnacle award in movie-making yet repeatedly baulks at recognising the downright refusal of its membership to consider animation as an equal to live-action. Why even bother participating in something that shows no sign of treating you any better? That’s strike two.

Do you know anyone who watches an animated film because it won an Oscar? Of course not, everyone watches them when they are released and instantly move on to the next new film. Let’s be honest here, the Oscars are as much a promotional/marketing machine as they are a recognition of the best. There is, however, no longer an ‘Oscar bump’ to boost winning films and in any case, films on streaming networks don’t obtain the same financial benefit. Recognising the best film from the previous year is also a laughable exercise in 2022. We’ve moved on to this year’s films which are so often in practice, simply better. Everything from 2021 is so far in the rearview mirror, we can’t even see it. So you watch a film and nine months later it wins an award? Do you care? Do you feel validated that you spent the time wisely? I wouldn’t and I suspect I’m not alone in that regard. That’s strike three.

Studios may continue to see value in gunning for an Academy Award but perhaps its time the industry as a whole just moves on. Consumers certainly have.

First it was the Florida law, then it was censoring Pixar films, then it was scratching a same-sex kiss in a film that’s since been canned entirely. What’s up with Disney’s actions? It depends on who you ask.

On the one hand, the company is savagely circumscribing queer kids and identity; on the other hand, it’s upholding social morals and protecting kids from the evils of homosexuality. Both sides are intransigent in their respective beliefs; while conveniently pushing their own agendas to their followers too.

So what’s the Disney company’s perspective? The company doesn’t make decisions by rolling dice. What’s its reasoning? It’s gotten lost in the mix and nobody seems to care. Why did they make the decisions they made?

It all comes down to money.

Shocking, I know, but for a corporation like Disney, money drives each and every decision they make. How much it’ll cost them now; how much it’ll cost them later. Who’s bonus will go up, who’s will go away. Will it push the stock higher, or make it drop? Such are the questions that are asked in decision meetings at the corporate level, but they are prevalent at the middle management level too.

So let’s take a closer look at each of the reasons Disney’s been in the news lately and see if we can crack their reasoning.

Don’t Say Gay

The first is Disney’s non-action regarding a Florida bill that aims to (amongst numerous other provisions) prevent schools and school personnel from discussing aspects of gender or sexual orientations:

3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with State standards.

Disney’s hot water came about not because they did something, but because they didn’t do anything. The company did not provide any public comment on the bill besides a statement from the CEO:

But Chapek did not take a stand against the bill, saying corporate statements are counterproductive and undermine “more effective ways” to implement change. But he said corporate statements “do very little to change outcomes or minds.”

Chapek was absolutely hounded for that response, but, he’s not wrong! Corporate statements generally don’t instill change. When was the last time a press release caused you to change your habits? Remember all those animation studios lining up to ‘stand with’ their black artists a few years ago? It made for great PR but did it make things any better for their black employees let alone black people in the US in general. Talk is cheap at the end of the day.

So there’s two aspects to Disney’s action (or non-action if you prefer). The first is that Disney directly employs upwards of 75,000 people in Florida. Their resorts are the largest single-site employment location in the entire country. Disney has a loooong history of not only needing, but requiring local political support for their activities in the sunshine state. Disney simply cannot afford to ruffle feathers too much because what if they want to do something at some point in the future? They’re gonna need the assistance to get it done. By not commenting, Disney is simply not getting involved in a political fight it really doesn’t have any skin in to begin with.

But doesn’t the law have a grave and immediate detrimental impact on LGBTQ+ kids? Shouldn’t Disney stand up for them?

Is there any money to be made by doing so? Do you think the odds are more in favour of making more money, or paying a price? Make no mistake, kids are Disney’s bread and butter (aside from ESPN) and they will not engage in any activity that jeopordises that. The company might score some brownie points and goodwill with a portion of the populace, but what about the rest, and what about the future? Apathy is a shockingly common activity.

Personally I think Disney’s corporate officers have much more important things on their mind than a state law that affects state and local government educational institutions. They’re also probably well aware that regardless of the outcome, they have an opportunity to acquire the affected kids as consumers anyway, if they haven’t already.

Such a cold, heartless, miserly viewpoint isn’t it?

Censoring Pixar Films

Jumping on the bandwagon, Pixar employees published an open letter that accused the company of censoring signs of queer affection in the studios films. Rounding on Chapek’s statement on the story above, the letter states:

Nearly every moment of overtly gay affection is cut at Disney’s behest, regardless of when there is protest from both the creative teams and executive leadership at Pixar. Even if creating LGBTQIA+ content was the answer to fixing the discriminatory legislation in the world, we are being barred from creating it.

Let’s set up a few undeniable facts first:
1. Pixar films are *expensive* (hundreds of millions of dollars)
2. Pixar films appeal to everyone
3. Pixar films play in a multitude of countries and cultures around the world
4. Pixar films must, by virtue of the economics of filmmaking, make a profit

With those four facts in mind, let’s list a few more undeniable facts:
1. Countries outright ban (and execute for) being queer let alone permit queer content to be shown
2. Countries can (and do) exert control over media released within their borders
3. Adapting films for local markets costs money
4. The fewer countries a film can play in, the less money it makes.

Let’s look at this story, again from Disney’s perspective. I doubt the company is even remotely concerned or bothered about whether scenes of queer affection are present in Pixar films or not from a moral perpsective, but I am almost certain they care about them from a financial one.

Adapting films for local markets goes beyond merely dubbing new voices. It can extend to altering the films themselves to conform to the local culture and to comply with the local film classification (censor) office’s requests. (E.g. a film that’s ‘R’ rated in America would have to be edited to conform to a ’15’ rating in the UK to succeed in a comparable target demographic.) Disney’s goal is to reduce these costs as much as possible. Why include content in a film that you know is going to have to be removed?*

Pixar’s films also have to appeal to everyone by virtue of their economics, but also their brand. Who Framed Roger Rabbit! features a cast of classic cartoon characters but the film’s themes are mature enough that Disney couldn’t release it under their own brand; they had to resort to their Touchstone Pictures label reserved for adult fare instead. Pixar films don’t have that luxury. Why? Because they’re Pixar! Could you see a Pixar film being released under another banner? A ludicrous scenario.

The bottom line is that queer affection in Pixar films costs Disney money to remove so why bother also spending money to create it in the first place?

* The Mitchell’s vs. The Machines did not set a bar in this regard. The letter refers to *overt* affection which this film lacks. Katie’s queer identity was so subtle I didn’t even notice it until the end; which is also a convenient location to remove the scene without affecting the rest of the film.

Nimona’s Lost Kiss:

Lastly, this most recent story concerns a same-sex kiss that was allegedly removed by Disney management as the film was in production. Tying it all together: you have a queer scene, in a film that is in the process of being made, by a studio with a brand that is family-friendly (Blue Sky) and you, as the Disney manager, have been tasked with reviewing the work and providing suggestions. What. Do. You. Do?

You do what everybody in such a scenario does: make changes you can plausibly sell to your immediate superior who in turn tries to sell them to their superior, and so on. The buck stops somewhere, and the decision comes down from on high: cut the gay kiss.

Do you agree? Can you afford to challenge? Do you simply play the role of messenger? It depends on the individual. Perhaps you do disagree, but your hands are tied; bills have to be paid after all.

In the end, the decision is made to cancel the film entirely. Whoever crunched the numbers figured the film was going to come up short; queer scenes or not. The problem is now moot.

Parting Thoughts

Bob Chapek’s actions appear tone deaf and downright clumsy at first glance, but with a closer look, it’s more apparent that the mob (for want of a better word) took control of the story which put him on the back foot. Politicians, for all their faults, face this problem every day; having to distill complex problems and scenarios down to a soundbyte or tweet; actions that lose necesary context. Even this blog post grossly summarises things but I don’t have the time to write the thesis is should be.

As dangerous as it is to take the side of the company, it’s disingenuous to chide it for making decisions or taking actions you simply disagree with. There’s two sides to every coin but the force causing it to flip is also a determining factor in the outcome. Sometimes we should also keep that in mind.

The Original Lawsuit

Details of the entire affair are frustratingly hard to find on the internet thanks to a combination of its longevity but also the inevitable effects of link rot. are juicy! The gist is that SQRAT is a half-squirrel half-rat character created by Silberstein, pitched to ‘FOX’ in 1999 and ultimately passed on. Cue the 2003 release of Ice Age featuring the character Scrat that is also a half-squirrel half-rat character.

Silberstein subsequently sued for copyright and trademark infringement and this is where things start to get interesting. Silberstein came up with the idea and the name ‘SQRAT’ but hired an artist to create an image of the character with the intent of merchandising it. That artist did not create what was supposed as an original image but a “dead ringer” for a piece of clip art of a beaver sold commercially by a company called DAS. During development of Ice Age, FOX approached the company behind the clip art package (DAS) and acquired rights to the clip art image in question. Except it would later be revealed, that the image was not created under a work for hire arrangement and was instead created by an independent contractor; Ron Szafarczyk. He disputed DAS’ ownership of the image and in July 2003, arbitration awarded both parties an equal 50% ownership in it, retroactive to 1999.

Now here’s where it gets really interesting:

Subsequently, in or around July 2003, Silberstein purchased Szafarczyk’s rights in and to the Beaver, retroactive to the date of the Beaver’s creation in July 1994.

Then:

…in or around September 2003, Fox and DAS entered into a second agreement that superseded and voided the March 2002 agreement based on the fact that the parties had, at the time of that prior agreement, lacked knowledge as to the ownership of the Beaver copyright. Under the new agreement, Fox gained a non-exclusive license, retroactive to July 27, 1994 and continuing in perpetuity, to use and exploit the Beaver in connection with Fox’s Scrat.

So where we’re at at the end of 2003 is that both FOX and Silberstein own half of a character that forms the basis of each other’s SQRAT/Scrat creations. Notably, FOX did not contest that the beaver in question forms a basis for the Ice Age ‘Scrat’ character.

The summary judgement in the case (essentially the court determines that given all the known facts in the case, a trial would produce no different outcome) was against Silberman on all counts.

On the copyright issue, it held that:

1. Silberman was unable to prove that her 1999 pitch of ‘SQRAT’ was definitively connected to the development of FOX’s Scrat. On the other hand, FOX was able to prove that said pitch to the company in 1999 was to a completely different part of the overall conglomerate that shared no connection to the film studio or Blue Sky.
2. FOX was able to provide incontrovertible proof that “the conception of this character [Scrat] and its role in the film evolved and developed in an incremental fashion that does not bear any indication of having been shaped by plaintiff’s Sqrat or indeed by any other preexisting creative work.”
3. As a half owner of the original beaver, Silberstein could not sue the other, equal owner (FOX) for copyright infringement for their use of the beaver as the basis for Scrat. She only had grounds to sue for clear and obvious copying of her own derivative SQRAT character. The court found that “…no reasonable jury could conclude that Sqrat and Scrat are substantially similar with respect to protectible (and, indeed, non-protectible) elements…”. The judge noted one of the distinctions being that SQRAT exists solely as a 2-D characater while Scrat exists only as a 3-D character.

On the trademark issue, it held that:

1. “Plaintiff’s trademark infringement claim is deficient as a matter of law.” Oof! Silberman never actually exploited her trademark for commercial purposes, instead “Silberstein’s Sqrat logo was a mere advertisement for itself as a hypothetical commodity”. Basically since Silberstein never actually sold any SQRAT merchandise, she had no grounds under the law for remediation from FOX. Interestingly, the court noted that “Had she agreed to one of the offers she allegedly received in 2000 to license Sqrat for a TV project (Silberstein Decl. ¶¶ 85-90 Exs. I J), that commodity might have formed the basis for a trademark infringement action.”

Whew!

The Appeal

But that’s far from the end of the story. Silberstein appealed the decision and in 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision that, essentially, Silberstein failed to successfully argue her case or disprove FOX’s evidence to the contrary. In 2008, the District Court denied FOX’s request for legal fees on the grounds that while unsuccessful and presenting a weak case, Silberstein nonetheless used the correct legal motions to pursue it and that her decision to sue was not made in bad faith. That being said, FOX alleged that Silberstein “intended to extort a settlement” in the original case and, “perjured herself at her deposition”, and that she did not believe the arbitration settlement over the beaver character was binding on the court. FOX also allege (without any apparent proof) that Silberstein created a document to support her claims.

That’s NOT All Folks!

Silberstein had filed a trademark claim for ‘SQRAT’ back in 1999 that was abandoned by accident prior to the release of Ice Age in 2002. She then re-filed and used that as a basis for the original lawsuit. The result of which is above.

After the judgement in that case, Silberstein filed a trademark for ‘SQRAT’ on what it known as the ‘Supplemental Register’; a good description of which is here. Essentially she was reasserting her ‘SQRAT’ trademark under a slightly different form of legal protection.

She then sued FOX again but, crucially, used the same arguments as her original lawsuit.

That didn’t pass muster with the federal courts and in 2018, they found that because her argument in this second case was the same as the original and relied on the same facts as the original case which were already judged upon, they precluded her from having a new case even though she filed under a different cause and in a different [federal district] court.

Details on what happened next are hazy, but what is known is that Disney acquired FOX and therefore Blue Sky in 2019 and in 2020 approached Silberstein with an offer of settlement with results depending on who you ask. Silberstein says she ‘won’ while Disney state they ‘settled’, the case. Since the settlement is private, no details are available.

What the settlement potentially involved was Disney promising not to file or contest further litigation in return for Silberstein promising not to file any further suits over the trademark. Ergo the latter’s recent tweet and the absence of the Scrat character from the former’s latest series.

What does this mean for either party? Probably not as much as you might think. Disney’s shutdown of Blue Sky suggests they’re satisfied with the assets they acquired and can milk for ever more amen since the judgements (and possibly settlement) allow them to exploit they properties already in existence. For Silberstein, she can now sell merchandise with the ‘SQRAT’ name and enforce her trademark properly.

The Confusion

As I wrote about here (and here, and here), there’s a lot of confusion surrounding copyright and trademarks with the two often being conflated for each other. Silberstein’s actions add further confusion as her tweets and other interviews attest to since the nuanced detail of what exactly she owns is not mentioned.

A copyright prevents anyone else from replicating the artwork in question even for non-commercial reasons and in different forms without permission from the creator. A trademark prevents anyone promoting or selling something substantially similar under a name that may cause confusion. For example, you could not start your own Pixar animation studio without infringing on Disney’s trademark, but you could start a Pixar oil company and there’s little that Disney can do to stop you. (Ironically. Disney got sued for trademark reasons for selling ‘Luxo Jr.’ versions of the Luxo lamp that serves as Pixar’s mascot.)

Silberstein’s lawsuits concern both copyright and trademarks and as the initial lawsuit details, they can form a formidable legal thicket for owners and users alike.

Parting Thoughts

I’ve a few parting thoughts. The first is that creators must be smart about how they handle their creations, but also how how they contest any litigation surrounding them. Get a good lawyer and get your facts straight before filing. Large corporations like Disney and FOX do have the resources to discover the truth, and they will do it when they know they are right.

Stolen ideas are a dime a dozen and studios deal with their fare share of shafted ‘original creators’ looking for restitution. The SQRAT/Scrat case if anything, magnifies the enormity of the legalese to be navigated by creators to contest and win a case. Silberstein lost not once, but twice and managed to luck out in the end, but the same won’t be true for others. She’s also had almost two decades of legal fighting over her head to deal with.

The other thought is that almost two decades of litigation ultimately amounts to nought. Silberstein obtained her federal trademark in the end but it’s valid only within the United States of America. Is Disney the undisputed owner of the ‘Scrat’ trademark everywhere? You bet! (UPDATE: Silberstein claims she was awarded all trademarks in the settlement) There is nothing stopping them from producing a new Ice Age film or show in, say, Canada and selling it everywhere but the USA. Such a move would not be surprising since Ice Age has traditionally done better in the international market than the domestic on. If that’s the case, who really won in the end?

All in all, there’s a lot surrounding the entire saga that highlights yet again why the intersection of art, commerce, and law is never straightforward.

Want to read the actual legal documents for yourself? You should! Here they are:

• Original case
• Appeal
• Request for costs
• Second trademark case appeal

Since this post was published, Business Insider (who have a lot more time, money, and resources than I do) published a comprehensive overview of the entire saga that you can read here: https://www.insider.com/ivy-supersonic-legal-battle-ice-age-scrat-2022-3

What is an NFT?

The gist is that since computers can create infinite perfect copies, art loses its inherent rarity factor. Enter the blockchain, essentially a glorified ledger that contains entries for each piece of art with a corresponding entry for the name of the ‘owner’. The ledger is structured such that everyone can see the entries and can therefore agree on the validity of the entries. It’s like a copy of the Mona Lisa; everyone knows the original is owned by the Louvre. An NFT takes that principle and applies it to any piece of artwork (or other ‘asset’); anyone can possess a copy, but only the buyer is listed as the agreed-upon owner.

How is This Related to Animation?

Selling the assets of shows and films always seemed like a sort of afterthought for studios. Indeed, many times they were considered waste to be disposed of. (For the life of me, I cannot now locate a link to the story of the entire, yes the entire, set of thousands of production cels from the Back to the Future TV show being put up for auction).

Enter Non-Fungible Tokens and their promise to allow creators to once-again exploit the rarity factor of their art without having to risk the exposure of having their art out there in limitless quantities.

Blockchain Buddies

Although FOX announced an NFT-based show a while back, Blockchain Buddies seems to be the first actual animated show to get out there with the technology. Per AWN:

The project will be a first of its kind interactive animated project, with NFT holding community members empowered to shape the future of the creative universe.

In other words, the show creates NFT assets that are purchased by fans. Those fans are then given some sort of say in how the show progresses. This is very similar to the approach that FOX announced with their project and a good indicator of the direction creator see NFT projects developing.

NFT Positives

There’s a few positive aspects that I see to all this. The first is that it strengthens the bond between creators and fans. The latter gain a vested interest in the show, and creators can rely on their fans to guide the show in ways that keep them engaged and therefore maintain viability.

The second is that it shifts animated shows (and films, etc.) away from the consumerist approach to merchandise. Instead of cranking out mass-produced physical items, support is reduced down to a small number of relatively high-cost NFT assets. Fans thus gain more unique things to treasure.

NFT Negatives

If there are upsides, there has to be downsides and they illustrate how NFTs can be a double-edged sword. Bringing fans closer to the creators will make conflicts both more inevitable, and disruptive. If creators want to go one direction and fans want to go in another, who has the final say? Do creators need a ‘Code of Conduct’ for fans?

In tying the value of a show to quote/unqoute ‘assets’ there is a possibility that the life-span and indeed the shelf-life of shows becomes smaller. As new shows arrive using similar NFT value propositions, older shows are likely to lose value and ultimately become worthless. What happens than? When a show relies on a market as an intrinsic indicator of its value, what happens if the bottom falls out of the market for a particular show? What if fans rebel en masse and collapse the market for a show?

In business, companies must follow certain rules and regulations pertaining to the relationship between the ownership of the business, and the management who run it. NFTs are unbridled by such worries; people who buy an NFT are not considered an owner in the corporate entity that actually owns the show. (Such is my hunch.)

The Scam

NFTs are new, but scams and frauds are not. How this affects animation and animation fans is through a microcap fraud. From the US government:

Fraudsters often use emerging technologies or industries – including Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and digital assets – to entice investors as part of a fraudulent or manipulative scheme. For example, they may publicly announce a development that is intended to affect a company’s stock price. Or they may promote a company that claims to be developing products or services relating to the latest news events or trends.

Here’s an example:

The image above is typical of the scam. It promotes all the benefits of buying in; even providing links that from first glance provide credibility. Clicking on the YouTube links brings you to something very different however. Animation-based NFTs frauds emphasise a community-based, common-interest, vested-ownership in a TV show or film. Yet placing them under a harshly critical light exposes the fraud. They are not simple sales agreements (exchanging money for goods or services), they are investment vehicles that require the exchange of money for an economic asset (the NFT).

Investing vs. NFTs

Disclaimer that the below is not intended to be, or should be interpreted as, financial advice. Always consult a registered financial advisor prior to making any investments

Investing is not for the faint-hearted and serious investors will always undertake their due-diligence before committing to an investment. That due-diligence is a thorough and intensely critical look at the investment being offered, but also its potential relative to other investments. For example, if you’re thinking of buying stock in The Walt Disney Company, you want to be really sure that the value of the stock is going to go up, but you also want to be really really sure that stock in Netflix isn’t going to go up by even more. Smart investors hedge their bets and buy stock in both companies.

NFTs on the other hand…

They’re more like investing in magic beans. Could they sprout a giant beanstalk? It’s possible. Can you sell or trade them to someone else? Sure. What happens if you buy the beans and nothing happens AND you can’t sell them? ¯\\_ (?)_/¯

Trust, or The Lack Thereof

Buying into an NFT-based show is akin to a rigged hoop-toss game at a carnival. The prize is right in front of you but only the game operator knows whether you can actually win or not.

The landscape is littered with failed Kickstarter projects as it is. Even major networks cast ideas and pilots aside all the time. Buying into an NFT animated TV show or film comes with ZERO guarantees that you will actually receive what is promised. Trust is wholly on the side of the fan which is why the traditional models of studio/broadcaster financing that’s firewalled from consumers is necessary. NFT-based funding runs roughshod over this; regardless if it’s a legitimate corporation like FOX, or a conman on the internet like in the images above.

Conclusion

I dislike the idea of NFTs although the original idea for community-verified ownership remains interesting. I also fail to see enough upsides to exploiting NFTs to create a show. People have found an interesting way of financing their shows and run their cons that skips around necessary laws and regulations. There are similar benefits and pitfalls to simply creating a company that owns a show and inviting fans to by shares. Of course that requires red tape with stiff penalties for fraud. NFTs are, for the moment, free of such government oversight and will wreck havoc until brought under regulation. In the meantime, caveat emptor.

Fans of Neon Genesis Evangelion have it relatively lucky (at least in Japan and the US), where the show and its films have been given numerous home media releases down through the years. The release that I happen to own is the Platinum Collection which was definitive at the time but shows its age in 2021 and hearkens back to a time when you pretty much had to buy DVDs in order to watch anime, and special features were almost always an afterthought.

Thankfully, GKIDS and Shout! Factory have created not one, but three collections for the Eva fan: the Ultimate Edition, the Collector’s Edition, and the Standard Edition. All three are a sincere attempt to appeal to all types of fan from the dedicated all the way down to the curious casual.

The Ultimate Edition

Unfortunately the Ultimate Collection sold out the day it was announced so unless there is an expansion to the limited quantity of 5,000, you are unfortunately out of luck.

The Collector’s Edition

The Collector’s Edition arrives on December 2nd and, while less featured than the Ultimate Edition, nonetheless packs a punch:

The NEON GENESIS EVANGELION Collector’s Edition is a deluxe 11-disc set presented in a rigid case, containing a 40-page book, 8 art cards, the Official Dub and Subtitled versions, and the bonus Classic Dub and Subtitled versions. The Collector’s Edition set contains over seven hours of bonus features including animatics, TV commercials, music videos, Japanese cast auditions, trailers, and more.

The Standard Edition

The Standard Edition, while lighter still, is no slouch and Shout! Factory were kind enough to send a review copy:

The Standard Edition is an essential five-disc set that will contain over five hours of bonus features, including animatics, TV commercials, music videos, and more.

This set is the closest to my own Platinum Collection but is by far its superior. I can say with satisfaction that it’s a joy to see Evangelion finally available in HD! All the detail, all the effort that went into the hand-drawn animation is finally allowed to shine and in its original 5:4 aspect ratio too. A 5.1 channel soundtrack also adds an extra level of enjoyment to the show that it lacked before and if you’re a purist, the original stereo tracks are included as well.

Both EVA films are also included, which is a great benefit given that they are usually separated from the series and in the case of End of Evangelion, are required viewing to feel you’ve seen the complete series.

The extra features are a very nice touch. So often with older films and (especially) TV shows, there is a dearth of material to work with with the result that the release’s producers have to rely on retrospectives and other gimmicks to pad it out. Fortunately nothing could be further from the truth here. There’s plenty of original content to choose from and I personally enjoyed the animatics as they offer an insight into how the show actually came together. With over 5 hours on the Standard Edition and even more on the Collector’s and Ultimate editions, they will please fans and entice non-fans further into the series too.

The only aspect I was disappointed with is that, as an [ahem] older fan that first viewed the series with the original English dub featuring Spike Spencer, Allison Keith, Tiffany Grant, et al, I would have to opt for the pricier Collector’s Edition. This is understandable as licensing isn’t free and it is unlikely to be a consideration new fans or those that live and die by their Japanese subs. That this trivial matter is the only negative aspect of the whole release is telling of the quality of the sets.

All in all, this is a timely release that will allow Eva fans to fill in the hole in their collection that the original TV series and films occupy.

The Collector’s and Standard Editions in Blue-Ray, in addition to a digital download are available from the GKIDS store: https://store.gkids.com/pages/neon-genesis-evangelion

The entire scenario is a bit of a head scratcher and gives pause for thought. The first is that holey moley, the Simpsons is still relevant!? Much like old rockers still cranking out songs while never getting anywhere near the top 40 on Billboard let alone Spotify, the Simpsons remains, and is also available for hire! This isn’t the shows first ‘collaboration’ or cross-over and it’s unlikely to be the last. It does, however, speak volumes to the stature the Simpsons continues to command after more than thirty years.

The second thought, is that this special, 10-minute long episode is, appropriate? Yes, it’s a one-off and it’s a commercial, but it’s new content beyond the usual episode. It has a runtime more in line with contemporary online attention spans too. It’s also something I advocated the show do and ditch the half-hour episodes that cannot hope to keep pace with the times.

Lastly, it’s a curiously fashion-forward collaboration for the Simpsons; a family and town famous for wearing the same clothes almost all day, every day. It isn’t the family’s first dabble with high fashion however. In the Season 7 episode ‘Scenes from the Class Struggle in Springfield’, Marge famously bought a Chanel suit at a consignment store (that was less famously discovered by Lisa):

The theme of the episode is very much about class struggle as Marge discovers her new suit imbues her with social climbing powers the likes of which she’d never known before. Nonetheless, the episode is keen to emphasise that high fashion and the trappings it embodies do not come cheap.  When Marge blows the family’s savings on a new Chanel gown to impress members of a wealthy country club she becomes aware of the sacrifice she is about to make her family undertake and the hard choice that entails. So it’s therefore amusing to see a family with humble, working class roots ham it up on a Paris catwalk wearing clothing that costs an arm and leg.

It’s easy to dismiss the piece as a gimmick because it was an integral part of Balenciaga’s show. It’s just hard to see what relevance it has to either the show or the fashion house outside of the context of the catwalk. Twitter is ablaze with hype and praise, but beyond that…? The Simpsons does not dictate fashion trends, and Balenciaga does not influence the show’s writing style or humour. The whole thing is memorable, but even fashionistas have already moved on (Paris Fashion Week continues as of writing).

What is the lesson here? Is it that The Simpsons is still relevant? Is it that the show sees new avenues to remaining relevant through stunts like this? Or is it a sign of the changing times; when media is less about relating to its viewers and more about selling them a desirable yet unobtainable lifestyle?

It’s hard to say.

Watches

Hodinkee is one of the sites for horology fans and (I didn’t know this) every year they do a week filled with articles on character watches. Twenty twenty one was no exception and the site features two standout article for fans of animation.

The first is an in-depth look at anime and cartoon watches. And no, this goes far beyond a character simply emblazoned on the dial.

There’s a whole sub-niche of collecting character watches that focuses on the thematic integration of anime and modern cartoon characters in horology. These watches have a small-but-loyal following and are usually produced in limited quantities

The watch above is a prime example. It doesn’t appear to be anime-related, yet it’s a real-life version of ch worn by Lupin’s partner Jigen. If you’re wondering, the price is $10,000!

Watches are of course, a perfect way of subtly conveying your fandom in something because only those in the know will recognise what you’re wearing. As the Zenith watch demonstrates, the cost of entry can be steep, but the good news is that the effect goes both ways; plenty of characters have worn versions of actual watch models too.

The second Hodinkee article is all about the character watch; think the classic Mickey Mouse watch and you’ve got the idea. If you’ve ever wanted to know the history of these watches then this is the article for you!

Kimono

Which Disney character was voted as having the best kimono? The answer shouldn’t surprise anybody, and yes, it’s amazingly fashionable.

Makeup

Lastly, with a new My Little Pony movie launching on Netflix later this month, makeup brand Lottie has released a limited edition line of products based on the film.

Not unlike the Sailor Moon x Colorpop collection, the Lottie collection features items inspired by the characters in a tastefully coordinated manner. Unlike the Sailor Moon collection however, Lottie is marketing across gender lines and not making any distinctions about which product is for who. A sign of the times? Definitely, and surely the first of many more to follow.

It’s hard to believe that Laika’s fantastic stop-motion films have been coming out for over a decade with very few imitators. Yet that’s positive, because those films retain their uniqueness amongst a vast array of superhero films and by-the-numbers animated comedies.

Now, with advances in HD media and so on, four of the studio’s films are getting proper BluRay releases with lots of lovely features. Up first are Coraline and The Boxtrolls which are out today (August 31st) with ParaNorman and Kubo of the Two Strings to follow on September 14th). Instead of pondering the films themselves, this review will be for the features that are completely new for both films.

However, it would be remiss to not mention how good both films look in HD. The level of detail that’s visible, which adds more to the viewing experience than you’d think, is incredible and if you haven’t seen both films in a while, be prepared for a few surprises. Returning to Laika’s early films after such a long time makes for a breath of fresh air all over again. They hold up exceptionally well and it is a credit to the artists and crew that they exhibit a truly timeless quality compared to such contemporaries as ‘Monsters Vs. Aliens’ and even ‘Up’.

Both boxsets are similarly styled and you get DVD and Bluray versions of the film along with a glossy booklet on each film. The extra features revisiting the puppets and their test footage are all new for home media. For students and fans, they are a true in-depth look behind the scenes that in conjunction with the other features from previous releases, are the kind of things that Netflix simply doesn’t offer. If you have any appreciation for stop-motion, you will want to check them out.

Both Coraline and Boxtrolls are out now on DVD/Bluray from Shout! Factory.

NOTE: I’ll get some images up as soon as WordPress cooperates.

Minna’s life is turned upside-down when her dad’s new fiancée and her daughter move in. Her new stepsister, Jenny, turns out to be horrible and Minna is very frustrated. She wants her gone! One night, Minna discovers a world behind her dreams, where the whimsical dreambuilders create every fantasy and nightmare we endure nightly on their theater stages! Minna also finds out how to manipulate Jenny’s dreams. But interfering with dreams has dire consequences … and when Minna goes too far one night, Jenny can’t wake up anymore. Minna must enter the dream world one more time to face the nightmare she has created in order to save Jenny and her new family.

‘Dreambuilders’ will struggle to hold adults’ attentions but it’s the kind of film that kids will love because they’ll focus on what’s important. Two half-sisters who are more like chalk and cheese can stand in for any sibling relationship with its ups and downs. The animation isn’t Pixar-quality but then which kid ever notices that, let alone complains about it? The story is engaging and although the first half of the film trots along at a leisurely place, it gradually quickens towards the climax. Only the dialogue seemed to be lacking with characters struggling to get their feelings across without sounding mealymouthed. The cast of characters is diverse and for Jenny in particular, touches on a very real factor in many kids’ lives that is rarely if ever shown in children’s films.

Overall ‘Dreambuilders’ is an interesting take on some well-trodden ideas that will keep younger viewers entertained with its daring adventure. ‘Dreambuilder’s is available from Shout! Factory on August 24.

Neon Genesis Evangelion 3.0+1.0 Thrice Upon a Time

The final film in the rebuild tetralogy was released via Amazon Prime last week so it was with eager anticipation that I sat down to watch it. Only to be interrupted 57 seconds in by a phone call that lasted a long time (Irish people like to talk!) Trying again the following night met with more success. Initial thoughts were entirely skeptical but were gradually replaced by appreciation as the film wore on. The ending is about as good as is to be expected given the series’ long, complicated history and it will be interesting to watch it a second time.

One thing I will say is that the relatively speedy release via Amazon is welcome for two reasons: they went above and beyond to meet fans’ needs in terms of rapid release but also local language dubs/subs and; the general nature of Amazon means casual fans such as yours truly don’t need to fork out to pay for yet another OTT service aimed at a niche audience.

Jellystone!

There is not much I can add to Yowp’s excellent post and their opinion is correct. Characters don’t necessarily need to be updated for contemporary audiences. I noticed this by way of my nephew who is all about shows such as Paw Patrol and Dragons Rescue Raiders. Both shows combine a fair amount of action with a lot of exposition and explanation. Yet when sat down in front of original Postman Pat episodes, he was entranced! For those unfamiliar, the original series’ of Postman Pat are straightforward stories but without much in the way of exposition; viewers receive few hints at what is happening and they must figure it out for themselves.

I mention this because Postman Pat as a character has undergone a more radical change throughout his career than Elvis and similarly, is almost unrecognisable from his original appearances. Yet his original incarnation has just as much appeal to young viewers today (in my opinion) and it seems silly to ‘update’ him.

Jellystone! falls into a similar predicament and I can’t help but wonder if the show will be merely another blip on the radar; destined to disappear into the ether as quickly as it appeared.

Luca, Disney and queerbaiting in animation

This article is a bit old but I wanted to comment on it because there seems to be a trend of viewers and fans demanding clear and defined aspects in shows and films when there is even the hint of ambiguity. This is especially so when one feels affronted in their beliefs. Art relies on interpretation and it is actually a valuable thing when two different people can read the same piece of art in different ways. It also helps when both people know they interpret things differently; it adds to the understanding of others.

With regards to Luca, it is very important to keep in mind that Disney is an enormous corporation who exist solely to make money and anything, anything they put or allow in their films is with the anticipation that it will pay dividends. The sudden mushrooming of LGBTQ+ characters in animation is not merely due to greater social acceptance. That is merely the catalyst allowing such characters to become profitable. If a film or show is being marketed with an emphasis on the inclusion of a queer character, you can be certain it’s as part of the plan to attract viewers and not based on the merits of the character themselves.

There is a lot more to the topic and it is intertwined with much bigger themes and issues with representation and inclusion in animation. Hopefully I can get around to discussing them. In the meantime, enjoy the ambiguity of Luca.

Fionna and Cake

Hot of the presses just the other day, HBO Max will broadcast a ten episode Adventure Time series based on Fionna and Cat. By the sounds of things, this is another salvo in an attempt to turn Adventure Time into a franchise universe. There is, of course, plenty of room for one, but do we really need it?

Adventure Time is a great TV show and it’s setting served it well. Is it destined to become yet another franchise that exists to envelop fans with its cozy familiarity? One of the great things about Adventure Time is that it burst onto the scene and was unlike shows that came before it. Turning it into a universe franchise would be a disservice to fans insofar that they will be disincentivized to seek out new things.

I’m not old (or at least, at 36, I don’t feel old) but I can remember a time when cable channels didn’t have enough content to fill an entire day. Instead, they ran on an 8-hour loop so shows broadcast in the morning were broadcast again in the evening. The reason was that libraries were only so large and channels wanted at least a bit of time between repeats. Although that didn’t stop The Simpsons from making light of the fact. Producing new content was also very expensive. Cartoon Network started by broadcasting old Hanna-Barbera shows for a reason.

Initial forays into original content yielded profits however, and soon every channel was at it. Some even generated enough library titles to broadcast a single show all day, every day. (cough Spongebob on Nickelodeon cough) Along comes Netflix, et al, combine it with rapidly falling production costs and now the door is wide open.

All of which is really good news! Besides audiences having more choice, the industry as a whole is expanding, and more and more artists find gainful employment.

Except, much like the entertainment business in general, audiences are balkanised. Monoculture no longer exists and while you may love one particular show, most of your friends likely never heard of it. Technology plays some role in this. Netflix’s suggestion algorithms show different shows to different people; crafting a truly unique viewing experience. The only thing left for them to do is go one step further and show different cuts of the same content to different people depending on their interests. But that’s a topic for another day.

I’m Overwhelmed!

The sheer abundance of choice means keeping up with everything gets difficult. Staying on top of industry news is one thing, but the films and shows themselves is a different matter. I find I simply cannot devote all the time necessary to even checking out a lot of the TV shows in particular that come out. If I do dedicate time to one series, that then means that five others don’t get even a peek. I’m sure I’m not alone in this.

Am I overwhelmed? Personally I believe so and it’s unfortunate given the rising tide that’s lifted all boats. Whereas before the best was only a handful of series’, now there are many more and the best have only gotten better. The result is that even the best of the best get stuck in the ‘to watch’ list. Half of the new Animaniacs’ first season still languishes in my queue. I still have a handful of episodes of Hands of Eizouken! to get through too; even though that series is a few years old now.

As for films, pretty much every big-budget release gets a pass. Part of the issue there is that every American film is exactly the same. So independent and foreign films are where I dedicate time these days.

All this, bear in mind, is when I find the time, and only if I have it. Life gets busy the older you get!

What is Everyone Else Doing?

I’m curious as to how other people are handling this explosion in animated content and what it may mean for the industry as a whole.

Are viewers simply relying on algorithms to suggest new things to watch? Are they slowly circulating around a particular universe or studio (think Marvel)? Or do friends and peers (physical and virtual) continue to form the backbone of recommendations?

Let me know what you think either in a comment below or via email (charles [at] animationanomaly [dot] com) and I’ll publish a follow-up!

Shrek

It’s 20 years old and no, I can’t believe it. The film came out just at that awkward point in your life when you’re too old for kids stuff and a bit too young to appreciate more mature fare. I went to see it anyway and I’m glad I did.

The Guardian posted a review by Scott Tobias that’s decidely unflattering but it misses the point entirely. Yes, Shrek doesn’t look so great in hindsight given everything it spawned, but at the time it was groundbreaking.

For the decade prior, all that audiences had were Disney’s renaissance and Pixar’s golden age and that’s not really a choice. Almong comes Shrek with two very important qualities: 1. it goes in the opposite direction and, 2. it mercilessly pokes fun at Disney’s films.

That second aspect was something new to most audinces which made it incredibly fresh while painting the old classics in an entirely new light. Disney themselves had to admit as much and produced films such as Disenchanted and Tangled in the years following Shrek.

From this vantage point, the films holds up rather well. It’s place in animated history was assured a long time ago (despite Mike Myers’ atempts at a Scottish accent).

FOX Hypes an NFT show

Yup, I’m scratching my head too. The news was announced at an upfront which probably tells you everything you need to know.

If you’re reading this post, it’s already too late to get into NFTs. The hype train sailed over a month ago and it sure isn’t going to hang around for this show to be produced.

As for the entire concept, I sort of get it? I think FOX is placing a bit too much faith in the idea that fans will pony up for exclusive content and bragging rights to owning pieces of a show. Cels and original art has been around forever and owning the only copy of something is quite a bit different from owning a receipt that says you own it.

It’s all part of the broader attempt to exploit the value of digital goods which by their nature, have no real value since they can be infinitely and perfectly replicated for extremely little cost. NFTs are just the latest trendy way of doing so. I don’t hold out much hope that this show is described in the future as groundbreaking.

Aeons ago (OK, five years ago), I wrote a somewhat incendiary post for Jerry Beck’s Animation Scoop where I argued that Pixar’s films were not the stellar, unimpeachable magnificence they are marketed as. My argument was they while their initial films were, the industry soon caught up. With a rash of sequels [then] scheduled to be released, I pointed out that Pixar’s films were, for all intents and purposes, average films designed to appeal to the broadest of audiences and make the most money.

The responses were, well, not in agreement to say the least.

Fast forward a few years later, and Disney announce that the soon-to-be-released ‘Luca’ will be released on Disney+ but crucially, will not command an additional fee on top of normal subscription charges.

This isn’t sitting well with Pixar employees:

In many ways, this tweet speaks to the ego of cinematic filmmaking. When only a select few films got made let alone receive a cinematic release, those films are seemingly ‘better’ than ever other.

With times a changing, Pixar’s latest and greatest find themselves on the same playing field as every foreign, independent, and two-bit animation studio out there. Does this devalue their work? No, but it clearly stings to realise that you’re not creating superior films based on some grand, artistic purpose that the cinema ordains upon its releases. Instead you’re creating a film that’s just a flash-in-the-pan along with a million others. Vying for attention down in the televisual muck in a dogged, scrappy fight that will never end.

Such feelings are also somewhat disingenuous. Feeling ‘demoralised’ is one thing, but to be so at a time when many of Pixar’s former colleagues at Blue Sky are out of a job and looking for work?

Another flake falls from the facade to reveal a bloated ego filled with hubris and Pixar’s reputation tarnishes a little further.

Give Disney credit where it’s due, Mickey Mouse’s overhaul after World War II was for good reason. Gone was the cheeky, impish character; replaced by an altogether more wholesome mouse who’s still around today in mostly original form. Walt Disney of course, knew his target audience well and strived for a feeling of timelessness to keep revenues coming in for years.

Looney Tunes on the other hand featured in shorts intended for adult audiences much the same as other cartoons of the time. The advent of TV heralded their shift to the children’s corner. The characters remained the same; perhaps detrimentally so.

The Looney Tunes are classic cartoon characters in every sense of the term. They’re also old which unfortunately also means, much as the baby boomers who grew up with them, they are seen as increasingly out of touch. Without context, the original shorts decidedly tread that fine line between acceptability and outrage.

So Pepe gets called out for normalising rape culture and while I’ve no interest in writing a thesis on that, I do want to point out that if Pepe has to say farewell for those reasons, then the rest of the Looney Tunes should probably go too; if we’re to hold them to similar standards of decency and appropriateness as children’s role models.

Let’s start with the most obvious. Elmer Fudd lost his shotgun a long time ago, but the character continues to insensitively mock those with intellectual disabilities. Continually fooled, taken advantage of, and intentionally driven to anger and confusion, Fudd is the butt of numerous jokes at the expense of his intelligence.

Wile E. Coyote? He’s constantly trying to eat the Roadrunner. Sylvester the cat tries to eat Tweetie. Both characters are a swipe at vegans and vegetarians alike. Mercilessly and endlessly chasing animals for food in a manner no different from Pepe chasing his love interest.

Yosemite Sam is, well, read the description for yourself:

He is commonly depicted as an extremely aggressive gunslinging prospector, outlaw, pirate, or cowboy with a hair-trigger temper and an intense hatred of rabbits,

Again, more character traits that don’t make for a role model.

Lola was pure eye candy in Space Jam. Let’s not kid ourselves that a generation of furries awoke with her appearance onscreen, but as the token love interest, she wasn’t exactly a great role model. Especially if her positive traits went unnoticed.

Speedy Gonzales takes cultural stereotypes to even more of an extreme than Apu in the Simpsons. Henery Hawk is just a flat out bully. The Tasmanian Devil doesn’t paint a pretty picture of intimidating and aggressive men with anger issues and possibly tourette’s syndrome.

If you’re someone with a speech impediment, you’re also probably best off not watching Looney Tunes at all. Multiple characters take it to an extreme.

I don’t list these characters to call them out, but to highlight that none of them are immune from criticism. Indeed the entire cast of characters was born out of an ethos of mockery and general absurdity (In for a penny, in for a pound.)

The present issue is that we can’t arbitrarily decide that one character deserves to disappear while others are given a pass because their foibles are perceivably less egregious.

Why is Avatar A Golden Goose?

The classic fable of the golden goose is an allegory for the destructive power of greed. As the man and his wife, not being satisfied with receiving golden eggs, decide to kill said goose and harvest the large amount of gold they believe lies within. After killing the bird, they discover that there is no gold and its innards are the same as every other; leaving the man and his wife destitute as the source of their livelihood is gone.

The original Avatar series is a kind of golden goose for Nickelodeon. Popular when broadcast and released on DVD, the series never really faded away and retained a core following while attracting late comers (including yours truly) and those who weren’t even born when the series was on the air.

The franchise also never completely ended. Follow-up graphic novels filled in details missing from the series and provided fans with further adventures of their favourite characters. The Legend of Korra was the first trip back to the Avatar world in animated form and lasted for five seasons. It was never as popular as the original series but it certainly didn’t help that Nicklodeon lost interest in the series to the point where there was a genuine chance the last episodes would never see the light of day. Much like the original series however, Korra lives on and remains popular among fans and newcomers.

Recent Developments

Six years after Korra ended, the original series arrived on Netflix; becoming the service’s top streamed animated show for 2020 beating out every other animated show in Netflix’s vast library in the process. Jolted into action by this news, Nickelodeon announced that there will not just a new series, but an entire studio dedicated to cranking out Avatar-related content; the first of which will be an animated film but with more films and TV series to come:

Creator-driven stories and characters have long been the hallmarks of Nickelodeon, and Avatar Studios is a way to give Mike and Bryan the resources and runway to open up their imaginations even more and dive deeper into the action and mythology of Avatar as we simultaneously expand upon that world and the world of content available on Paramount+ and Nickelodeon.

Following Disney’s Lead

If you’re reading carefully, you’ll find the reason for this announcement at the end of that quote. Netflix stole a march on all of Hollywood, and they’re straggling to catch up. OTT services are all the rage and companies from Disney to CBS are gambling that the public will pay a monthly fee to access their libraries of content.

Consumers however, are fickle and cost-conscious; only willing to pay for a service if it has a decent library to choose from. Disney+ didn’t have the largest library at launch, but the company got the ball rolling with The Mandalorian and demonstrated that exploiting existing franchises was a low-risk/high-reward way of attracting consumers to your fledgling service. Viacom aims to mimic the formula and its success with both Spongebob Squarepants (RIP Steven Hillenberg AND his principles) and Avatar.

Which is very much like killing the goose in search of the gold on the inside isn’t it? Not content to take the regular delivery of a small golden egg, Nickelodeon feels there’s more gold to be had by dispensing with the eggs and going for the whose goose. In contrast to the fowl in the fairytale though, Nickelodeon will likely find an awful lot of gold inside of Avatar in an almost identical manner to what Disney found within the Star Wars universe.

When Gold Ceases to be Special

A lot of fans are happy there’s more Star Wars content, but there’s a price to pay, and that is what made the original films special to begin with. They are rare, self-contained, and make for endless rewatching and interpretation. Is that still the case though?

There will be no nostalgia; the specialness of the characters, their tale, and the universe they inhabit will fade away as all three traits acquire different meanings, interpretations, and portrayals. Korra demonstrated the presence of the effect as the adult versions of the original series’ characters show them in a different light but whose portrayals can and are retconned to the original series for better or worse.

The original Star Wars trilogy holds a special place for those who saw it when it came out, but for those born long after that time, they are simply the films that came first. Avatar may suffer a similar fate. The original series is exceptionally special but with more and more coming after it, it’ll start to feel a little diminutive; a mere piece of a larger jigsaw puzzle. It will start to be viewed through the lens of the newer content too.

Lamenting the Death of the Avatar Legacy

At a time when original ideas are shockingly rare even by Hollywood’s low standards, its disappointing that one of the very brightest stars of original ideas is being pulled into the black hole of revenue targets. It follows a bad precedent and continues the trend of endlessly rebooting and rehashing old stuff.

The show’s legacy as a groundbreaking original series waves goodbye.

What do you think though? Does this opinion make me a cranky old curmudgeon, or do I have a valid point?

Warning: potential spoilers below.

‘Soul’ is a welcome kind of film: original, from a creative studio known for taking risks, and it attempts to grapple with some pretty sophisticated themes for a kid’s film. All good and increasingly rare traits in a film landscape littered with franchises, sequels, and spin-offs. The film follows Joe Gardner, “a middle-school band teacher whose life hasn’t quite gone the way he expected. His true passion is jazz — and he’s good. But when he travels to another realm to help someone find their passion, he soon discovers what it means to have soul.” (Rotten Tomatoes)

While watching this film, instead of being drawn in, I found myself asking various questions that started to peel back the facade of the movie:

• Why do I care about Joe Gardner?
• Why do I care that he hasn’t achieved his dream?
• How is he developing over the course of the film?
• What am I learning?
• How do I feel at the end?

Joe Gardner

Every film asks its audience to care about the characters onscreen. They are introduced, encounter a problem, and you then follow along to see how said character resolves their problem and what it holds for their future life. In ‘Soul’ the reasons to care about Joe are, well, muddled at best.

Is he likeable? Yes. Is he good-natured? Sure. Is he happy? No, and therein lies the rub. Joe is not happy in his job or where he is in life; common traits in protagonists sure, but the reasons (implied or explicit) are firmly projected onto the world around him. Joe’s failures are nothing to do with him and everything to do with others who’ve never given him a chance, who’ve never believed in him, or who’ve actively stood in his way. His talent is undeniable so it can’t be his fault that he hasn’t succeeded; it must be other people’s fault, right? If only they gave him his shot!

Doesn’t this make Joe selfish?

Now he does learn the negative aspects of his actions and beliefs by the end of the film, and his selfishness is far from unique in filmmaking. In this film though, it means we have to watch a proto-jerk for almost 90 minutes as he lies, cheats, and finagles his way back to where he thinks he deserves to be before it sinks in.

Why should I care about a character so clearly self-centred, selfish, and devious? It could be because that’s how the story needs to be told, but that doesn’t mean that’s where the character needs to start from!

Joe’s Dreams

Joe is upset that he hasn’t achieved his dreams.

Do you have dreams? Perhaps you do, or more likely, you did. Not achieving dreams is a fact of life for better or worse. Pretty much everyone fails to achieve the dreams they set out to achieve. This makes Joe’s predicament harder to relate to. We are expected to sympathise with him not in his situation at the start of the film, but rather once his opportunity starts to slip away; a key difference.

Factors far beyond his control carve out this predicament and Joe’s single-minded determination to overcome them reek of the same delusional self-important hubris that permeates the air in Silicon Valley. The fact that he does, eventually, realise the error in his ways does not excuse the fact that he spends almost the entire film doing otherwise and STILL gets to actually achieve his dream of playing jazz with a famous saxophonist; even if it is only once.

It’s also a shame that all of Joe’s failures happen offscreen. He’s been gigging for years, but we are only privy to the culmination of all that; not the recurring drudgery. We’re also not privy to all of Joe’s attempts to get back up after he’s been knocked down by more earthly forces. What is Joe actually made of, and how is that driving his ambition to achieve his dreams?

Again, we don’t know because we aren’t shown it. How badly does he want his dream? No really, how badly does he want his dream? If he wants it bad enough he doesn’t want to die then that is one heck of a low bar. There’s a pot roast in my slow cooker right this minute and I also don’t want to die before it is ready. But if I fought against death for it, would you also believe in me without knowing how much effort I put into making it in the first place?

Joe’s Personal Development (?)

Is Joe a substantially changed character by the end of the film? Honestly, we don’t know since the film ends right after his revelation. Is he going to be a better music teacher? He was already pretty dedicated to begin with, even without being consciously aware of it. Is he going to be a better jazz musician? Again, he’s already quite accomplished so probably not.

More importantly, is he the one driving the change? NO! Number 22 develops Joe’s character for him when they’re in his body. It’s only after the fact that Joe catches on. Joe doesn’t evolve as a character, he benefits from an upgrade. He cheats!

Learning (or lack thereof)

‘Soul’ attempts to impart a lesson. That lesson is that achieving your dreams is not really going to make you happy but appreciating the small things in life will.

Now this is a fine lesson except that the message is coming from a multi-million dollar film produced by one of the largest media corporations on the planet whose sole (heh heh) mission is to produce content that releases the serotonin in your brain and prompts you to open your wallet and part with your hard earned cash. Can I take the film’s lesson to heart? Should I take the film’s lesson to heart?

No. Believing in dreams and succeeding is what keeps Hollywood in business. Appreciating the small things in life also runs contrary to contemporary commercial and materialistic notions of happiness that, make no mistake, Disney and Pixar actively engage in as they do with this film, which in total irony, demands the viewers complete attention to the detriment of their real-world surroundings and actual lives. The audience receives Joe’s personal awakening while actively failing to apply it to themselves.

Feels < Reals

Before we get to the point of this section, it must be noted that the film was planned and mostly produced prior to the COVID-19 epidemic. The change in circumstances leaves the film and its message a bit tone deaf to current realities through no fault of its own. Plenty of dreams are getting pushed to the back burner to make way for more pressing concerns such as making the rent or finding a job.

That being said, separating the themes from current circumstances is difficult. As much as the audience may want to be reassured that their lives are special, ‘Soul’ feels like a bit of a lecture on the subject instead of a compassionate discussion. Heck even Joe has his lesson literally yelled at him at the end of film.

The freeform spirit of jazz is presented with a shiny, polished veneer as if to say ‘this is what jazz is’. Why can’t the audience be left to interpret that themselves? New York City is gloriously rendered and animated. but that city is the definition of defying expectations. You can animate it all you want, but you’ll never capture the spontaneous events that touch the lives of its inhabitants in unique ways.

Which begs the question of why Pixar went to all the trouble and effort to animated the city and human characters in the first place? It kind of speaks to why Pixar is making films in the first place, and as I noted in my Wolkfwalkers review, showcasing the abilities of their software seems to be the higher priority than crafting a film.

Conclusion

For a film with that ought to universal, uplifting, and encouraging, ‘Soul’ fails to deliver for a host of petty reasons that are difficult to get past. the film breaks the cardinal rule of American cinema that states the audience should feel good about themselves afterward. I did not feel good, in fact, I felt irritated enough to write this post. ‘The Emoji Movie’, for all its faults, conveys its uplifting message in a simpler and more believable manner than ‘Soul’ and in contrast, actually encourages the audience to heed its message.

What is ‘Soul’s’ message? It’s not what you think, and what it is is bitter to swallow.

Eleven and half years after seeing the first film in Tomm Moore’s Celtic trilogy, The Secret of Kells, it was time to watch the last film in said trilogy. Wolkwalkers tells the story of English girl Robyn Goodfellowe as she grapples with life in the Irish city of Kilkenny where she receives a rather mythical revelation.

Robyn and her father have moved to Kilkenny as part of Oliver Cromwell’s English forces who have subdued the Irish. Cromwell tasked men like Robyn’s father with ridding the land of wolves as a means of making the forests safe for clearing. Robyn is the irrepressible young girl with notions of accompanying her father on his mission laying traps. However, a tragic occurrence during a wolf attack on sheep leads to a chance encounter with Mebh, a wolfwalker. What follows is a journey for Robyn as she navigates a complex web of relationships, responsibilities, politics, and self-introspection

My thoughts on The Secret of Kells, have aged much better than expected; given that they were written by a person with almost twelve fewer years of life experience but with reciprocal levels of over-enthusiasm. From this vantage point, that film has some flaws but nothing one couldn’t expect from a director making the most daunting undertaking of their [then] short career. Wolkwalkers gains from the additional years and experience of everyone involved in the best possible way, and it shows.

Wolkwalkers features the by now recongisable traits of a Moore/Cartoon Saloon feature film in every aspect. Visually, Irish Celtic and pagan mythology make for fertile grounds on which to tell a story. Lush colours lend their depth to the flat backgrounds which propagate excitement, exhilaration, and intrigue to every scene. Thematically, there is a stark contrast between the wild, native Irish landscapes, and the chaotic, urban Kilkenny overtaken by the English in their grey armour.

The animation proves, once again, that 3-D CGI endows a films with a best-by date. The Secret of Kells does not look like it was released in 2009, and undoubtedly in 20 years, Wolkwalkers will not look its age either. While not as fluid as the best and greatest, there is a simple pleasure in the traditional movements of the characters; there are no pretensions here. When called upon, the complexity arrives not in abundance, but with restraint. The film’s crew knew that gimmicks are not needed in this film, but a careful balance between the different elements is, and their care pays dividends. Nice touches such as the subtle traces of the pencil construction lines of the characters hint at the many human hands at work behind every frame; in stark contrast to a Pixar film where every whiff of human skill is buffed and polished out to showcase the latest capabilities of a piece of software.

The music by Bruno Coulais and Kila serve as the foundation for the storytelling experience. The music (and song by Aurora) provide the atmosphere that once again bring the viewer into the story instead of simply providing emotional cues.

The direction does a fine job servicing the story. Co-directors Moore and Ross Stewart are more than happy to let the art and story drive the direction rather than taking a Kubrick-esque approach where direction is everything. As with the animation, there is a restraint with a dash of fun, but when called upon for action scenes, there are ample reserves for a real surprise. The ‘wolfvision’ sequence in particular is praiseworthy for both its concept but also the amount of work that went into it.

Getting down to the nitty gritty, the characters took a while to warm up to. It’s not that they’re inherently cold or flat, but perhaps because at only 103 minutes and with a lot of ground to cover, the film has to get to the point fairly quickly. Robyn’s background is merely stated and I found myself craving more allusions to her past as away of driving her future. Mebh requires much less effort as her mythical origins are clearer, and her interactions with Robyn provide the little spark of interest on which the relationship rests. The Odd Couple this is not, but a getting-to-know-you tale in the finest form of the trope. Robyn’s father plays his part, with a relatable touch of being reluctantly subservient to his job for the benefit of his family. Cromwell makes for an interesting case since his reputation in Ireland differs from other countries but the film demures from playing to the worst of the feelings and opinions of the man. Focusing instead on his religious propriety and its unwelcome place in a land with other beliefs makes for a more universal villain but a less complex one.

There are only two aspects of Wolfwalkers to nitpick as a grown adult casting the critical eye on the film. The first is that the story felt somewhat formulaic and had just one thing too many shoehorned into the allotted running time. Less is sometimes more.

Secondly, I felt from watching Wolfwalkers that the film wears its influences a little bit too clearly. Setting aside the clear similarities to The Secret of Kells, shades of Pocahontas and the Hunchback of Notre Dame emanate from antagonist Oliver Cromwell. Robyn’s story is also uncannily like that of Jake Sully in Avatar among many others. One wonders if such influences are a deliberate hedge or a simple coincidence.

That being said, one influence that is less easy to spot is also one that others often make blatant. Wolfwalkers is arguably the more political, optimistic, family-friendly Irish version of Princess Mononoke. Miyazaki’s ability to influence needs no explanation, but it is nice to see his films being a source of reference for more than just story and animation.

All in all, Wolfwalkers is another winner and coming from someone who was initially pessimistic about the film, this is a good sign that others can be won over as well. Independent film is in an extraordinary period of growth and films like Wolfwalkers make recent news, such as Disney’s announcement of dozens of movies without a shred of originality, all the more insufferable. Wolfwalkers is the kind of film that I, as a parent, want my child to watch with an eye to seeing that sense of wonderment and awe spark in their eyes without having to worry about the pretensions of a brand’s corporate marketing department at work behind the scenes. Eminently worthy of your time, Wolfwalkers is on Apple’s streaming service now.