Having to end it...

Thing is, I knew this wasn't going to work right back when he came on board. Well, Colonel Ginger Nuts has to go. He just isn't cut out for children's shows.

And it's not a pleasant conversation.

Never should have happened in the first place. I said the project was shit. Said it from day one. And, in cases like this, I hate being right. So now it's taken well over a year to get to a point where the realisation kicks in that this man will never turn it into something good.

Now, it's up to other writers to try to make this into something other than a train wreck. And someone has to explain to this guy why he's not going to get to work on this show he created and will never see in its current form ever again.


I hope it's not me.

Learn from the Apple App Store

Just a little bit more on working for free.

Apps on the iPhone are pretty damn cheap. Many are free. Some fantastic ones are free actually. But invariably the free ones have much more one-star ratings (or even no-star if that's possible). This happens no matter how good the app may be.

Often, the more expensive an app is, the fewer one-star ratings it gets.

People pay for things they value. But it works the other way around too -

We value that which we pay for.

So, on the app store, it's easy to see how that works. People download a free app, load it up for thirty seconds (if even), don't instantly get hooked and then delete it, which hitting it with a one-star rating. If they've paid a tenner for that app, it becomes worth their time to really try the app out, get used to it, see if it has more to offer than it appears on the surface. By dumping it too early, they could miss out and lose the investment they put in to pay for it in the first place.

The same is true for employment.

If someone has invested even a week's wages on you, they'll be more likely to put the time into teaching you what you need to know. More likely to pay attention to what you do. More likely to look for the value you bring.

Less likely to give you that one-star rating.

And less likely to dump your sorry ass out on the streets.

Stockholm Syndrome for animators

Cartoon Brew reported on a piece in the New York Times about unpaid internships. Specifically, that they may be illegal. The piece called out Little Airplane, makers of Wonder Pets -

"At Little Airplane, a Manhattan children’s film company, an N.Y.U. student who hoped to work in animation during her unpaid internship said she was instead assigned to the facilities department and ordered to wipe the door handles each day to minimize the spread of swine flu."

In the comments in the Cartoon Brew piece, many came on anonymously not only backing it up but making out that things are far, far worse. Unpaid interns being completely mistreated, psychologically abused. Workers being treated like children. If there's any truth to the stories there, it sounds like people are expected to work in hideous and demoralising conditions. For little or no pay.

I actually hope the stories aren't true. I rather like Wonder Pets. It would be terrible to think something so pleasant comes from a place like that.

Little Airplane aren't alone. Other companies are brought up in the comments of the Brew piece, some not paying people for years. Not paying for the work they are getting. Like whole departments of slave labour.

But that wasn't the most horrifying thing of all.


No, there is something much worse buried in the comments of that Brew piece - Stockholm Syndrome for animators.



Many people are taken on as unpaid interns, put to work on productions and not compensated in any way, if any of them are like the allegations aimed at Little Airplane, they are taken advantage of.


And the victims not only accept it. They are grateful.


Grateful for being exploited.

From some Brew comments -

"As the work experience I gain allows me to be hired there or elsewhere", "don’t write off the value of the experience", "the unpaid intern spot got me a foot in the door", "couldn’t an internship just be viewed as a training session or a really long interview process?" and more.


Yes, it's hard to get your foot in the door. Harder still to make a steady living in this industry.

And, if you work for free or very little, you are part of the problem.


You are sabotaging your own craft, your own end of the industry, your peers and your co-workers both old and new. You are setting the value of your work at zero. You are setting the value of your co-worker's work at zero. Those new kids who are having a hard time getting a foot in the door, you can be damn sure you're setting the value of their work at zero.


You are part of the problem.


It's hard enough in this business. The power and the money is in all the wrong places. Most people accept the situation as normal but many of these people being exploited or working for very little are more talented than the people doing the exploiting. But those people at the top have the money and the control, creative and otherwise.

Why?

Because they won't do a damn thing for free. They don't allow themselves to become victims. And, in cases like these, you can be sure the people at the top, the slave drivers, are laughing their asses off and are getting paid damn well for it. They're getting what they want. Don't kid yourselves that they wouldn't take anyone on if they weren't getting them for free. Anyone who has had anyone hanging around for work experience knows that having a new kid around is often far more trouble than it's worth.

Which means only one thing - to retain these people for any length of time, they need the positions filled. They need the work done as part of their production. The Brew comments point to whole departments in some places being filled with interns.

The people at the top get what they want and make damn sure they are paid for it.


Creative talent, on the other hand, can be discarded and moved aside with no problem because the creative people will work for free, will work for almost nothing. They are willing victims.

And that's why it's so god damned hard to get your foot in the door.

Don't accept that.

Don't set the value of your work at zero. Stop making it harder for every single other person in your end of the business. Stop being part of the problem. Stop accepting the exploitation.

Stop working for free.


And please, stop being grateful to your captors. It's not right when it comes from a sex slave who has been kept in a box for years and it's not right from creative talent.

Giving credit where it's due

I was part of a contract negotiation a while back with a producer. One important part of a contract you get from a producer is the part that says they can boot you off the project any time they feel like it, even if it's something you created from scratch.

On this point, I had a lawyer explain to me - well, if they're putting up their money for development, they want to protect their investment. They're taking a risk.

This may well be relevant for you US folks. Over in Europe, however, 'their money' rarely ever means just that. More often than not, it means the public money they applied for. Development grants, non-repayable government loans and that sort of thing.

The only difference between them and you is whose name is at the end of a form.

So who is taking the risk? He who may end up signing his creative work away for damn all money (and you can take that as a certainty) or the one spending public money that was never his to begin with?

After years in this business, I'm left slightly baffled by the power of producers over here. Because their real power isn't in their money. It's in form filling. And yet filling out those forms is something rarely taken seriously unless you've got the word 'producer' on your business card. They do hold all the power.

And yet the real power is hidden. Unrewarded. Or at least barely rewarded. The creative talent.

Producers know this.

It scares the living crap out of many of them. Not all of them. But many of them.

Why? Because anyone can fill out a form. If a producer puts a creative talent out there in front, gives them the credit they have earned, that talent may well just walk across town to another form filler. Or decide to fill forms themselves.

Leaving the producer with nothing but a company name.

If you see an animation company or content production company's website and don't see the creative talent out there in front, or even listed, it's simply because the producers are terrified. They need to make it seem like the creative talent don't matter. Like the power is in a company name. On those where you do see the creative talent out in front, you'll find those people are company directors. Either as part of a formed partnership (a great way to do it) or brought in on some percentage to try to lock them into that company.

Even in those scenarios, however, the fear will come as soon as they use an external talent. And, invariably, they will at some point because producers are always looking for new talent. New talent is easier to mould, to control, to wrestle rights from. The industry keeps things moving this way and so producers retain their role.

It's odd how, at so many different times, we're told what we do is a team effort. And yet so many producers fear their own team.

But, to bring it back to the title of the thread, producers deserve credit where it's due. They do schmooze on boats at MIP or hang out in bars in New York at Kidscreen (they should be just back from that now) and, while many of us creative types are envious of how that sounds, we simply can't be arsed doing it. Producers deserve credit in this industry.

Just not quite as much power.

The realities of a production schedule

I actually know nothing of the realities of a production schedule because I have not yet come across one that had any place in the real world. Schedules are made, usually missing some keys stages, then blissfully ignored.

And then a show is made from start to finish in total chaos.

Right now, I'm feeling that. I'm actually feeling rather unsupported. Like I'm a one-man army trying to pull a whole show together. And pulling an entire show together is too big for any one person. So I can only prioritise what I can and hope that everything else falls into place.

Just like I hope someone comes to my door and delivers a whole truck of money. Actually, that's probably more likely.

I do wonder - is it like this on all shows? Is a state of utter chaos totally normal? Do all shows run this fine line where they're in danger of completely falling apart at any moment?

Does anyone know?


On an unrelated note, John K made his blog private for a while. It's public again now but it sounds like he may not be continuing it or may consider other plans for his blog. That would be a massive loss to the animation world. We're in a place now where skills are being lost, mostly due to the massive changes in the animation systems. John K's blog is in incredible resource for animators and should be regular reading, especially for newer, younger animators being born into a world of Flash studios. Mr.K would be the first to say that his way is just one way of doing things (I certainly don't always agree with some things, though I never doubt the man's talent) and he encourages people to find their own 'voice' in their artwork but his lessons, stories and (usually pretty funny) rants are really important for people to have access to. He has a point of view that is uniquely his. So I hope he keeps his blog open.

But, just in case, it would be an idea to read all you can from his blog and take something away from it. And maybe show him a little support too - he has earned it.

From me personally, I'd like to say a big 'thank you' to Mr.K for everything he has contributed to animation.

Are the right people in control?

I mentioned this in a comment over at John K's blog and thought it worth a mention here too.

I've been reading David B. Levy's book, 'Animation Development'. All about, well, animation development. There's a chapter on the executive side of things. All about the gatekeepers of the industry. Those who decide what makes it to pilot stage and what makes it to air.

And, in it, Linda Simensky says this - "Most do not have backgrounds in animation but have a genuine interest in storytelling or humour or other creative areas."

Is a' genuine interest' enough?

Maybe it sounded like a good idea at some point

Many called it brave. Others will likely go on to call it offensive.

Yes, featuring a child with a disability as a main character can be a brave move. And quite admirable. It has been done before if I remember correctly, though the name of the show I'm thinking of escapes me.

But cartoons, by their very nature, are caricatures.

And, when you go about caricaturing people with disabilities and then throw in a whole lack of understanding on top of that because not one person involved even knows someone with a disability, well, that's just asking for trouble.

I do remember one guy I worked for, many years ago (not the producer depicted above), telling me that he envied people in wheelchairs. Yes, envied them, because their disability gave them a keen mind. That's why Stephen Hawking is so smart, according to him. Man, what he would give to be run over by a bus...

I integrated that into the panel above of course. My producer isn't actually that insensitive. Not by a long shot actually - he is cursed with a heart of gold, bless his little cotton socks. But he sometimes doesn't quite see how some things that sound like a good idea might actually not be, even though he has the best of intentions. And I just play that up because the pic (and the words with it) is a caricature, see?

Just like making a cartoon show.

Cartoons are caricatures and, while many can argue a good case against pre-emtive self-censorship, some things just don't seem like a good idea to me.

A bit more on the culture of notes

A while back, I wrote a little on the culture of notes in television. To sum up, notes from execs usually amount to very busy people with no time to spend getting to know your show (or indeed any show) telling those who spend every waking moment on that show how it should be made.

The script-note sleep is a funny and yet infuriating phemomenon. I guess I should be grateful for those rest periods. I have found on just about every production that those people who live to cause problems in scripts rather than make them better go to sleep after a while. Sooner or later, you'll start to get some rather sparse notes. Inconsequential things. And maybe, if you're lucky, even some that say, "this is all okay."

Note, it's "okay". Would it kill them to say they actually derive some pleasure from reading a script? You know, I liked it. This will make a good show. Children would love it.

So you get a few sparse notes. This is when the beast sleeps.

And then...

...they wake.

Out of nowhere, you'll get a massive email going through a whole bunch of scripts in detail picking out any innane shite they can think of and, even more common, telling you to write different stories. The funniest thing in these mails is when you get a whole bunch of notes on a third draft script about concepts that have been present right from the very first draft.

And the only thought can be - did they sleep through those drafts?

Yes. Yes, they did. Or they were busy eating children.

But you know the most dangerous thing about this? About the culture of notes? It's when they're right. Because sometimes they are. It's when they find something that absolutely should never make it to air. Something that needs a complete rethink. Or something that could make a good episode into a far, far better one.

It can happen.

But notes are like a bad smell. Sooner or later, you become accustomed to it. You hit a point where you're not really reading them. Because the last thousand notes you have read only served to show he/she didn't read the script or hasn't understood the show.

So, when that one important note hits, it's buried in a long list of pointless ramblings.

And it's missed.

Or, by that stage, those on the creative end are in fighting form and they fight it out of instinct, not examining whether it's a good idea or not. They become stubborn. Hard. Because they have had to be in order to stay sane and save their show.

I've seen it happen. Several times actually.

Those who write good notes (and there are certainly some) generally write very few. Almost none. So, when they do, you take notice.

But, more often than not, they're just written by beasts who live in caves and eat children.

On shoes and other feet

I know what it's like to have some idiot tear through your project and give you a blow by blow account on why it's utter crap.

It's not fun.

The big problem with it is that it is so difficult to know what to take on board and what not to. People often say that you have to listen to criticism. I agree. But it's a mistake to take it on board without being absolutely damn sure you know what you are doing.

I have killed projects in the past by taking on suggestions simply because I felt I had to.

And yet the one success story I have is one where I was told time and time again that it wouldn't work. And I stuck my two fingers up to those people and went ahead and did it anyway. Turned out I was right and they were wrong.

But to arrogantly barge ahead without challenging your views, without really examining criticisms could be a recipe for failure.

So what happens when I have to be that pain in the ass guy to tear through a project? Well, honestly, I think I either like something or I don't. And if I really don't like something, I'm the wrong person to try to make it better because I'd be advising to turn it into something else and that's just not cool.

Rather than force a project I hate into something else, better I find a project I like and try to make it great.

That becomes much harder when a project has a great core concept but the execution is absolutely awful. How do you go to a creator with that?

I think perhaps a visual demonstration is required. I can hold their proposal in my hand, look into their eyes and smile, repeat in a soothing voice, "I love the idea, I love the idea," while setting fire to the proposal and watching it burn.

Somehow, knowing what it's like on the other side, I don't think that will quite do the trick.

The Culture Of Notes

In the television industry, probably all across the entertainment business actually, there is a culture of notes.


What that amounts to is this - busy people who barely have time to look at a project, don't read scripts, don't understand the minds of the people the show is pitched to, don't know a damn thing about the project get to tell those who do know the project, do understand the minds of the audience, devote 100% of their time to the project what to do.


That's how it works.


It gets even more fun when there are multiple people doing this and you have notes that contradict other notes.

This is the way it is done. And because this is the way it is done, those in a position to give notes feel they have to in order to justify their salary and, more importantly, boost their egos and those getting the notes are told they must then fight to get to do things the right way rather than the arseways way suggested in a set of random notes. It turns every day into a confrontation.

And, for me, that's on children's shows. Shows for very young children. Shows that should be fun.

Reduced to a half-assed courtroom drama with clowns instead of lawyers.

People should not have to fight every day not to fuck up a show. This culture of notes is rotten. It amounts to people spending their days throwing spanners into rather delicate works. It's not fun. And it's counter-productive.

I actually wrote a rant a while back about a set of notes. I never posted it. But the main thing that sent me into a rage was that the person who wrote the notes made it abundantly clear that he hadn't actually watched one episode of the show. He didn't know it. He knew nothing about it and put that down in black and white on paper for all to see (e-paper, it was an e-mail).

And then offered his time for 'brainstorming'. Like we need a co-writer. One who hasn't done the bare minimum to find out about the show.

It took several weeks to come down from that rage.

On a project that, on every other level, is an absolute joy.

This is a good meeting

You don't even want to know what a bad meeting looks like.

There's something that's been bugging me. It bugs just about every creative at some point but I don't know exactly how bad things are in different countries. But here, if you want to get anything off the ground, be it a show, film, whatever, you will be expected to sign away all rights to a producer. All rights, according to contracts, across the entire universe and for all forms 'yet to be invented'.

You will likely get paid cack all for that. Like, taking feature films as an example, a feature writer or director or writer/director simply could not live on the amount of money they would make. It can't happen. The only reason to make a film is the challenge or for it to be a labour of love. And that's why there are so many first-time directors. Almost nobody can actually make a career out of it. Those who do have to move to Hollywood and get a gig remaking a film that shouldn't ever be touched.

And yet a producer can buy the rights to an entire film and all of its exploitation for pretty much nothing. I was offered an option agreement recently for five hundred Euros. Five hundred. Oh, and another five hundred if it got into production.

That is not all that unusual. At least, over here.

But you have to consider the old Golden Rule cliche - those with the gold make the rules. But here's the hilarious thing. Producers over this end of the world (it's different in the US) raise most of their finance by filling in forms to access public money. They aren't bringing their own gold. The only difference between them and anyone else is simply that their name is at the end of an application. They aren't bringing their own money to the table.

So the natural thought process is, shouldn't the director or writer access those funds themselves? Well, yes. BUT... there are two considerations here. Firstly, being a creative and being a producer are two very different things. Producers do actually do a hell of a lot. It would be wrong to think they don't. Do they do enough to warrant total ownership of a project? No. Not even bloody close. But they do enough that can often be incompatible with the goals of directing, creating, to make it really difficult to do both jobs well.

There are reasons they are two separate jobs, as I found when I produced one of my own short films many years ago.

But the second consideration is something I don't quite get exactly. On just about all public funds and applications over this end of the world, it is stipulated in the conditions that the director/creative and producer must NOT be the same person. Because they are two different jobs like I said? I don't know the reason. But as all applications must go through the producer, it puts all of the power into their hands.

Because they are capable of filling out forms.

Or hiring a solicitor to fill those forms for them.

Creatives are being complete and utterly shafted. There is something really wrong with this system. It's not working. It's just not working. And I'm thinking, there must be an easy way around the system. In fact, there are easy ways around the system, technically, but because this way of doing things is so ingrained over here it is just accepted that this is the way things are done.

And that's bullshit.

Almost finished

Just the last few things left to tidy up in this project and then it's done. The last few weeks have been hellish. A battleground.

One of the most helpful things a producer or any manager can do for their staff is to take jobs and worries away from them. If someones workload is too full or if a new problem arises, the producer can sweep in and say, "I'll take care of that". It means people can stay focused on what they're supposed to be doing and deliver the best work possible.

But it only works if the producer actually then takes care of what he said he would. Rather than, you know, forgetting about it until someone asks him about it in the last few hours before tapes leave the building.

Ah yes... the credits

Credits are so important to television and film.

But it's not like you'll pick up a toaster and see a list of people who were involved in making that toaster, is it? It's not like, when you stop at traffic lights, you can't go until you have viewed the names of everyone involved in the design and placement of that traffic system, is it?

But then they aren't totally ego-driven businesses. Or maybe they are. I don't know enough about 'real jobs' to be sure.

Credits do matter though. I guess, in this business, it's your C.V., your resume. In this current example, if you were a producer and liked the show and wanted the creative force behind it, you'd end up looking at the credits and hiring the writer.

And, in doing so, you could end up with the wrong guy.

Where it all went wrong...

Okay, so this isn't the only thing that happened with the production that led to the current panic/crisis/apocalypse. But it's one of the issues. Some parts, especially early on in scripting and production, just weren't as good as they should be. That's not uncommon. It takes a while for a project to find its feet.

It's how the producer deals with "hiccups" that's just baffling. Got a problem? Immediately assume those you work with are the enemy. That seems to be the strategy. Pre-emptive strike.

We are all the enemy.

But, yeah, that was just one of the problems. Another was in simply living in hope. There are some in certain roles who should have been let go right at the start but both the producer and the director, bless his optimistic soul, genuinely believed they would pull themselves up and really deliver. They didn't. He actually fought for a few people early on and put a lot of faith in them. Man, is he disillusioned now. Hence sleeping through important meetings at this point.

Bloody cold today. My freezing fingers are having a hard time finding their way around the keyboard.

Scheduling for dummies

Sorry, I mean scheduling by dummies.

Should I be a producer? Would I be that good that I could actually consider the possibility that there are holidays taken withing the course of the year? Is that skill and foresight really so lacking that I could enter that end of the business as a producing megastar?

Is it that the holidays only magically appear in that little diary after you've made a schedule and are requiring people to work their asses of to stick to it?

It's like these people who stand at the bus stop making small talk, telling each other how the mornings are getting darker. Of course the mornings are getting darker. It happens every bloody year! Every single goddam year. That's not news. That's not a talking point. It just happens. But seemingly those people forget each and every year that it happens and are taken by surprise the next year. Just as producers are taken by surprise by the possibility of the same bloody public holidays that happen every single year ever.

How does one become a producer and where do I sign up?

Talent? What's talent?

I'm almost reluctant to post today as I'm enjoying the science discussion from the post below. But I'm going to post anyway as this topic a constant source of frustration to me and is become more and more apparent all the time - some producers have no concept of the value of talent.

If you need something done, you just hire someone. Who? It doesn't matter because you're going to be telling them what to do anyway. Only, what he's telling them to do is as broad as, write a story and make it good. Or, show me designs I'll like. Or, take this unworkable show concept and turn it into a hit.

The actual talent within the studio is often totally unappreciated because the view is, you can hire anyone to do any job. In fact, it seems that anyone outside the studio is of more value. Why is that? I don't know. Is it a grass is always greener thing? Whatever the reason, ignore the staff you have, if you need to make a show, just hire someone. A writer, or someone. Doesn't really matter.

That's how easy it is to get a creative product.

Like pulling a rabbit from a hat

The saga of the overnight guy has spilled over into all our lives with expected figures that just don't seem to add up. We're all behind now.

I remember looking at the numbers and deadlines with the director way back in preproduction and it all seemed pretty realistic. Something has changed and I'm not quite sure what it is. Technically, it's not my place to wonder such things but I think a scam has been pulled somewhere. I can't remember what the original plan was but I think it may have contained one more animator than we've got and a shorter running time on the episodes.

Ah, I fondly remember the time when getting ten seconds per week seemed about right. Were we just lazy bastards back then?

The poor overnight guy is probably having a heart attack as I write this. Murray Bain asked in the comments if he was 'scene snacking'. I'm not sure yet but I'm keeping an eye out for it.

Even the successful get the blues

I have a friend whose career hasn't been all that different to my own, with one exception - he created a show that got made, he wrote it and it is a success. Not a massive blockbuster 'he's a multi-millionaire' kind of success, but it is without a doubt a success. Sold all over, doing really well in its target age group and it seems any child that sees it, likes it. He's a lucky bastard.

He was embedded in an animation company when he created the show so, now, they own all the rights to it but he got a really good deal on paper so who knows what untold riches it could lead to. It's also the studio's first actual success story, and they have been trying to get shows made for years.

And here he is, telling me that he's not feeling the love.

Not feeling the love. What, are they nuts? He's made a bucketload of episodes that children love and now he has got a great new show that's really well-developed and looks to me like it's an obvious hit and he's not feeling the love. I had to find out more.

Turns out it's not that the producer isn't looking for new product. No, every now and again he brings in something one of his mates wrote for their kids. Usually barely legible, about fairies, and utterly dull. One even written by his mate's child, that went something like this - I saw a bear, it was nice, the end. And he's prioritising these over the one person he has who is a proven success and shows he can connect not just with his own children, but children across the world. I have to ask again - what, are they nuts?!

So he's feeling alone with this show. He's feeling alone in his studio. Unsupported.

It's tough - I know what it's like. It is next to impossible to get a show off the ground at the best of times. Getting access to anyone without a producer really pushing hard for the show really doesn't happen. Having a producer that takes the show to a broadcaster or funder and doesn't put his all into it is as bad as not having a producer at all. Possibly worse because it can sour the show. Usually, creators, writers or directors don't have the type of head it takes to pull together fincancing, co-productions, legal whatevers and so on. Some do, but then their energies are split. It's not the best scenario. It's not that shows aren't getting made. This particular guy is seeing shows all around him getting pulled together with local funds where he is (seem to be pretty good there), co-productions (usually with Canada - good public money) and broadcaster pre-sales. But the chances of him doing it without a supportive producer?

I'd say slim to none.

Personally, I think it's nuts but I can't imagine it's an isolated incident. Something just seems very shortsighted about it.

Divide and conquer

Around here, as soon as the director turns his back, the producer is looking for stuff. Incomplete cuts mostly, so he can upload them to an ftp site or whatever and show them to people who should never get to see incomplete cuts because they have difficulty in understanding the concept of 'incomplete'.

It's like the old line tester days. You'd show a client a pencil test and you'd get a look of horror followed by, "it will be in colour, right?"

So the producer 'steals' incomplete cuts from the animators or compositors and then forms a series of rather stupid questions. But that's just one aspect. I have noticed that the producer will often ask a director how long something will take. Unhappy with the answer, he'll ask individual animators who only ever know how long their own particular part will take. As that answer is shorter, the producer happily takes it and makes up new schedules.

Divide and conquer.

The endless struggle

I see this sort of thing happen so many times. How hard is it to do things in the right order? Why start animation before you have an animatic? Why work with 'temp' tracks that mean nothing will fit afterwards? Why is there always that long period of inactivity followed by the need to start every process simultaneously?


What is it with some producers' fascination with doing things arse-ways?