Posts Tagged Writing
The Surprising Cult-Popularity of My Little Pony
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Animation, Television, Uncategorized, Writing on February 7, 2011
What’s up with the sudden love for MLP?
For those not in the know, MLP stands for My Little Pony. For those really not in the know, the veritable toy line and 80s cartoon was rebooted under the name My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic in 2010 by Hasboro’s own network “The Hub,” to, er, essentially create a new toy line. While there’s nothing new here in conception, the result seems to have given birth to a host of cult fans across the internet, including a few fan forums and chat rooms filled with supporters constantly touting the show’s value. And the scary part is, they are full-grown adults.
Let’s slow down a moment. First, it’s important to emphasize the cult status of the show, especially since Internet popularity doesn’t exactly mean much in terms of the average consumer’s notion of popular culture. In addition, “Buy My Product” cartoons always carry a stigma of blatant financial pandering – a marketer’s paradise where kids line up to acquire action figures, dolls, bedspreads, key chains, pogs (pogs are still a thing, right?), and countless other pieces of merchandise – and maybe, just maybe, they’ll watch the cartoon on occasion.
I often take issue with those instantly dismissive of toy-based entertainment. Sure, it’s obvious that the primary drive is skewed towards the “toyetic” aspect of the franchise versus actually creating a quality cartoon; that doesn’t mean that the cast and crew can’t be dedicated enough to try and create a quality show/movie/comic regardless. Something that’s inherently property-based doesn’t automatically mean it’s shitty – see, Clue. And it’s pretty great to draw as much entertainment from My Little Pony as I would from something like Spongebob Squarepants.
It helps that the show is run by Lauren Faust, wife to Powerpuff Girl and Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends creator Craig McCracken, whose influences are apparent (the relation between PPG and MLP is so obvious it isn’t worth exploring). Make no mistake, though: it is Faust’s creativity and design that shines through here, to the show’s ultimate benefit. MLP works carefully in defining distinct pony personalities, always an important element in large ensamble TV shows, particularly animated ones (were there any distinctive character in the original MLP or even something like Care Bears?). Its stories are simple but engaging, non-pandering, and disguise its life-lessons well enough in surprising, well-thought out plots and mythologies. It’s a great example of going all out with a simple idea, and reaping the rewards.
Still, it’s popularity is something of a mystery. We’re talking colorful, magical, bright-eyed ponies here, with situations that leave our protagonists afflicted with punned-based diseases, such as – are you ready? – Poison Jokes. (You see, it’s like Poison Oak, but afflicts you with a gag-based symptom.) And while that sounds cringe-inducing, it works very well with the show because of the cast’s commitment to the conflict. There’s no “cutesy-cooties” stories here, and no shoed-in lessons or random-academic facts. Pun aside, Poison Jokes is serious fucking business to the ponies.
Bright, fluid animation with (I assume) Flash and excellent voice talent elevates the show to another level of quality. Solid stories and great characters brings it up another notch (which makes it leagues above the “reptiles talking about nothing” monotony of Dragon Tales – the animated version of Gilmore Girls). However, I’d attribute one extra thing that really makes the show shine beyond more cartoons of a similar nature. You probably didn’t think of this, but this simple feature is what I think allows it to surpass the nature of simple kid’s interest and into genuine, adult-likeability:
Episodes are 22-minutes long.
It always surprises me that more modern-day cartoons don’t adhere to the full 22-minute time frame for an episode, opting to create two 11-minute shorts instead. I’m not referring to the Fox/Comedy Central ‘toons, which are more or less animated sitcoms (although Drawn Together blurred that line), nor to “action” cartoons, like your GI Joes, Transformers, or Marvel/DC animated programs. I refer to what Jeffery Scott in How to Write for Animation calls “squash-and-stretch” cartoons, your mid-day and early evening animation on networks like Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network: Angry Beavers, TUFF Puppy, Regular Show, Chowder, and so on. If an episode of shows like these use all 22 minutes for one self-contained story, it’s probably because it’s a special of some sort. Otherwise, you’re probably getting two shorts instead of one.
Granted, I can understand why it is done. Executives fear alienating the young audience by splitting a show into two parts through commercials. Also, it’s slightly easier to produce two shorts with a team of people (regulating directors and animators focusing on their proper specialties) than it is to collaborate an entire team to one full episode. Still, in the age of DVR and Youtube, and in a time when streamlining the workload is much cheaper and easier, squash-and-stretch cartoons ought to utilize their entire timeslot to the fullest.
Quite frankly, 22-minute episodes tend to be better than the 11-minute ones. The pacing is spread out better and jokes and movements aren’t as crammed together. We can learn about the characters more, get a sense of their personalities and their behaviors, as well as their interactions with each other. Think about it this way: squash-and-stretch cartoons use the 22-minute format during specials mainly to reveal “secrets” or “surprises” about the characters or their world – you know, that thing called “development”. If a squash-and-stretch cartoons worked off the 22-minute template every time, they could “develop” the characters and the world every time. A no-brainer.
The 2 x 11-minute template only leaves room for the story, under the belief that there isn’t a strong need to develop much else to the show besides the plot. With 22-minutes, characters can shine, the plot can create larger stakes, and the limits of the confined setting can be explored to its fullest potential (provided there isn’t any pointless padding). I’m personally not a huge Invader Zim fan, but I’ll admit that loved the pilot and it’s mid-season, planet-riding episode, both of which were 22 minutes. Phineas and Ferb mixes 1 x 22-minutes with 2 x 11-minutes episodes quite frequently, and while both formats are fun, the 1 x 22 have more going for it in terms of character, interactions, and aesthetics. There’s more energy. There’s more investment. There’s more commitment. And this is what I believe makes the My Little Pony show such a treat. Heck, it’s why Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues fairly entertaining to adults, too. It commits us to the entire episode of the show.
While I’ll avoid an entire episode analysis of what works here, a cursory glance at the first five minutes reveals quite a bit. In about thirty seconds, we learn about the two main characters, and a third who apparently controls the clouds. Right after – we hit the ground running with a conflict: all the ponies are in hiding. The plot begins quickly, a la a 11-minute cartoon. But the beats switches quickly to a vaguely sitcomy-type development. In the darkness of the house, we learn point-blank how each pony works and thinks; different voices, actions, behaviors and reactions to this “zebra” illicit similar fears but different responses to that fear. We learn (quite comically, but paramount to in-world development) that they exist in a realm that finds the laws of nature strange, crude, and barbarically horrific. And instead of moving towards the episode climax, the stakes are ratcheted up even higher when the younger pony strikes out on her own to confront this strange striped creature. In essence, we have all the quick-to-the-punch elements of typical 11-minute cartoon, the character-interplay and pacing of a sitcom, and the diegetic development and rising conflict notorious to action cartoons. People may say the writing is good, but it’s because of that 22-minute time frame that the writing can be particularly stellar in conception and execution (bare in mind, the plots are still inherently simplistic, but they go the extra mile to make them appealing).
I’m not rushing to catch every episode, but of the three I have seen, I found myself endeared to the tale being told, mainly because very little of the running time is wasted. Ratcheting up the conflict, keeping the characters distinct and unique (and giving everyone a fair amount of screen time – no one seems wasted), and maintaining those cartoon roots leaves My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic an entertaining, if not too deep, piece of television delight. For comparison, this episode is more sitcomy in plot (a creative take on the other friend replacing you plot-trope), while this one is a more basic, cartoony story (given a harrowing if silly climax). The mixture of elements would be a mess in short form, but 22-minutes is perfect; or should I say, 22-minutes is magic.
CHILDHOOD REVISITED – HOMEWARD BOUND: THE INCREDIBLE JOURNEY
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Childhood Revisited, Film, Uncategorized, Writing on January 19, 2011
Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey – (1993)
Director: Duwayne Dunham
Starring: Michael J. Fox, Sally Field, Don Ameche
Screenplay by: Caroline Thompson, Linda Woolverton
I profusely apologize for the late posting of this entry. It was supposed to be uploaded a week ago, but last minute events held me up in preparing for my trip out to LA. To wit: it’s not that I didn’t want to continue this feature, it’s simply that the webtoon pitch and work has kept me overall very busy. That, and the fact that Homeward Bound is incredibly boring.
NOSTALGIC LENS: Homeward Bound is one of those “kill time in school” films – you know, the ones where the teacher shows it to you at the end of the day when classes are over and you’ve learned everything you could for the day, which manages to produce a short, safe, kids-friendly, 90-minute tale that does the bare minimum to warm the heart. (There are a few films that fit this list which I’ll be rewatching) While I remember mildly enjoying this film, I can’t say it particularly warmed my heart or left any lasting impression. I thought they fought a bear in this movie.
DOES IT HOLD UP: They don’t fight a bear. They fight a cougar. And they don’t really fight the cougar, because it’s painfully obvious that the cougar and the canines are in completely different spaces. It’s an editing trick. See, cause what you do is cut different frames of differently shot scenes, so it makes it seem like they’re in the same space. Movie magic!
Homeward Bound is a fucking slog. It’s a film that exist simply to exist. It certainly doesn’t have the heartwarming eye for detail and endearing elements like Babe, and yet, doesn’t inspire anger and hatred like the horrible Theodore Rex. It’s just a boring, run-of-the-mill glacier of a film, with predictable beats and nonsensical moments, and forced conflicts to make what should have been a 22-minute episode of a PBS show into a full-length feature.
Due to a huge and “incredible” eye-rolling predicament, the pets of the Seaver family – one Chase, Shadow, and Sassy – believe themselves to be abandoned at some farm when they’re placed there for a week for some reason or another. They manage to break out of their pen and find themselves trucking across through the wilderness to find their way home.
The only thing about the film that’s kind of interesting is the decision to make the pets unable to understand their human owners. This language barrier lays a somewhat plausible base in which all this could happen. But the “comedy of errors” set of coincidences that keep this film moving is so ridiculous that it drives you crazy. A local farmer misinterprets a note that the animals are fine. Chase goes nuts when some doctors help him, prompting an extra forty minutes of movie when they “escape” the very help they seek to find. There’s a random scene where a disheveled Sassy is nursed back to help, only to never be referenced again. And so on.
The writing’s filler. The acting is between bland and awful (I’m looking at you, kids). The cinematography of some of the outdoor scenes are nice, but hardly anything special. A competent cinematographer SHOULD be able to film visually striking outdoor shots. And, as alluded above, the editing is atrocious. Here’s every single complaint, in one deliciously full ten minute clip:
Beyond that, though, there’s nothing else about this film worth talking about. It certainly won’t wow or impress adults, and it barely passes the mark for “talking animal” films. Keith Phipps over at the AVClub wrote quite on point about how dogs make bad actors. The more you think about it, the more you realize that these trained creatures are really simply reacting to cues off-screen, and only the top notch editors, voice artists, and directors can really pull it off. Homeward Bound, by merely being adequate, ultimately fails.
IN A NUTSHELL: Yawnfest. Homeward Bound is as boring as the actors clearly are. I know teachers are killing time, but Jesus, you’re also killing excitement.
NEXT UP: Casper
Thinking vs. Entertaining: Just Kiss and Make Up
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Animation, Film, Television, Uncategorized, Video Games, Writing on October 5, 2010
I saw Inception three weekends ago and, for the most part, it rocked. In fact, I mentioned on a comment board that Inception “(intellectually) rocked.”
It got me thinking, and I’m not talking about the multiple layers of what was a dream and what was real in the movie. It got me thinking about the oft-debated role of entertainment in the world today, of the power of pop culture and the supposed responsibility it has towards the viewing public at large. Should it be a purely-entertaining spectacle, a visual and narrative means to appeal to the “lowest common denominator” (a phrase which I loathe to the core, in that it belittles the worth of the average person – to the point that they lash out into, oh, let’s say, Tea Partier-like mentalities)? Or should it be a thought-provocative, challenging piece of work that really forces its audience to ponder the world around them?
After hits like Inception and The Matrix, can it be both?
Short answer: of course not. Financially-speaking, it’s impossible. You need the best screenwriters, the best directors, the best action-choreographers. You need to spend time tweaking the script to have all the depths necessary to push narrative boundaries, yet maintain enough comfort food (action! explosions! hot womens!) to keep regular audience members entertained all the way through. It’s known as a high-concept film, and you can’t finance all of them at such a high level of quality. That kind of money just doesn’t exist.
Yet, even with small budgets, I would think a certain amount of intellectual-to-entertainment value could be maintained. Look, I’m all for explosions, fart jokes, gratuitous sexual scenes, and all those silly moments films and TV shows have to hook viewers. I’m a guy. But it doesn’t take a million dollars to put all of that into a framework or layer of content that seeks to say something about the world or human nature. Even if it’s nothing new or ground-breaking, a form of entertainment can really hit upon a certain truth that affects its viewers at a deeper level, even if that depth is skin deep.
Part of it is on audience members. Alan Sepinwall is partially credited for the new wave of TV criticism that focuses on close analysis of television shows, which corresponded perfectly with this “golden age of TV” that we’re apparently experiencing. There is much to be said of the kinds of great, heavy moments that TV is indeed producing, but let’s not be coy – these shows are also immensely entertaining. Breaking Bad has all the rich, wonderful elements worthy of dissecting: issues of identity, influences, family, violence, and so on. But it’s also the most entertaining, exciting, balls-to-the-walls hour on television today.
Sepinwall’s style of analysis is approachable and clean, and has been embraced by so many critics and spread across so many fields; video games and comics and music now have episodic, closer readings of their contents, as well as still maintaining their basic core. In time, cartoons of every level will begin to have something like that (outside of Pixar films), something that I’m hoping to be a part of. [Hint, hint.]
I digress. Part of the sudden fall of the indie wave in the post-Tarantino landscape was because of the number of boring indie films. These filmmakers lacked the training and experience to maintain clear pacing and exciting stories (melodramas can be exciting!), and only get caught up in their intellectual exercising. Contrast that with the vapid yawn-fest of this summer’s flock of movies – all spice, no substance. And financially, it showed.
(Note, I’m still believe there is a place for fun, silly movies like The Expendables and deep, thematic movies like There Will Be Blood. There’s always room for both types, and depending on the mood I’m willing to watch them both. However, in terms of increasing the quality to the current-television, 90s-animation, or 80s-comics level, it’s possible to do both.)
Education and critical thinking don’t have to be pretentious, maudlin, platitudinous acts. Which classes do you best remember in high school and college? The lame ones? Or the ones where your teacher or professor tried to bring life into the curriculum? It’s not that average audience members ignore smart material. It’s simply that you can’t present just the smart material. You need to jazz it up. It has to be presentable, fun, and engaging. It’s something schools should be trying, and it can’t stop once you reach the theaters.
With this new wave of TV, and the sad summer save for the hits like How to Train Your Dragon, Toy Story 3, and Inception, entertainment, even high-budget summer blockbuster, will hopefully try to be smarter, more grounded with its stories, and really seek to prefect that blend of high-octane excitement with narrative substance.