National Treasure: Book of Secrets

I'm not much of a Goofy fan...but I am curious, was it in 2D?

As for the Wall-E trailer....I REALLY want to see that, but I can probably watch the extended trailer on Youtube.

As for the actual movie, definitely not with buying a ticket for....

I hated the first National Treasure....augh. :(

As for the Horton Hears a Who Trailer...I was disappointed by the first trailer I watched. Dialect-wise, it didn't feel like Dr. Suess at all. Where was the rhyming and made up words? Completely absent, and that sickens me! :mad:

I'm not much of a Goofy fan...but I am curious, was it in 2D?

As for the Wall-E trailer....I REALLY want to see that, but I can probably watch the extended trailer on Youtube.

As for the actual movie, definitely not with buying a ticket for....

I hated the first National Treasure....augh. :(

As for the Horton Hears a Who Trailer...I was disappointed by the first trailer I watched. Dialect-wise, it didn't feel like Dr. Suess at all. Where was the rhyming and made up words? Completely absent, and that sickens me! :mad:

Speaking of Wall-E, anyone visit BuyNLarge.com?

I saw the recent trailer for Horton Hears a Who online, and I must say...Blue Sky have a knack for making vultures and vulture-type creatures look good. LOL! *Goes off singing #Food, glorious food...#*

The Goofy short was great!

The movie wasn't bad either.

am i the only one who thinks Walle does not seem like a sure shot ?

yeah, that does make sense. but even then i didnt get a very hot vibe from Walle.

just didnt seem interesting enough conceptually even.

though god knows i have had enough of the fairy tale spoofing.

yeah, that does make sense. but even then i didnt get a very hot vibe from Walle.

just didnt seem interesting enough conceptually even.

though god knows i have had enough of the fairy tale spoofing.

I dunno about that. I like the concept of a story about isolation/love/boredom/mass consumerism. I say just wait and see, but I LOVE the idea behind the film. Although, I am insane.

well. lets see how marketable and entertaining they make it.

well. lets see how marketable and entertaining they make it.

Marketability should never be mentioned in the same sentence as entertainment! The great stuff usually isn't "marketable," in the traditional sense. I'd even say that the biggest commercial successes in the film industry were all big risks and not considered marketable by short sighted movie producers....

Wall-E isn't really marketable in the traditional sense. It's something new and risky. But I think people will like it once they go see the film. And see the film people shall. I mean, who doesn't end up seeing Pixar movies?

Marketability should never be mentioned in the same sentence as entertainment! The great stuff usually isn't "marketable," in the traditional sense. I'd even say that the biggest commercial successes in the film industry were all big risks and not considered marketable by short sighted movie producers....

Wall-E isn't really marketable in the traditional sense. It's something new and risky. But I think people will like it once they go see the film. And see the film people shall. I mean, who doesn't end up seeing Pixar movies?

without marketability there would be no entertainment. also, i think some of the biggest commercial successes have always been marketable...they have to be.

without marketability there would be no entertainment. also, i think some of the biggest commercial successes have always been marketable...they have to be.

Very true. Heck, its one of the 12 principles.... appeal?

without marketability there would be no entertainment. also, i think some of the biggest commercial successes have always been marketable...they have to be.

We will always listen to a good story told by a good story teller. And it won't matter if they sell action figures or t shirts.

Very true. Heck, its one of the 12 principles.... appeal?

What the Disney guys meant by that was interesting to watch. Nothing more.

Anyway, please don't take me for an art snob here. But, really, I kinda believe what the Pixar guys publicly state: Good stories make money.

also, i think some of the biggest commercial successes have always been marketable...they have to be.

Again, if it's a good story, and the common folk can "get it" (ie. no obtuse symbolism, for example), then it has a chance to be commercially successful.

Think about The Simpsons for example. When it was first released, the idea of a cartoon show airing on prime time that is squarely aimed at adults....that was totally insane. Not to mention the characters looked...very weird. Yet, the show was funny, and it caught on.

The Shrek movies as well....at it's time, the film was totally new territory. Kind of unmarketable on a superficial sense. Yet, the film was funny, and the story was good, and unique. And why did the third film completely suck? Because it followed a formula. It stuck to what the film producers knew would be "marketable." They didn't try anything new, and had no respect for storytelling. When you focus so much on marketability and not enough on storytelling, you become the mess that Dreamworks animation is now. Those guys made a few good movies, now, they suck.

What the Disney guys meant by that was interesting to watch. Nothing more.

Anyway, please don't take me for an art snob here. But, really, I kinda believe what the Pixar guys publicly state: Good stories make money.

Again, if it's a good story, and the common folk can "get it" (ie. no obtuse symbolism, for example), then it has a chance to be commercially successful.

Think about The Simpsons for example. When it was first released, the idea of a cartoon show airing on prime time that is squarely aimed at adults....that was totally insane. Not to mention the characters looked...very weird. Yet, the show was funny, and it caught on.

The Shrek movies as well....at it's time, the film was totally new territory. Kind of unmarketable on a superficial sense. Yet, the film was funny, and the story was good, and unique. And why did the third film completely suck? Because it followed a formula. It stuck to what the film producers knew would be "marketable." They didn't try anything new, and had no respect for storytelling. When you focus so much on marketability and not enough on storytelling, you become the mess that Dreamworks animation is now. Those guys made a few good movies, now, they suck.

I've had this argument before, and I think you're missing what we're saying... I understand how feel that animation (and art for that matter) is this innovative and aesthetic force (and it is!) that entertains us and enriches us and blah blah blah...

Animation is a business. From the beginning to the end and beyond. Examples: Animators create demo reels to sell themselves and obtain jobs. Ideas and stories are pitched and sold to studios. The characters in our films must sell themselves with good acting (appeal) to the audience for believability. Films draw audiences to sell tickets, advertising space, clicks and DVDs.

Marketing is woven into the very fabric of what we do. It's all done with the end in mind.... the bottom line. Does it require a level of focus? Yes.

I know you don't want to hear this. I'm sure you want to throw tomatoes at me and call me a sellout. Look... even with those films you referenced... there is a level of marketing that must be considered by the (lightning strike! thunder rumble!) executives... (ooh... executives! shaking fist angrily) before they even dare touch a creative property. Films must have good stories and fantastic special effects and inspiring actors and original ideas because people will pay for a movie ticket or buy a DVD or tune in to that channel or click that website to see that stuff.

P.S. Dreamworks doesn't suck.

I've had this argument before, and I think you're missing what we're saying... I understand how feel that animation (and art for that matter) is this innovative and aesthetic force (and it is!) that entertains us and enriches us and blah blah blah...

Animation is a business. From the beginning to the end and beyond. Examples: Animators create demo reels to sell themselves and obtain jobs. Ideas and stories are pitched and sold to studios. The characters in our films must sell themselves with good acting (appeal) to the audience for believability. Films draw audiences to sell tickets, advertising space, clicks and DVDs.

Marketing is woven into the very fabric of what we do. It's all done with the end in mind.... the bottom line. Does it require a level of focus? Yes.

I know you don't want to hear this. I'm sure you want to throw tomatoes at me and call me a sellout. Look... even with those films you referenced... there is a level of marketing that must be considered by the (lightning strike! thunder rumble!) executives... (ooh... executives! shaking fist angrily) before they even dare touch a creative property. Films must have good stories and fantastic special effects and inspiring actors and original ideas because people will pay for a movie ticket or buy a DVD or tune in to that channel or click that website to see that stuff.

P.S. Dreamworks doesn't suck.

My brother read this post, and wanted to reply to you. He's a far better essayist than me, so if the writing is better, you'll know why. ;)
(plus he doesn't frequently use emoticons. :P)

[I]You're not getting deep enough into the question to truly answer it. Let's start with why art forms are a business. Is it financial success that people seek? Perhaps, but true or not, artists have a reputation for not being paid too well, so that kind of person that wants money would likely get into some other field; perhaps as those aforementioned executives, for instance.

The artist, however, is normally in it for the joy of the work. They like working with visuals, or stories, or music. And yes, they like money too, but if that was their primary point of pursuit, they'd likely be in a different field. What they want is enough to get by.

The psychology of your typical artist is pretty simple; people like good products, so they feel if they produce something good, the marketability won't follow. So it's a factor, but you're overemphasizing it when the artist's psychology doesn't give it much thought. As far as they're concerned, their job is to make the product good, and someone else's to convince people that said product is good. Is this a case for everyone? No, but I bet you'd find it is for nine out of ten, or more, of the people.

The problem comes in where the people who think in terms of marketing try to influence the creative product. The things that convince people that the story is good are usually broad concepts (overall plot, tone of film, setting) that are ea. But the things that make a story good are the nuances, such as emotionally realistic characters, appropriate writing, accessible situations/characters. Depending on what kind of story emerges from these nuances, there are certain broad concepts that fit, and those that don't. But for the story to be any good, these broad concepts have to emerge organically from the storytelling process, and marketed on those terms. When you end up making a film from the perspective of marketing first, you ignore the nuances that separate a good story from a bad one. Maybe the film sells once, but business is built of self-perpetuation; how long are you going to last if you consistently disappoint the consumer?

The bottom line is that marketing is important, but it's really a separate issue from storytelling. The fundamental thing people want is a quality product. It's the artist's job to create a quality product. Sometimes, the vision of the artist produces something that is difficult to sell. But if your product is bad to begin with, your choices are to A) not sell it or B) sell it to the consumer, and betray their trust. Forcing artists to work in the broad strokes of marketability has such wide-ranging effects on so many aspects of storytelling, that forcing the wrong type of marketing concept on it can wreck the film in a million subtle ways. On the other hand, no matter how strange a story is, as long as it's good, there's something to market. Worst case scenario is that the marketers will really have to earn their pay with creative and aggressive marketing, which is a far better scenario than having a junk product to begin with. There are storytellers in this world, and there are marketers, and they work very differently. On some levels they must intersect. But marketing should not and cannot be the concern of the artist, because modifying a story to meet a marketing target can only pervert the quality of the underlying tale.[/I]

i think the inherent snobbishness that something artistic cant be financially appreciated is the main contention of most arguments like this.

its unfair to say if something is artistic its not marketable and vice-versa. I think all content has its artistic merit and then has its financial success measured by the people who watched, it appreciated it etc.

When i say marketable i mean as a film on its own, not the action figures etc etc.

Getting back to the topic at hand...

Disney sure could have done a better job promoting the Goofy short before the movie. At the screening I attended, a guy in front of me turned around halfway through the cartoon and asked me "Is this National Treasure?" How tough is it to tack on a 10-second "also...an all-new Goofy cartoon" to the National Treasure trailer? As it is, no one outside the animation community knows this cartoon is in front of this movie.

Getting back to the topic at hand...

Disney sure could have done a better job promoting the Goofy short before the movie. At the screening I attended, a guy in front of me turned around halfway through the cartoon and asked me "Is this National Treasure?" How tough is it to tack on a 10-second "also...an all-new Goofy cartoon" to the National Treasure trailer? As it is, no one outside the animation community knows this cartoon is in front of this movie.

They could be waiting to see if the short creates a buzz all on its own.

Or they could be pulling a play out of the Warner Bros. promotional playbook.... yikes.

Perhaps, but true or not, artists have a reputation for not being paid too well, so that kind of person that wants money would likely get into some other field; perhaps as those aforementioned executives, for instance.

Ooh. Hey, low blow man.

The artist, however, is normally in it for the joy of the work. They like working with visuals, or stories, or music. And yes, they like money too, but if that was their primary point of pursuit, they'd likely be in a different field. What they want is enough to get by.

The psychology of your typical artist is pretty simple; people like good products, so they feel if they produce something good, the marketability won't follow. So it's a factor, but you're overemphasizing it when the artist's psychology doesn't give it much thought. As far as they're concerned, their job is to make the product good, and someone else's to convince people that said product is good. Is this a case for everyone? No, but I bet you'd find it is for nine out of ten, or more, of the people.

The problem comes in where the people who think in terms of marketing try to influence the creative product. The things that convince people that the story is good are usually broad concepts (overall plot, tone of film, setting) that are ea. But the things that make a story good are the nuances, such as emotionally realistic characters, appropriate writing, accessible situations/characters. Depending on what kind of story emerges from these nuances, there are certain broad concepts that fit, and those that don't. But for the story to be any good, these broad concepts have to emerge organically from the storytelling process, and marketed on those terms. When you end up making a film from the perspective of marketing first, you ignore the nuances that separate a good story from a bad one. Maybe the film sells once, but business is built of self-perpetuation; how long are you going to last if you consistently disappoint the consumer?

The bottom line is that marketing is important, but it's really a separate issue from storytelling. The fundamental thing people want is a quality product. It's the artist's job to create a quality product. Sometimes, the vision of the artist produces something that is difficult to sell. But if your product is bad to begin with, your choices are to A) not sell it or B) sell it to the consumer, and betray their trust. Forcing artists to work in the broad strokes of marketability has such wide-ranging effects on so many aspects of storytelling, that forcing the wrong type of marketing concept on it can wreck the film in a million subtle ways. On the other hand, no matter how strange a story is, as long as it's good, there's something to market. Worst case scenario is that the marketers will really have to earn their pay with creative and aggressive marketing, which is a far better scenario than having a junk product to begin with. There are storytellers in this world, and there are marketers, and they work very differently. On some levels they must intersect. But marketing should not and cannot be the concern of the artist, because modifying a story to meet a marketing target can only pervert the quality of the underlying tale.

That's a very nice thing to say. It's a shame it's not really true... especially for the independent animator, the independent artist even.

You're welcome to your opinions. I agree with SkinnyLizard though. Its not fair. One of the few ways we can judge at all is public opinion. And you're LYING if you're not gonna have one of those Wall-E Happy Meal figures by your computer!

I had the feeling they were just trying to capture the spirit of the old-fashioned adventure movies that always had animated shorts preceding them. A little treat before the big shew.

Again, this is my brother replying, to your comments, not me. But I'm letting him post because he wants to argue with you guys, for one. :P

Two, I agree with him 100% on this issue, so he's expressing my very opinion.

i think the inherent snobbishness that something artistic cant be financially appreciated is the main contention of most arguments like this.

its unfair to say if something is artistic its not marketable and vice-versa. I think all content has its artistic merit and then has its financial success measured by the people who watched, it appreciated it etc.

When i say marketable i mean as a film on its own, not the action figures etc etc.

[I]If you wish to argue with me, do so without putting words into my mouth. I outlined quite clearly that there's room for both artistic and commercial pursuits in a project.

You can't include the marketing aspects in the artistic process. It's not because marketing a product is wrong. But it's foolhardy to mess with the very fine and inexact formula that is a quality story.

It would be unfair to say if something artistic is not marketable, or vice versa. Good thing I didn't say that. But it'd also be foolish to assume that there's ever been an idea for a story that is perfectly marketable on its own... from a marketer's perspective, there are always tweaks and changes that could be made to a project that would make it easier to sell. But if you place quality first by staying true to the nature of the project, and market what you've got afterwards, you won't betray the trust of your customers, which pays off more in the long-term.

IMO, the less emphasis you put on marketing, and the more you keep it separate from the creative process, the better the long-term benefits for selling your project. But moreso than that, there's one more solid product in the world than there was before.[/I]

Ooh. Hey, low blow man.

Just the way it is. If you want money, you go to a business with a lot of room for advancement. And the executives managing artists are one such position. It's not necessarily a bad thing; if the executive has a strong understanding of the need for consumer trust, then they'll recognize the importance of approaching creative pursuits in roughly the way I outline.

That's a very nice thing to say. It's a shame it's not really true... especially for the independent animator, the independent artist even.

You're welcome to your opinions. I agree with SkinnyLizard though. Its not fair. One of the few ways we can judge at all is public opinion. And you're LYING if you're not gonna have one of those Wall-E Happy Meal figures by your computer!

[I]Whether or not it is true is irrelevant; it's an ideal, and like all ideals, there are limits in the real world to how close you can get to it. Still, the closer you are, the better, so it's important to push in that direction.

I'm welcome to my opinions, but there are two kinds of opinions; personal opinions that are relative to your own tastes, and opinions that are what you think the truth is. When I outline ideas for how I think a company works best, both in terms of creating quality product and getting reimbursed for it, I am either right or wrong about whether or not it is effective. It's a fact that this could be implemented (regardless of how plausible it is), and it's a fact that this would have serious implications on any company run like this, so therefore, it's also a fact that this would also carry a different kind of effectiveness than a more marketing driven ideology.

As for judging quality, I agree that public opinion is one of the few objective methods we can use to figure out the quality of something. It's more complicated than polling every single person in the world (many products are aimed at a niche audience, and do a superb job of appealing to those people, and no one else), but don't confuse public opinion with financial success; do you know how many bad movies people have paid for over the years? There's also the matter of semantics. A lot of people use fairly forgiving language for movies they don't really care for. "It was okay" is often a euphemism for "boring".

As for the Wall-E toys, eh, not me so much. I'm not an animator or an aspiring one; I'm a future game developer. I fail to see how my interest in, or lack thereof, in spin-off toys has anything to do with my argument.

And I'm still wondering what's not fair.[/I]

i dont want to argue for the sake of argument.

what is ideal? wanting to work and not worry about money or commercial ends? yeah, everyone wants to do that. right from Michelangelo. so whats new.

we all do it for the money, some of us like what we do, some dont ( in any industry)

as for the meeting of art and commerce, well Andy Warhol made a nice point on that.

i think all films (even Transformers) has its artistic merits, they might not be on a wide scale appeal in the aesthetic sense but its there.

The point is people vote with the tickets they buy. Films, well marketed and well positioned are the ones that usually end up doing well because they have mass appeal.

I'm sorry, I'll be more clear. That is a low blow, not because it's true, but because it's a mean, untrue cliche. Walt Disney wasn't an executive? To imply that we can't (and haven't) reached that level is kinda insulting. Friendly advice: Do your homework, especially if you want a job in gaming... you'll be surrounded by artists that built their companies from the ground up.

I'm... not really arguing with you. You have this really nice "candyland" view of how things are supposed to go, and hey, I wish it were as nice as you are describing. It's simply not, and its not going to be. I'm a child of the 80's... I was raised on animated cartoons that began with the toys, for heaven's sake, and those properties are now hitting the movie screens.

The only thing I don't understand in your vision is that it's "betraying" the viewer somehow. It's actually the opposite. By beginning with marketing, we're figuring out what the viewer WANTS to watch. It's catering to the viewer, not betraying them. What do you mean by that? Also, it is a little snobbish to think that you can't equate financial sucess with public opinion. What could possibly please everyone? Has anything ever pleased everyone? I've said it before: Our goal is to catalyze passion, pro or anti.

Maybe it's the word "market" you can't get by. Let's use another word. "Audience". The audience is the market. Really, to begin any creative property without the audience in mind... you're taking a flying leap into a sea of ideas with no lifesaver. You're setting yourself up for dissapointment, and it is a lesson that a lot of stubborn young artists have to learn the hard way.

Maybe it's the idea of selling art, or your perception of marketing. It's necessary, or else we get tragedies like The Iron Giant. That film deserved larger audiences and its too bad no one really knew about it.

I suppose you're right if you just wanted to post on your own website, or YouTube or AtomFilms. You can do what you want there. Oh, and if you're gonna be a game designer... you'll be the only one without Happy Meal toys on your desk.

I could argue much longer than this...but I don't want to. Arguing is only going to get everyone angry, and not produce anything.

Anyway, my brother and I are not totally against merchandising or marketing art. Near my workspace I have a bunch of animation/videogame related toys. My brother also has a bit of that at his computer desk.

We just argue that in our "candy-land world," as you call it, marketing should not be the artist's job. But the marketer's. The marketer should be concerned about getting the audience aware of the film/game, and get the audience excited about the film/game.

Ultimately, targeting a demographic before storytelling is dangerous to the quality of the work. I say, you're a human being just like the audience. So, try to make the best film possible, test out your ideas with some friends, and if everyone in the small circle of production likes it...then people will probably like it too.

Let the marketer worry about how to show off the finalized piece. And yes, possibly sell action figures too.

I'm not arguing... I'm trying to tell you... This is how it is.

Look, I'll shut up with this: Here's some excerpts from the (perfect timing for this discussion) new Developing and Pitching story in Animation World Magazine:

...It doesn't do you any good to create a show and then keep the presentation in a drawer. You need to get it out into the marketplace, tell development executives (the people who make deals with creators for shows) about it, and see if anyone wants to make it...

...Sometimes you get good executives and the changes they want actually are for the better. If not to better the concept or the characters, at least they'll make the show more marketable and will help get it made. Unfortunately, not all executives are good executives and sometimes the changes they want are just because. Some people feel they're only earning their pay if they make you change something, whether it needs it or not....

You might want to go and read that article, and then maybe you'll understand a little better. Whether you feel it should be our concern or not... the fact is that it IS our concern.

i agree with Zach that the animators job is to create the content while the marketers job is to market what he is given. however it rarely works like that, mostly the content that is marketable is then created.

thats how it is. might suck for some people but that is how it is. i think a lot of pixar stuff had a plenty of soul, while Shrek seemed hammy.

but both the things were pretty good as well as marketable.

How was National Treasure? I loved the first one.

I'm sure this one is every bit as cheesy and unbelievable as the first one - and I'll be in line this afternoon to catch it.

I'm gonna see it just for the Goofy short :p Ok, so I have a mild interest in the movie itself but I'm mostly seeing it for the Goofy short.