Hey doodz. So, I started writing this from Japan on a Shinkansen train on its way to Osaka, then on a plane from Osaka on its way to Manilla, on a hammock on a tropical island in an eco-lodge in Palawan in the Philippines, a bit more in Manila and finished back in Joburg in South Africa.
For one, itโs been great to take a break from work and just soak up other parts of the world. I havenโt been sketching or scamping or writing or doing anything directly work-related save for a few work emails and the pictures in this post that were drawn on an old iPad Mini 4 with ProCreate app and a dumb stylus. Gotta say, putting my iPad in a cover with a keyboard has given it new life. The iPad used to sit at the bottom of a drawer, I donโt like typing on a screen so I never really took it with me on trips. The little bluetooth keyboard has changed that – I typed 99% of this post with it.
Japanโs been great. Iโve bought a bunch of videogame plushes, visited a bunch of retro videogame shops, saw an old school friend who I didnโt realize how much I miss (he works for the British government in Japan, and somehow seeing him reminded me to be more โsoftโ and Iโve rediscovered my soft centre) and am amazed at how almost everything is cartoonerized in Japan. A friend who visited earlier this year commented on how proud everyone is of their job, and heโs right – from the chef behind the fryer making Okonomiyaki to the train conductor, everyone takes their job lank seriously and I dig it. The Philippines was also amazing – incredible islands, friendly locals and the best snorkelling I’ve done in my life. But, for the first time in ages, an overseas trip is just for holidays, and not work. I was hoping to get an Annecy trip funded by government but unfortunately they changed the rules after we submitted applications (and paid a R500 joining fee to AnimationSA to apply :/)
Anyways, because I spent the last working part of 4 years focused on getting an IP off the ground and onto TV, I still have some thoughts for anyone Googling โhow to pitch an animated show to a networkโ. I used to read as much as I could about making an animated show, so I guess this is some rogue advice targeted at any creators trying to find out more info. I still havenโt cracked it – I donโt have a show on TV. Iโm in no ways an expert on the subject. But, I did sell IPs to both Nickelodeon (Moosebox) and Triggerfish/Disney (Dogshow with Cat). Both were different experiences, Moosebox was something I came up with a few days before pitching it, and Dogshow with Cat used to be Bru & Boegie, characters Iโm very protective over, and ended up turning into another show. Both have similarities though – theyโre both aimed at kids between 6 – 12 years old, they both have short pilots (2 minute episodes) and both have completed show bibles (a document that explains what the show is about – who the characters are, the relationships between the characters, rules of the world, overviews of stories etc, artwork etc.)
Firstly, a preface: Iโm grateful to anyone who funds my work. This post isnโt meant as criticism, most of the time I believe everyoneโs just doing their best at the time. Itโs really meant as advice so that you can avoid falling into pitfalls that may affect both you and the client / network. See it as a stepping stone; where Iโve failed perhaps you can learn. Itโs also as a way for me to crystalliseย my thoughts a bit more about selling an animated show to a network. In addition, any time I find myself self-justifying myself to myself or others, itโs worth looking at my own role in things. The shadow is smart and will try to place blame anywhere but itself. In the end, I canโt blame anyone, and the buck should stop with the creator. Iโll explain some general thoughts and then weโll look more specifically at the 2 IPs Iโve sold. None of these thoughts represent the companies Iโve worked for, and Iโm not an employee anywhere. I guess this is the post Iโd have liked to have read before encountering a few things.
Bru & Boegie’s Guide to Pitching an Animated Show to a Network
Your Best Work
Think really hard before you pitch that idea youโve been working on for years. If youโre very precious about it, it could work against you. Remember, almost everyone you bring on board will want to add their thumbprint to your IP (intellectual property) – this isnโt necessarily a bad thing – youโll want them to have their skin in the game to be invested in your project too – but unless youโre extremely lucky and find an investor who loves your idea as is (this hasnโt been my experience) your idea is going to go through a number of iterations and the end result may bear little resemblance to how it looked going in.
This is the paradox / game that I havenโt yet figured out – the network wants you to be invested 100% in your idea because a show needs a captain with a clear vision, but the network still wants to be able to make a number of changes, some of which may be central to what you like about the show. So begins a game of push and pull and it can steal a lot of time and energy away from the creative work. If the creatorโs too much of a pushover and takes on every note given, the network starts thinking the creator is a rudderless boat awash in the ocean, happy to go wherever the tide may take it. If the creator knows exactly what he/she wants and doesnโt listen to the networkโs suggestions, the network can just stop funding the project and say โthe creatorโs too hard-headedโ, which weโll get to later.
In all honesty I think itโs better to follow the latter: do exactly what you want to do, because if the network eventually *does* follow suit, you know you have a real partner on board that believes in your vision. Itโs kind of like dating – if youโre upfront with what youโre looking for in a relationship, it saves a lot of time for both parties. If you end up making a show thatโs basically a culmination of exec notes, you wonโt be happy and the execs wonโt be happy. They donโt know what they want otherwise theyโd just make shows without creators. If youโre not happy, be sure to communicate what you want – if creative partners have โnon-negotiablesโ that are at odds, it can become apparent to both that itโs time to move on.
So, what to do? Looking at the middle-ground between being Mr. Nice Guy who takes on any note, and being Mr. Not So Nice Guy who has such a strong North Star that the network doesnโt have a say, the process is much easier if it *isnโt* your personal baby. Working together with a creative partner is way easier if youโre not 100% invested in the outcome, because then โcompromiseโ isnโt a dirty word and wherever you end up, youโve both arrived there together. That way, *anything* that results from the idea is a bonus. You put in 50%, I put in 50%, letโs see what baby we come up with. It’s more like the creator becomes a surrogate mother, as opposed to a baby that’s already been born.
Of course, the flip-side is that you hope you are able to even *sell* your IP if itโs not something youโre completely stoked about. Generally, ideas are a dime-a-dozen. Spongebob may have been a completely different show in the hands of another creator, and I somehow think if you gave Stephen Hillenburg (Spongebobโs creator) ingredients that werenโt a sponge, starfish and crab, heโd have still created an amazing show. What really counts is execution, and the networkโs really investing in you as a person. You may have a body of work that instils confidence, or youโve done something thatโs given the network reason to take a chance on you.
Another danger of selling your best work is that the networkโs under no obligation to do anything with it, which can be heart-breaking if itโs a project you really care about. Youโve created something amazing, and you have no more claim to it. So, make sure that the contract has a โsunset clauseโ, which means if they donโt use the IP within a certain time (letโs say 2 years) and donโt renew the rights to it with a financial bonus to you, then rights automatically revert to you. This is very important, otherwise you may find that youโve spent years investing in something and it comes to an abrupt stop (another reason to make sure youโre at least enjoying the process if it all dead-ends).
2 case studies
Moosebox
I kind of came up with Moosebox specifically for Nickelodeon – well, it was a bunch of ideas that Iโve always wanted to do, smooshed together. But unlike Bru & Boegie (which Iโll talk about later), Moosebox didnโt have a history. It was a fresh page for both myself and Nickelodeon. If Nickelodeon wanted to rather turn it into a stage play, I wasnโt too precious about it and though my first prize is a TV show, Iโd likely have taken their lead. One of the main characters of the duo (Moose) had no legs to start with and Nickelodeon said it was a non-negotiable that he have legs. It was pretty much a core component to the duoโs dynamic that Catbox – his best friend and accomplice – cart him around and that they were super-dependant on each other, so it required a lot of further development, but because it was fairly fresh to both me and Nickelodeon I relented and gave him legs. The showโs still awesome (in my mind it still would have worked with him without legs) but I wasnโt too married to the characters yet. Lots of people contributed ideas; Nickelodeon, Stuart Coutts, Triggerfish, I hired people to jam ideas with, it was a collaborative effort with still enough of a wide berth provided to me for how Iโd like to work, I chose what to use and what not to use, still had quite a bit of autonomy with how I liked to work (production was a pretty lean setup) and was able to settle into my own rhythm of alchemical processes that allows my best creative work. After the pilot, I received further development funding and it was up to me how to use that funding. I like that, partly because the production process goes hand-in-hand with the creative process for me when moneyโs involved. I know what deals Iโve made with people and know what I can ask of them.
I also learned to create contracts with things clearly spelled out: any ideas that came up during the process, I owned. I worked closely with a production company for a while during development with a loose arrangement and mostly on good faith, but sooner or later water gets murky and clarity is needed. Advice: get proper contracts from the get-go. Seriously. It needs to be clear that youโre paying x person or studio, x amount in exchange for the work they do. If you donโt do this, itโs more-than-likely going to cause an upset later down the line. If youโre working with friends, thereโs a whole extra dynamic at play which can go south if youโre not careful. (During Dogshow I wasnโt sure what contract a contributor had signed with the production company and wasnโt sure what I could ask of her. As a result, she wanted to be a co-creator for the input she was having – not good. Itโs around this time I wondered why I was giving up so much control.)
Moosebox has had its false-starts, heart-breaks and highlights. Luckily I have someone at Nickelodeon who is a fan of the show, who had quite a lot of input into it and who I feel is fighting in my corner, so there may still be life for it.
At the moment the show has a 2-min pilot, a KIFF beautiful show bible (even if I do say so myself) and an 11-min pilot script with an animatic. After Nickelodeon officially passed on the show, I was promised rights would revert to me. After triple checking this would happen and making sure I hadnโt forgotten about this promise, when the documents were apparently ready and on my contactโs desk, someone at Nickelodeon decided that they actually want to finance 20 x 90 second shorts, so thatโs in discussion at the moment. Is this new development real? An illusion? Who knows. Apparently Nickelodeon can drag things on for a while. Time will tell.
Even though a bright future looks likely, Iโm holding my breath until the documents are signed and weโre actually working on it.
Dogshow with Cat
Dogshow on the other hand had a bit of a strange journey. Being the most recent pilot project Iโve made, itโs the freshest in my memory.
It started out with me selling Bru & Boegie to Triggerfish & Disney as part of their โStoryLabโ. I created Bru & Boegie in 2002, have created hundreds of comic strips and self-published a bunch of Bru & Boegie comic books, created animated shorts with them in – Iโm very protective over them, nobody knows them better than I do. I pitched it in good faith that should it be selected, both Triggerfish and Disney would have a clear understanding about who they are, so they knew what theyโre getting themselves into. When Bru & Boegie *was* selected for Story Lab, I was thrilled – I thought โfinally a studio is taking a chance, theyโre pushing the envelope and trying something different.โ My assumptions turned out to be dead wrong – almost immediately Disneyโs compliance department told me Iโd need to change the underpants, and then there were questions about their lips. We hit an impasse and I realised if I wanted to gain any ground, Iโd be having to fight a lot. Even though I found examples of other kids shows for the same demographic audience that had characters in underpants (thereโs even a โCaptain Underpantsโ movie coming out) to support my argument, I didnโt feel like Disney got my show *at all*. Luckily, Triggerfish suggested we take Bru & Boegie off the table and make a new show. I got Bru & Boegie back, but I could have lost them to Disney who I imagine have a big pile of unused purchased IP. For getting Bru & Boegie back from the maws of the shark, Iโm grateful. The StoryLab was a success in many ways – we got a trip to LA, got a stack of valuable experience and I got a pilot financed. We re-jigged things and branched off Bru & Boegieโs cat & dog into their own new and different characters and added a new character; ‘Mike’ – a way for me to feel even more invested in the show. Iโm kicking myself a little bit because I didnโt make the dog different enough to Bru & Boegieโs dog, so Iโve got to be a little careful about how I use the dog in my passion projects. (I talk more about why you shouldnโt necessarily combine your passion projects and commercial work.)
Even though the DTI (South Africaโs Department of Trade & Industry) pulled out of funding the Story Lab (I believe Triggerfish ended up fiancing the whole thing, I was wrongly under the impression that Disney paid for most of it) the experience taught me a lot. One of them: if I donโt put my foot down, itโs my fault when things go awry. After going back and forth between trying to please Triggerfish and Disney and doing my own thing and after fulfilling my contractual obligations, once the dust had settled and we werenโt in production anymore with a deadline over our heads, I picked apart the process and suggested ways we may do better next time. Iโve erred on the side of being definite in how Iโd like to work should the show get further funding, which sounds like it may not fly. It feels like a weight off my shoulders – I laid my cards on the table for how theyโd be able to get the best work out of me, and even though Triggerfish isnโt keen I feel like Iโve saved us both a lot of potential grief by getting over my people-pleasing complex and being direct and honest. It was a gamble that I felt was necessary and worth it. Itโs a gamble either way when working relationships seem to be at odds with the project, and I donโt know what the right answer is.
One general thing that tripped me up (Iโve thought about this a lot – I really want to learn from this experience) and one that I donโt have any advice for, but can at least share: when I finally relented and agreed to tweak as much as was necessary to make the show into a safe, suitable, appealing IP for 6 – 12 year olds, take on notes in good faith that the investor should call the shots as itโs their money, and let contributors have more of a say – it seemed to create an immediate negative knee-jerk reaction from the studio. They didnโt like that *at all*, they really wanted me to make my own thing.
What complicated matters further is there was not a standard monogamous relationship – myself and the network involved. There was a polyamorous setup, a love triangle of sorts, with myself, Triggerfish *and* Disney involved. Itโs my show but itโs not really, I can be overruled at any time, Iโve been hired by an intermediary company for a parent company but the intermediary company has put up all the money. Please note: this isnโt anyoneโs fault. Weโre all trying our best. I can only talk for myself here, and again itโs worth noting Triggerfish did a lot of cool stuff for StoryLab. Any time I think about Story Lab thereโs a tension within me that is grateful to have been part of it, but also wanting to be critical to not make the same mistakes again. I felt like there were too many cooks involved, and as with nearly everything, this is my own fault for allowing it. Animationโs already hard, but we made it even harder. Triggerfish has a good track record with 3D animation, we were doing our best to create a makeshift 2D pipeline from scratch, with every animator using a different software package, I had a few gatekeepers between myself and the contributors so I wasnโt able to get a proper personal rapport, the pilot had to incorporate soccer AND we had a deadline fast approaching. You know that saying โKISS – Keep It Simple, Stupidโ? I learned the value of adhering to this approach after production on the 2-min pilot, a thousand times over. If the end results were always better with a more complicated setup Iโd be ok to look at such a setup again, but Iโve found a leaner setup allows for a better result, at least until we plug into a proper 2D pipeline. I understand this goes against the popular belief that โcollaboration makes everything betterโ. Iโd add to this โcollaboration with the right people who save you time and who need minimal inputโ makes everything better. The โeveryone has a sayโ system can work as long as itโs clear whoโs making the final decision. Iโve found decisions by democracy are almost never good for creative work. Itโs sometimes called โdeath by committeeโ.
At the moment the show has a kiff show bible, a 2-min pilot that’s not really representative of the updated show, an amazing pilot script that Iโd love to see made and holds a lot of potential. Iโve insisted on working the way I know best to make the pilot – I dig the 11-min pilot script we have and would dig to produce and animate it under my own roof. However, my insistence on working a certain way for the future may have been a deal-breaker. After being critical of the production process and offering suggestions for how Iโd like to better work next time, one studio partner has said โthey cannot recommend me for mainstream animationโ and that โI have little understanding of how the process worksโ, another partner has said they wish to discuss further. Iโm keen to focus on the pilot but the studio wishes to find $1m funding for the first season, and would need a distributor to come on board to add their thumbprint and funding. Because this was somewhat different to a standard commercial project where Iโm not so emotionally invested, Iโve decided the best thing for both me and the two studios involved is for me to โlet it goโ, accept that I may not be part of the showโs future, that it really isnโt my show or my responsibility, reset, dissolve my ego around the project to neither oppose or align my ego with the studio or network. Iโm reading Eckhart Tolleโs โNew Earthโ which is helping me identify how ego attachments can cause many problems for me and others. Even as I type, thinking about this project evokes a โbattle modeโ response in my body thatโs not healthy – a kind of โI really need to fight for thisโ thing.
If I’d done this again I’d have either insisted on either handing it over to a studio with a tried-and-tested 2D pipeline to avoid the many headaches that come with production (I suggested this in the beginning stages but we decided against it), or totally relinquish control and let someone else call the shots, or insist on taking over production 100% myself in-house.
As a note, Iโve been told by Triggerfish that many of the other StoryLab โwinnersโ are experiencing good success with their shows’ development, so all the best to the studio and them.
Passion vs. Commerce
Itโs worth making a distinction about โpassion projectsโ and โcommercial workโ. In an ideal world, weโd all be doing our passion projects to earn a living, and if youโre doing that, youโve won at life – congratulations. However, sometimes the beautiful worlds of โpassion projectsโ and the rule-oriented world of โcommercial projects for kids of a certain age where child psychologists and compliance departments are kingโ donโt overlap particularly neatly.
Iโve watched creators talk about pitching shows, read many stories about how shows were greenlit, heard execs speak about what they look for in a show pitch, and been through two pitches-to-show-bible-with-a-short-pilot processes myself. From the networkโs side, they may get the best out of you if you pitch that thing you love because there’s a good chance youโll go the extra mile to make it work. However, it may not be such a reciprocal relationship.
If you have a project youโve been working on for a long time and are precious about, my advice here would be to create a project that has some of the elements that you like about your own project, but make it different enough so that if the show dead-ends, itโs not too devastating.
The potential downside is that the network / studio may not be getting the best work out of you, which isnโt so great for them. Thatโs the gamble you need to make, and I donโt know what the right answer is. I used to think that you should always pitch the projects that you love the most, and put your whole heart into all your work. A colleague suggested not doing this, and I’m seeing the sense in it. In the past, making a project ‘my baby for a while’ was simpler to do because I could be sure my work would make it through production to the end, and the public would see it. With an animated show, there are a number of hoops to jump through and the plug can be pulled at any time. There are also NDAโs so people may never see your work.
Now I think differently – rather pitch an emptier vessel that both you and the investor / studio can fill, so you both feel ownership. Protect your heart a little bit, rather take things slowly, start with a mutt that you can work up into a pedigree. Donโt give them your golden goose – itโs going to be harder for you both to put their stamp on it. It should be something that you at least โlikeโ because if an exec decides that โyep, letโs take a chance on creator xโ thereโs a chance you may spend years working on that project, and you hope that you can both fashion it into something you (and others) end up loving.
With standard commercial work, the understanding is often a lot simpler: Iโm working for you, you hired me because you like my work, I work on a project until weโre both happy with it – job done. However, with a kids show, I think networks are trying to figure out what makes a show successful, and one of the things theyโve discovered is that they need a creator with a strong voice, someone with โthe visionโ, a captain whoโs able to steer the vessel to shore safely. In truth, I feel like itโs more of a push-pull game. If the vision is so clear that the network / studio doesnโt have a say, thatโs no fun for them – the game is up. If the captainโs just doing whatever the network / studio say, thatโs no fun either – the game is up. When working with a network / studio funding the project, the network / studio is the one who decides whether the game is up or not. This can be disempowering and disheartening for the captain for sure, but knowing this dynamic from the beginning can help matters. If anything, smile and enjoy the ride.
Advice from the Pros.
Iโve asked for advice from successful people in the field and results differ. Iโve received the suggestion of โgoing as far out as possible and doing exactly what you want because the network will always pull you backโ (‘Shoot for the Moon & Land on a Star’ vibes). Other advice from a really successful show creator is โhe realised the network canโt make the show without him – they need him and theyโre trying their best, so, have some patience with network execs.โ Robert Downer Jr. (not in the animation field but universal advice anyway) says he listens and nods and then does his own thing anyway.
There doesnโt seem to be any sure-fire formula to success with getting a show on air. I love reading and talking about this stuff, so from memory, some successful stories include:
Rugrats: the creator pitched a bunch of well worked-out ideas that the network wasnโt that keen on, and Rugrats was literally an idea scribbled on a scrap of paper in a her pocket that she pitched as a last throw-away idea, which the network loved.
For Spongebob, the creator Stephen Hillenburg had everything worked out from top to bottom – beautifully painted backgrounds, characters worked out, and even a conch that played the shows’ theme tune. He was able to combine his love of marine biology and animation into one project. Hillenburg had experience for how to run a show from working on ‘Rockoโs Modern Life’. When the show launched, audiences didnโt really take to Spongebob and his friends but Stephen insisted that Nickelodeon ride it out a bit – turned out audiences loved the sponge and his friends. I also remember reading that someone who worked on Spongebob said โeverything you see up on screen is a compromiseโ, meaning it will always be tweaked by network notes.
Phineas and Ferb, the creators tried unsuccessfully to get their show greenlit for 10 years (!) until they decided to do exactly what they wanted, and it worked out.
The Breadwinners, I believe they made a pilot for Nickelodeon, Nick didnโt pick up on the series and the creators took a chance and made the pilot on their own dime anyway which got them a foot in the door for a greenlit show. I believe the show didnโt do particularly well with ratings, but still – mad props to them.
Adventure Time – started out as a pilot for Nickelodeon. Nick passed on it, I guess it got sold to Cartoon Network and they turned it into a series, becoming one of their most successful IPs to date.
I believe the legend is Matt Groening came up with the idea for โThe Simpsonsโ (the idea of a nuclear family as a prime time sitcom show) in a cab on his way to a network meeting. The exec (David Silverman I think?) initially wanted to license his โLife in Hellโ series (which I love) but Groening was smart enough to not sell his baby. Life in Hell wouldโve been a rad show though. The Simpsons debuted on Tracy Ullmanโs show, audiences loved it and the rest is history. I believe Groeningโs โFuturamaโ wasnโt nearly as easy a ride to success – the network who picked up the series wanted to give him tons of notes, and he and his team really had to put their foot down by saying โwe know what we want, please donโt do thisโ and they played the balancing act of potentially losing the networkโs financing to remain true to their idea. Thank goodness they stuck to their guns. I remember reading that Groeningโs said that getting Futurama on air was โone of the worst experiences of his adult life.โ
It does seem like some shows take years from the initial pilot, to getting a series greenlit.
The โnote under the noteโ to Blandsville
Last year at Kidscreen we had a sit-down meet-and-greet with a British producer who seemed to be worth his salt. He said thereโs a big gap for music-based kids shows. Even our Disney contact said combining music and a kids show is a good idea. Itโs something Iโve always wanted to do as I’ve been in a number of bands and would be combining my love of music with animation, so, I themed Dogshow around music – my Goldfish music videos are successful (each videoโs got a couple of millions views on YouTube), I produce them myself and if I don’t produce and animate the whole video myself I sometimes hire people with the budget. (This is also why I was so adamant on making the 11-min Dogshow pilot myself – itโs full of kiff songs, itโd be like 3 Goldfish animated music videos in one). So I thought โAw Yis, this is like combining Goldfish videos and an animated showโ something Iโd already dreamed of doing. Now that the bible is done, one big distributor that was interested in the IP doesnโt want to do a music-based show – theyโre staying away from music because โdubbing into other languages is hard.โ
Now, this doesnโt mean all distributors wonโt be interested, but it does lead me to the point that โanimation execs just donโt know everything – the best they can do is let you know what they know, but that may not be enoughโ.
Pilar Alessandra talks about understanding the โnote under the noteโ – even when a suggestion is given for how to fix something (in an animation script or a piece of animation or whatever), it doesnโt mean the suggestion is right, it just means that the note-giver feels somethingโs not yet working or needs more attention. Understand the note under the note – understand that when you read in-between the lines you may see whatโs being pointed at, but Iโd go further and say just because youโre a good cryptographer and know whatโs being hinted at, that doesnโt mean you have to heed the advice.
Donโt trust all exec notes as gospel – execs themselves will be the first to tell you this. If anything, youโll be penalised for following all of the notes given to you. Following all the rules is no guarantee of success.
A lot of the time I discover the process is like โThe Alchemistโ – we go on a big journey exploring a project, and learn that what we were looking for was right in front of us all along. Thatโs not to say that the journey isnโt worthwhile, and itโs different than doing nothing. Whatโs picked up on the way is always useful one way or another.
Trends
A bit like music, if you keep following trends, youโll always be behind the curve. Indeed, if you keep following the rules, youโll also be behind. Rather, figure out what you love, make that, and tell the myriad of people who will invariably tell you why itโs wrong, to go suck an egg. If you have a knack for knowing whatโs going to be popular ahead of time, youโll really be lucky if you can get a network / studio to commit to bringing your idea to life before someone else does. It seems like a lot has to go right to get a show on air. If youโre lucky, the stars align.
Showing Your Cards
One thing I realised during the development process for both shows, is that you donโt need to show *all* your working processes. If youโre like me, your creative process is sometimes to generate a whole bunch of stuff up-front to give yourself as many ingredients to add to the mix, and then use a bit of alchemy to see what sticks. The issue is, if I show this process to a network / studio it can freak them out a bit. From their side, they may feel the need to provide notes on everything thatโs sent to them. What may be better is keeping your cards a little bit hidden (I know itโs tempting to show everything because youโre so excited about the project) but itโs worth letting things bake a little bit, only sending stuff when youโre a bit more definite about matters. Otherwise, youโll be getting notes on stuff that you may end up throwing out the next day – a bit of a waste of time for the network. Theyโll be less likely to provide thoughtful notes next time if itโs all for naught, so rather try gain a whole bunch of ground before you touch base with them, to avoid getting beaten back down to square one.
Yourself
If finding a suitable partner isnโt working out, the other option of course is just making it yourself. If you have the resources and know-how how to make your own stuff and really want to stay true to your idea (and have a healthy dose of self-motivation) the Internet really has made this possible, though youโll have to really hit the big-time if you want to make enough advertising revenue on YouTube to compete with the money you may get with a network buying your IP. You could also find a company to sponsor your animated shorts, but again – if your content is โtoo newโ for investors it may scare them off – as much as they may say they like fresh new ideas, my experience has been that anything really fresh and new scares investors. If, however, your content looks like whatโs already out there but is slightly different enough to look a little bit new, it (unfortunately) may make life easier to attract an investor.
Most of the companies that fund animation IPs want to own the work outright; it seems to be the rule. Iโve encountered one exception where the network would fund the whole show but owns 80%; that seemed to be the exception rather than the rule.
Collaboration vs. Working Alone
This is something Iโve been wondering about quite a bit. Mostly Iโve worked alone for the 10 years Iโve been doing animation – it allows the inner voice to come through clearer amongst any potential stronger wills that are trying to have their way, I donโt need to be in a studio setting to create an animated short, and if I want to bring other people in, I usually do it remotely over the Internet, or with short visits to have some face-to-face time.
I donโt think thereโs a definitive answer here for whatโs better, but what I do know is that if youโre working with the wrong people, itโs better working alone. Working with the *right* people, however, is a real joy.
For Dogshow, I insisted on getting Greig Cameron to write the pilot script. Greig liked my Moosebox short, has a wealth of experience writing for the 11-minute format, is also a musician and played the same videogames I did when we were younger, and he just โgetsโ my humour. He nailed it so well and made a gem of an episode script, and it helped me realise that if I could just find a few more people like him who donโt need that much input, who โgetโ the idea quickly and then are happy to take the ball and run with it until the end – thatโs ideal.
What Iโm not sure a huge fan of is when a collaborator stops often to say โnow what?โ If I figure out that it would have been cheaper and faster for me to do the work myself, thatโs no good.
– Itโs pretty much as simple as that.
I met a friend in Japan who works for Government. He believes our purpose here is to work together as we always build better things together. I think heโs right, if everyone is doing something that the other canโt do, or at least doing it better. Then you get synergy – the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The opposite extreme is working completely alone, being like a sovereign state. As my friend explained, thereโs nobody more sovereign than a homeless person – that person isnโt tied to any institution or belief or organization – the homeless person can do whatever he / she wants, but doesnโt have the resources to do that. Another example of an extreme sovereign state is North Korea. They can do whatever they want to do, they donโt subscribe to any rules and donโt take orders from anybody. I believe itโs a great place to live.
I suspect the answer is to initially do the hard work of digging deep to get to the gold nuggets of โwhat is this show aboutโ and once thatโs done, letting contributors put their own stamp on things and stepping back to allow this (and making sure everyone knows where they stands with contracts).
***Uncertainty***
A big one. In general, be prepared for a lot of uncertainty. โPromises made and promises brokenโ seems par for the course, teaching you the Buddhist principle that โattachment is sufferingโ. A network can be in love with you one day, and drop you the next. Iโd also suggest that anyone who tries to put stars in your eyes, remove them promptly and ask for the promise to be put in writing – nothingโs worth anything unless itโs in writing. Donโt accept less in exchange for future promises of great spoils and riches, unless you go into it fully aware this is pie-in-the-sky thinking, possibly used as a ploy to pay you less.
With pitching competitions, theyโre selling dreams. Sure, dreams can come true, but statistically it seems like the shows that are greenlit by studios are created by industry veterans – people who have worked within the pipeline for years and know how the machine works. Itโs great that big networks like Nickelodeon and Disney are reaching out to places like South Africa to get a feel for whether anything may be a sleeper hit – itโs not a massive investment to them, and with the Internet acting as a means for any creator to potentially score direct revenue, my guess is that networks may as well get a piece of that pie if they can โin caseโ something blows up. The things that blow up, though, are often not like anything else currently available, so in my opinion thatโs even more reason to go further left field in your show creation.
Humour
With all these rules and thoughts itโs easy to forget the reason youโre doing animation in the first place. One of the reasons I like makinโ stuff is the ability to embody my sense of humour and possibly evoke a laugh. Humour is always king. If somethingโs funny, itโs funny. If jokes were able to be made by computers, thatโd be weird. Iโm bad at telling jokes, but know someone who writes good jokes. If humourโs part of your show, itโs really easy for plot to stand in the way. Sometimes trimming down a script results in most of the funny stuff being cut to make sure the plot โmakes senseโ. Remember, these are 6-12 year old kids. A pie to the face may be funny, but a clever hipster reference to an obscure pop-culture thing may not land.
Outsmarted
Thereโs a tendency to want to do LANK clever stuff – plot twists, high-concept stuff, to prove to the network ‘hey, I’m a clever dood’ – but remember, these are 6 – 12 year olds youโre making stuff for. When I was that age, I didnโt watch cartoons because of the plot twists – I watched because I liked the characters and they were entertaining doing whatever they were doing. If anything, I didnโt like the shows that were too plot heavy – it got in the way of my enjoyment. I did not like Scooby-Doo at all, and didn’t like any blank-canvas characters that were wrapped around clever scripts. Boring. I really liked more physical comedy / character-based shows where ridiculous scripts (that were easy to follow) were wrapped around interesting characters: Cow & Chicken, Dexterโs Lab, Powerpuff Girls, etcโฆ Don’t try to be too clever. It may get in the way of things.
Production
Something thatโs not given too much coverage is how the show actually gets made. I like making my own stuff with as few moving parts as possible – there’s less that’s likely to go wrong, and there’s less chance of ‘broken telephone’ / communication being misunderstood. If you’re an animator plugging in with an animation team and want to both animate AND direct, I can advise not making the same mistake I did on Dogshow – it’s not a good idea and very easy to lose perspective. Perhaps better to not animate and only direct rather. If you’re used to working a particular way I’d suggest taking control and insisting on working your way, or if the studio / network insists on doing it their way, then maybe consider that it may be much better for everyone if you relinquish control completely, let them figure out how to make it (it’s not so much your problem now) and understanding you’ll have to be alright with whatever result is produced. I havenโt yet handed production of a short over to someone or a studio completely but I would definitely look at this for any subsequent projects.
Obligations
Iโd suggest being careful with who you bring onto your team, and make sure itโs all in writing what the obligations are. If someone decides to work for less for you, unless they’re completely selfless, they’ll be ‘giving with attachment’ and may want recourse later on down the line. If things aren’t clear, bitterness may enter the equation, so make sure you pay people properly and make sure you get paid properly in case the โbig thingโ doesnโt happen – at least youโre all squared up.
Side-note
Iโve read before that Charlie Chaplin is the king of physical comedy. Watching some of his films, I totally see how many animated shows borrow from him. Bugs Bunny is basically an energised talking Charlie Chaplin in a rabbit suit. Spongebob is a bit like Charlie Chaplin. Tom & Jerry: very much like a physical comedy Charlie Chaplin skit. Basically, If you study Charlie Chaplinโs character, how he stages physical humour, how he very often plays the unlucky underdog that gets himself into ridiculous and precarious situations and figure out how you may be able to mould some of that into your character, youโre probably on a good wicket.
Final thoughts
Collaboration can be a joy when people are doing what they do best, you’re allowing them to do what they do best, and when what they do gels with what you want to do. It can also be a real struggle when you’re not on the same page – if anything, a useful exercise in ‘how not to do things 101’. Donโt let anyone steal your voice – however difficult that may be. If you figure out the secret formula to getting a show on air, please do let me know, I’d love to hear it.
[EDIT 24/04/2017: Added’Bucks’]:
Bucks
Someone asked me what kind of bucks are involved. My response below:
“Hi. So, to get to your question. Yes, it pays fairly well. There’s a fee for the outright purchase of the IP, then a development fee that’s used for pre-production, and then a production fee to make a 2-minute short. Thereafter, if they want to invest more, there’s a further development fee to make a proper bible, an 11-min script and animatic. I found I started running low on bucks during this last development process as it took longer than I thought, I paid a few people to help me with ideas, some art and with the long script, but it can be up to the creator how he/she wishes to go about the process. I took a long time to gestate and think about it. The numbers: it was enough for me to survive on for the time it took me to work. Not so much that I could pay my bills AND buy a fancy new car or anything too extravagant, but, reasonable, and it allowed me to put some money away in savings too. There’s also back-end built into the deal, so I think I get about 2% of all potential future merchandise sales. The clever creators (George Lucas and Steven Hillenburg) I think insisted on keeping merchandise rights, as that’s where the real money is I believe.”
[EDIT 24/04/2017: Added ‘Reading Material’ heading]:
Reading Material
Some books I’ve found to be super useful:
The Coffee Break Screenwriter by Pilar Alessandra
We had Pilar come and talk to us in South Africa as part of the StoryLab. She’s awesome, and this book really helps demystify how to write a script. While I don’t think it should ever be a ‘paint-by-numbers’ affair, by following this book you definitely can take that approach and it’ll help you to pin-point what your story’s actually about, it’ll help you to figure out who your main character is, and by answering the questions the ‘wizard’-style approach takes the blanks you fill in and presents you with amazing stuff back. Superb book for a better understanding of an industry-standard approach to script-writing for pilots, TV series and movies.
Animation Writing and Development
So, I’ve only got a third way through this book. I got pretty bored as it’s fairly laborious, but it has a good section called ‘Human Development’ in Chapter 4 that goes through the psychology of various ages, so you can get a better idea of your audience if you’re ie. developing material for kids aged 6 – 12. The printing I have is from 2005 and glancing through it, it still looks pretty relevant.
I hope I can spend the second half of 2017 doing more creating and less explaining and validating – itโs creating that brings me joy.
Thank you for reading, I hope you found some of it useful.
