I crack jokes all the time about what a Luddite I am, which is sort of humorous considering that I spend the better part of my life parked in front of my laptop. When I’m away from my computer for too long, I can be found hiding in a corner, furtively checking my email on my cell phone.

But I’m not a technophile; I’m a connectophile, perhaps, with my chosen technologies being those which are a means to an end—an end that involves staying connected with other people, not necessarily having the latest and the greatest whatever.

All of this preamble is to say: I don’t know from Blu-ray. I mean, I know it’s a DVD format. I know it’s new and exciting, and that there’s some war going on between Blu-ray and HD-DVD similar to the long ago Betamax vs. VHS thing. But I have no opinion, myself, as this is simply not my bag. I don’t even have one of those new-fangled flat televisions. (Though I’d love one. Can you imagine Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends on a great big screen like that? Awesome.)

What I do know is that this is a hot topic amongst people who care, and for people who care about that and animation, some recent news is worth noting.

First, Warner Brothers has decided to go exclusively Blu-ray:

This is a huge development in the Blu-ray versus HD-DVD format war currently raging on because Warner Bros was always considered the big fish to be landed by one side or the other, Now the studio, which had been producing its high-def DVD titles in both formats, will start releasing in Blu-ray exclusively later this year. The decision was made in response to strong consumer preference for the Blu-Ray format, according to WB’s announcement.

Second, Disney is hopping on the Blu-ray bandwagon as well:

Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment (WDSHE) announces an exciting new line-up of Blu-ray initiatives in 2008, an ever-expanding Blu-ray slate and new technological- advancements in bonus feature materials, all which guarantee a superior high-definition home entertainment experience.

“This is an exciting time for Disney as we not only announce the release of our first Platinum Disney animated classic on Blu-ray with Sleeping Beauty, but also allow consumers to create an entirely new home entertainment experience with stunning new bonus features and amazing interactive capabilities like never before seen,” stated Bob Chapek, President of Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment.

What does this mean? Well, it means that just getting rid of my VHS tapes this year was not enough to make me look like I’m actually current on technology. You darn kids today, with your Blu-ray! When I was young, we had VHS, and we liked it!

Now, get out of my yard! Hmph.

I am old. Because I am old, I can remember all sorts of things which my children find utterly improbable, like when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the discovery of fire, and when owning a VCR in your home was a status symbol.

My children cannot picture a time when you couldn’t pause or rewind live television, record anything you might want to watch later (without having to find a blank tape, even), or pop a DVD into the player and later toss it into the mailbox so that you can get another one. Everyone has that, Mom, they tell me (usually while rolling their eyes).

Well, the common household entertainment staple, Netflix, is looking to revamp how they do business. Sure, they were the first on the scene, and later other services followed their model, but they were unique and the leader in the field. Now, according to yesterday’s report, they’re looking to become an even easier on-demand service:

DVD-by-mail service Netflix Inc. will begin delivering movies and other programming directly to televisions later this year through a set-top box that will pipe entertainment over a high-speed Internet connection.

The set-top box, to be made by LG Electronics Inc. as part of a partnership announced late Wednesday, is designed to broaden the appeal of a year-old streaming service that Netflix provides to its 7 million subscribers at no additional charge.

LG Electronics didn’t reveal how much the set-top box will cost when it hits the market in the summer or early autumn. Similar devices made by Apple Inc. and Vudu Inc. cost $299 to $399.

I’m no technology expert, and it’s entirely possible that I’ve missed something here, but… isn’t there already a service out there that does this…? And isn’t it called… On Demand? I mean, I have that available through my cable box, already. I’m just not sure why I’d want to buy another box for my television so that I could then pay for the privilege of each movie on top of that.

The set-top box is supposed to serve as a bridge that will enable just about anyone with a high-speed Internet connection to plug in a few wires so they will be able to access Netflix’s Watch Instantly feature on their TVs.

Subscribers will still need to use a computer to pick out which programs they’re interested in streaming. The selections, culled from more than 6,000 titles available in streaming library, will then show up on the TV screen.

“It’s going to be very slick and easy,” said Reed Hastings, Netflix’s chief executive officer. “We want the TV experience to be very relaxing and not like visiting a Web site.”

(Are you not relaxed when you come here? Would being presented with thousands of video titles somehow be more relaxing?)

I think I’m still not quite getting it. But Netflix’s attempt to move into this delivery method will be an interesting case study. If you’re a fellow Netflix customer, keep an eye out for them to start promoting the LG box. I’ll be very curious to see how they try to make it sound better/faster/easier than the current format.

Then again, I thought Betamax was pretty cool. So you can’t really go by me.

I was well into my 20s before I saw my first Imax film, because I led a deprived childhood. Also, possibly, because Imax didn’t exist when I was a young thing, and then there was no Imax theater where I was living, so it wasn’t until I was on a business trip to Vancouver that I first got to experience the joy and wonder of a really big screen, surround sound that just about blew me out of my seat, and—of course—those cool plastic glasses that made everything 3-dimensional.

I fell immediately and deeply in love with the entire experience, even though one of the movies I saw was about Shackleton’s Antarctic Expedition. I’m not sure that it’s less horrifying to watch freezing men slaughter and eat their dogs when everything is super-huge. (To its credit, that one didn’t have any 3D effects, at least.)

Anyway.

What was my point here? Oh! Yes! I remember now. My point is that Imax is cool, and there’s about to be a whole lot more Imax coolness, because last week DreamWorks signed a 4-movie deal with Imax:

Imax and DreamWorks have agreed to release the studio’s first three 3D motion pictures worldwide in Imax 3D: “Monsters vs. Aliens” in March 2009, “How to Train Your Dragon” in November 2009 and “Shrek Goes Forth” in May 2010. A fourth DreamWorks title, “Kung Fu Panda,” will be released in Imax’s 2D format in June 2008. The films will be distributed by Paramount Pictures, a unit of Viacom Inc. (VIA).

Earlier this year, DreamWorks announced plans to release all its computer- animated films in 3D starting in 2009. It was welcome news for all that had a stake in the emerging 3D film industry, such as privately held Real D, the leading provider of digital 3D projection technology. At the time, DreamWorks made no specific mention of Imax and its giant-screen format.

“Obviously, DreamWorks is placing a large amount of strategic focus on 3-D and we’re gratified to be part of their launch platform,” Richard Gelfond, co-chief executive of Imax, told Dow Jones.

The piece goes on to discuss how Imax “is now on the threshold of a transition to digital” and looking to secure as many studio deals as possible, which, obviously.

As a parent who still lives in a town without an Imax theater (clearly I just keep setting up camp in the wrong sorts of towns), I wonder what this will mean for “regular” theaters. Will this deal (and similar ones) have any effect on the play time these animated movies—the ones my kids want to see—get at conventional theaters? Will these Imax deals herald the increase in Imax theaters? Because I have to tell you, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings one bit if there was an Imax theater ’round here. It already costs an arm and a leg to go out to the movies—it might as well be a total sensory experience as long as we’re dishing out the bucks.

But I’m going to go on record right now with this: Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D? I will drive to my nearest major city for that one, because that sounds like all kinds of awesome. Erm, I mean, according to my kids. Yeah.

Unless you live underneath a rock, you’ve been seeing a lot in the news lately about the television writers’ strike. Most of the time when I’m looking for information about the effect the strike is going to have on the viewing public, the thing that keeps coming up is the possibility of Lost being disrupted. Or Scrubs not having their season finale.

All of that is good and well (or not, I guess), but it doesn’t really tell the average person what impact the writer’s strike might be having on the animation industry, if any. After all, the strikers are in a different union, right? Right. Sort of.

Of course, writers do tend to stick together. If you’d like to read animated writer Steve Marmel’s brief but eloquent view on why you—the television-viewing consumer—should care about the WGA strike, go here. A small taste:

Most of what I do isn’t to entertain you. So I don’t expect you to care that I don’t get another penny. In fact, considering how shrill Cosmo’s voice is, and how often you hear him say the same lines repeated on Nickelodeon, I can only imagine that you probably think I owe you money. Fair enough.

But most of the people who are on strike are the people that DO entertain you. 24. Sopranos. Scrubs. Lost. Heroes. Shows like that, for people like you, that are interested in stories instead of watching B list celebrities skate, dance, date or lose weight. (Not a fan of reality, btw.) I’m not going to bore you with percentages, or residuals history. I’m not. I’m just going to ask you:

Don’t you want to reward the people who are getting into this to entertain you? The human adult?

As for the very real ramifications to the animation industry of the current strike, keep your eyes on The Animation Guild Blog. Two recent posts of note, in particular…

… first this one:

Yesterday, board artists, designers and directors got the word from management that their employment on Family Guy and American Dad could end at any time. The show runners — members of the WGA — aren’t coming into work, so there is only so much production work that can be done.

And it isn’t very much.

The upshot (per the crew) is that the axe might fall within days, or weeks, or certainly by early 2008. Writers’ assistants were given notice in the past twenty-four hours (this was confirmed by Fox Labor Relations).

… and also this post yesterday on the next eight months in animation:

As I write, many smaller, mostly non-union animation studios are not exactly going full throttle. Over the past two months, various animation artists have called to say: “Man. Things are sloow out there! What’s happening?! I’m usually picking up a lot of freelance, but man. There’s no-thing.”

Now. I’m not totally sure why this is, except that a lot of studios that usually subcontract from the majors aren’t getting the usual number of jobs. One of the big studios, to cite but one example, had a CG feature being done by a sub-contrator here in town, but that show has now been pulled back for reworking and the crew has been laid off until further notice.

Yeowch.

Things are afoot here, that’s for sure. Read the full articles for more information (particularly that last one, which runs through all of the major animation houses and channels individually), and hold on tight.

This story is generating a ton of buzz online, and I can barely even wrap my brain around it, but I’ll try to do it justice.

The main story is here:

Don’t choke on your bubble gum when you hear what former Walt Disney CEO Michael Eisner has in mind for Topps, the 69-year-old trading card and candy company just bought for $385 million by a consortium he led.

He wants Topps to create a movie, TV, Internet and publishing franchise around Bazooka Joe, the eye-patch-wearing kid introduced in 1953 on the waxy comics that wrap Topps’ Bazooka bubble gum.

“Bazooka Joe could be the next big hero,” Eisner, 65, says. “I’m not saying it’s going to be Raiders of the Lost Ark,” which he oversaw as CEO of Paramount Pictures. “But that would be the goal. Bazooka Joe is my new Mickey Mouse.”

That bears repeating, I think. “Bazooka Joe is my new Mickey Mouse.” Because… seriously?

The article goes on, of course (boy, does it ever), to take you in the WayBack Machine and remember those Topps trading cards and that horrible gum that would nearly break your jaw. Do you know what I remember most about Bazooka gum? Eagerly tearing into the wrapper to get to the comic strip, only to read it once, twice, maybe even three times before confessing to the nearest adult, “I don’t get it. Why is this funny?”

Ah, memories.

There’s a fabulous reaction over at Mayerson on Animation, much more astute and interesting than some crusty old mom admitting that she was bested by chewing gum comics:

I love this because it perfectly crystallizes the different viewpoints of business people and creative people. I would have to think long and hard to come up with a cartoon character who has less personality than Bazooka Joe. Except for the name (reminiscent of a war weapon) and the eye patch, what could anyone possibly say about the character? Creatively, he’s practically a blank slate.

From a business perspective, though, Bazooka Joe has name recognition. Everybody has sampled that awful bubble gum and read those mediocre comic strips. When business people sit down to make deals, that name recognition makes Joe a better financial bet than an original property that nobody’s ever heard of. The fact that Joe is a cipher is besides the point.

Really interesting stuff, whether you believe Bazooka Joe has star potential or not. Personally, I am just highly amused by the graphic of good ol’ Joe wearing the mouse ears.

[Hat tip: Cartoon Brew]

The phenomenon that is The Naked Brothers Band is continuing to grow. In addition to the continued popularity of their tween-aimed show on Nickelodeon, brothers Nat and Alex Wolff have just released a music CD.

If you’ve ever watched the show (and I’ll go on record right here as confessing that I adore this show, in all its campy glory—I think creator Polly Draper is a genius), you know that the Wolff brothers actually write and perform their own music. And it’s not half bad.

The Wolff boys’ CD offers poppy two- and three-minute ditties about puppy love, aliens, cars and banana smoothies, perfectly suited for kids their age.

In fact, Nat’s knack for hooks and harmonies is impressive for fans of any age. Clearly inspired by their heroes, the Beatles and Bob Marley, the boys paint a vast musical landscape, ranging from the introspective, Nat-penned ballad “I Indeed Can See” to the whimsical electronic comic relief of “Alien Clones,” courtesy of Alex.

My daughter hummed “Crazy Car” for about a month after we watched the debut Naked Brothers Band episode earlier this year. Trust me, this stuff is catchy.

So anyway, this is all well and good, but why is it significant? Take note:

The Naked Brothers Band CD release marked the boys’ first step toward Hannah Montana-like multi-platform stardom, but Wolff would quickly point out that that’s where the similarities end: “The boys have always been natural musicians who just happen to be on TV.”

Although also weary of comparisons, Nat is encouraged by the recent achievements of his Disney channel competitors because, as he sees it, “now kids can actually make their mark.”

Geoff Mayfield, director of charts and senior analyst at Billboard magazine, agrees.

“They could really do well,” he reasons. “In the past, Nickelodeon properties had done OK, but they have not really had huge successes like Disney’s ‘Hannah Montana’ or ‘High School Musical,’” he says, “but the viewership numbers for the Naked Brothers are promising and they could be the ones to break through.”

The rise of kids’ television series with attached music—in an age where kids are buying their own music at younger ages than ever before—is a big deal. The article characterizes the CD’s debut as “respectable but not blockbuster,” coming in at the 23 spot on Billboard’s top album charts and 34,000 copies sold.

I’m no industry expert, but I think that’s pretty good. And I think the Wolff brothers will be ones to watch over the next few years; if this is what they can do at 9 and 12, who knows what the future holds for them. Rock on, boys.

Yesterday I happened to catch the mention over at Toon Zone of this article in the Wall Street Journal about the changes being made to popular American animation before shipping it overseas.

Big round heads and tiny bodies make the Powerpuff Girls instantly identifiable to their fans in America. The preteen karate superheroes star in one of the top-rated shows on cable’s Cartoon Network.

Last year, though, the “Powerpuff Girls” showed up in Japan with a whole new look. On “Demashita! Powerpuff Girls Z,” the heroines have grown up, sprouted long legs and wear skirts well above their knees. In the original American storyline, the girls were created of sugar, spice and everything nice; their Japanese counterparts are normal girls who acquire superpowers from a chemical reaction initiated by a rice cake.

Once, American entertainment companies exporting characters just dubbed them into other languages. But in recent years, Asia has become the testing ground for character reinvention, a process called “transcreation.”

That Powerpuff Girls is the flagship example of transcreation surprises me, because I’ve always sort of found the animation style very anime-ish and I’m not an anime fan. In fact, I’ve been known to yell at the television “How can you possible fight crime when you don’t even have fingers?! And when your head is bigger than your body??” (I am a joy to watch TV with, let me tell you.) Further down in the article I get more information, though:

When Craig McCracken created the Powerpuff Girls show, he deliberately gave it what he thought was a “Japanese look.” But when the show first aired in Japan in 2001, it failed to attract a wide audience. So Cartoon Network decided to reinvent the characters to boost its appeal in Japan, an idea Mr. McCracken welcomed.

In their transcreation, Blossom, Buttercup and Bubbles got Japanese names and the lives of typical Japanese junior-high-school students. Since Japanese kids like to dress up like their favorite characters, the girls got more realistic outfits, with miniskirts, matching vests and hip-hugging belts.

While I understand the premise, I suppose, I am disturbed by the fact that part of this reinvention is making the girls older. My understanding of the American version (granted, we don’t watch it all that often) is that the girls are much younger than junior high. Why the age change? Is that cultural, or does making them older allow for racier themes and clothing, and appeal to a, er, wider audience? To whit:

“In Japan, girly love themes are a must,” Ms. Seki [a producer at Toei who helped create the show] says. When “Demashita! Powerpuff Girls Z” was launched in Japan a year ago, the executives at Cartoon Network soon realized that the revamped plots and skimpier outfits not only attracted young girls, they also broadened the audience to include animation-obsessed adult men known in Japan as otaku, or geeks, who were also fans of the original.

That last bit sort of creeps me out, quite frankly. Look, I don’t have a problem with grown men who are obsessed with cartoons, and don’t even particularly have an issue with grown men who are obsessed with sexy cartoons, but if it’s all the same to everyone involved, could we not market the same shows to my children as to those guys? Please? Sheesh.

Do go read the entire article; although the discussion of Powerpuff Girls is perhaps the most compelling/controversial, changes made to Big Bird of Sesame Street are also touched on, as well a brief discussion of how Spongebob Squarepants managed to thrive in Japan as is (and against expectations).

So that’s the scoop on transcreation. Learn something new every day, I guess.

(At right: A screen capture from the upcoming Disney movie Enchanted. The Prince is telling Giselle that he’s found a soda that is refreshing and full of vitamins! She is, of course, understandably thrilled.)

Oh, we knew it was coming. The giant marketing machine behind licensed property conglomerates has been shying away from the appearance of promoting unhealthy foods to our kids, which is—I would argue—as it should be. However, maybe you (like me) didn’t think it all the way through, to wonder with what, exactly, these advertising venues would be replaced. Because if Disney decides to ditch the Happy Meals, folks, did you really think they’d just stop advertising? Of course not. There has to be a newer, more acceptable path. Right?

Check out the latest over at Jim Hill Media, where Hill asks whether Enchanted’s marketing plan will make a difference:

Starting the middle of next month, Walt Disney Pictures will be teaming with Nutrisodas®, a carbonated nutrient-enchanced beverage, to help raise awareness of this Kevin Lima film. These drinks — which feature natural fruit flavors as well as a meaningful level of vitamins & minerals — contain absolutely no sugar or caffeine.

Not only that, but Mickey has also gotten in bed with The Little Gym folks. You know? That international chain that uses gymnastics to help kids develop motor skills? Now through October 19th, any child who signs up for fall classes will automatically receive two free passes to “Enchanted.” Plus anyone who takes part in a free trial class will then be entered in The Little Gym Family Getaway Enchanted Sweepstakes. Which features a grand prize where a family of four will be flown out to Hollywood to attend the world premiere of this new Walt Disney Pictures release.

This is the new face of marketing, where you only see (and hopefully, associate) a movie with healthy things. Will it pay off?

Mickey is hoping that “Enchanted” will be the very first feel-good movie that actually encourages people to start adopting more health-concious habits.

So what do you folks think? Should the Walt Disney Company be commended for trying to associate “Enchanted” ’s release with healthier food choices & physical activity? Or is this just an empty gesture by a well-meaning executive that will ultimately have little or no real impact on the movie-going public?

I’m no industry expert, but I can say with confidence that I have never picked which movie to see based upon who I found staring back at me on my soda can. Maybe that’s just me, though.

Have you ever wondered how theme parks pick which rides to build, which characters to capitalize upon, which properties to highlight?

Yeah, me neither. I’m more of a “which rides go the fastest and where can I get a funnel cake?” kind of gal, myself, when it comes to theme parks. I’m a simple girl of simple means. Or maybe I’m just simple.

Anyway, Disney has long reigned supreme when it comes to a family destination where the children can feel like they’ve died on gone to Saturday cartoon heaven, and the parents don’t end the day wishing they’d never had kid. It’s a conglomerate that’s taken on a life of its own, due largely in part to their success with a huge age demographic. Disney has something for everyone, or so they say. And they were arguably the first to craft this sort of vacation experience for families.

Now, of course, there are other theme parks. Competition has sprung up in both Orlando and Anaheim, and still Disney has never seemed to feel the squeeze. In fact, some would say that competition is a good thing all around; it can raise the bar for all involved.

All of this is to say, I find it very interesting that the Disney Blog is addressing whether or not Disney has an answer to Harry Potter. Islands of Adventure will have a world of wizardry based upon the most popular series of our time, and Disney will have…? Well, the outlook is interesting:

One question is will Harry Potter cause more Disney destined guests to move into the IOA column. It probably will change the vacation patterns of some, most likely those who don’t stay on Disney property anyway. I think Harry Potter is more likely to draw new guests to Orlando that otherwise wouldn’t have made the trip. Those 100 million plus kids who’ve read the series and now desperately want a chance to live the story. They’re going to want to visit IOA first, maybe spend two days there. On a five night vacation that only leaves 2-3 days for Disney.

But the funny thing is, that will be new business (for both resorts). Both resorts will really have to put on the shine to turn these guests into repeat visitors. That is why Disney needs something with a big fan following that is tangential to the Harry Potter craze. That is probably why Disney is courting George Lucas, trying to repair the bridges that were burnt in the Eisner administration. Star Wars/Indiana Jones is the perfect counter to Harry Potter.

I decided to test this theory.

“Hey kids!” I said, “who would you rather go meet Harry Potter or Indiana Jones?”

They blinked at me. Finally my daughter said, “Who?”

Then they asked when they could meet Harry. Things sort of went downhill from there. (Me and my big mouth.)

If you’re the sort of person who finds this stuff interesting, go check out the entire article. Even just as a parent considering a theme park visit, it’s quite something to have a peek into this process. I’ll be very curious to see what happens once IOA finishes their Harry Potter destination (slated for completion in late 2009).

I’m a planner by nature, so I’m perfectly happy to talk about next week or next month or even next year, most of the time. Planning ahead is good! Knowing what’s happening is important! Yes! But having it be front-page news when a movie not due out until 2009 changes its anticipated release date does confuse me a little. Then again, I’m not a large animation studio.

(I… think it would be uncomfortable if I was a large animation studio. And probably that I would need to cut back on snacks if that were the case.)

Regardless, this is big news, it seems:

DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. , together with Paramount Pictures Corporation, a unit of Viacom Inc. , announced today that Monsters vs. Aliens, DreamWorks Animation’s first-ever film produced in stereoscopic 3-D technology, will be released into theatres on March 27, 2009. The film had been previously slated for its domestic release on May 15, 2009.

The release date has been adjusted by less than two months, and I found this story headlining in three different news locations. (After three, I stopped looking. Third time’s the charm, and all that.)

“I believe that next generation 3-D will make our CG films even more special and unique,” said Jeffrey Katzenberg, Chief Executive Officer of DreamWorks Animation. “We are thrilled to have Monster vs. Aliens as the first opportunity for audiences to enjoy this exciting new movie experience. Moving to a March release date, which has proven to be a great slot for family films, allows us to roll out our first 3-D project on the maximum amount of screens as the year’s first big event film to hit the market in this new format.”

This is the sort of “money quote” that I hate. I mean—and no disrespect to Mr. Katzenberg is meant, here—what’s he going to say? “I believe that this movie will be formulaic and boring!” Of course he believes this will be even more special and unique. Why would they do it, otherwise? And suggesting that March is more family-friendly than May…? Because… why, exactly?

It turns out that the real reasoning behind the shift is pretty transparent:

DreamWorks Animation is moving the 2009 release date for its 3-D feature “Monsters vs. Aliens” to March 27 from May 15, in order to avoid a showdown with James Cameron’s “Avatar,” studio CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg said Wednesday.

The big-budget, effects-heavy opus “Avatar,” Cameron’s first feature since “Titanic,” is due to arrive on May 22 via 20th Century Fox.

Had “Monsters” stuck to its proposed May release, “I saw more and more problems splitting the market for 3-D right at the time when it will be becoming the most exciting thing in movie-going,” Katzenberg said at the Goldman Sachs media conference in New York.

Will we have an announcement from 20th Century Fox next week that Avatar has moved up its release date? Maybe for the next year and a half we can have dueling movie release dates! It’s like playing chicken, except with CGI films!

No? Oh, okay. (Besides, I’m still waiting to find out if the upcoming Avatar: The Last Airbender film has to change its name because of the Cameron film. Anyone?)