Of Industry Note « Ty’s Toy Box Blog

Archive for the ‘Of Industry Note’ Category

B-A-Z-O-O-K-(A) M-O-U-S-E

Thursday, November 8th, 2007

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]

Posted in Of Industry Note, Retro | No Comments »

A new Naked CD

Thursday, October 18th, 2007

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.

Posted in Of Industry Note, Random acts of television | 4 Comments »

Does animation transcend cultural differences? Yes. No.

Wednesday, October 17th, 2007

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.

Posted in Of Industry Note, Random acts of television, Sesame Street, Spongebob Squarepants | No Comments »

Honey, does this movie make me look fat?

Thursday, September 27th, 2007

(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.

Posted in Movies, Of Industry Note | No Comments »

Disney vs. Islands of Adventure

Tuesday, September 25th, 2007

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).

Posted in Kid Stuff, Of Industry Note | No Comments »

Let’s talk about movies in 2009

Thursday, September 20th, 2007

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?)

Posted in Movies, Of Industry Note | 1 Comment »

More refusal to plug junk foods, maybe

Tuesday, August 21st, 2007

The connection between popular animated characters and the eager marketing of, well, everything is hardly new. An entire industry has been built upon bringing kids’ favorite shows to life in a myriad of ways: toys, books, music, stage shows, and even food.

If casting a glance around to your nearest fast food restaurant or supermarket isn’t enough to remind you of the character-food connection, let us recall the recent spate of big licensed brands realizing that the American public just may hold them accountable for recommending (or serving) unhealthy foods. Why, Disney made a pledge to go trans-fat free last year and this year Shrek was taken to task for hawking both M&Ms and fitness. The backlash against character branding on unhealthy foods is becoming more frequent.

(Who woulda thunk it? I mean, people getting upset about things like our kids’ favorite heroes telling them to eat junk? What are the odds?)

As usual—because I’m a fickle, fickle person—I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, yes, please stop hawking empty calories to my children. On the other hand, fellow parents, I’m pretty sure those groceries don’t leap into your cart of their own volition; if you don’t want your kids eating it, here’s an idea: don’t buy it. But that’s a whole ‘nother conversation.

This past week saw big strides in terms of the industry putting its collective foot down. First Discovery Kids pledged to license only to healthy food options, then Nickelodeon followed suit, with Cartoon Network coming in to make it a trifecta.

Is this great news? Absolutely. Is it perfection? Well, have your shaker of salt at the ready, of course. Do read through the various stories for all the details—Discovery Kids will still allow licensing of their properties for “occasional sweets such as birthday cakes;” Nickelodeon’s new guidelines have been announced but won’t go into effect until 2009, and they, too, are calling for an exemption for special occasions (most notably, Halloween); Cartoon Network also leaves themselves the “special occasion sweets” loophole.

It’s progress, to be sure. Now, who do we go after about that whole meals-with-a-toy thing that has plagued my existence ever since becoming a parent…?

Posted in Of Industry Note, Random acts of television | No Comments »

Finally, Noggin will stop turning into The N

Thursday, August 16th, 2007

MTV announced this week that at the close of 2007, Noggin and The N will split, each becoming their own 24-hour channel. If you’ve ever had a toddler who demanded shows on Noggin, you know that horrible sinking feeling of 6:00 PM rolling around, patience wearing thin, and the favorite channel suddenly changing from friendly faces to bright lights and twanging guitars in preparation for a tween crowd rather than a field of preschoolers.

The truth is that it’s been a while since my children relied on Noggin for their television requirements. Nowadays, they’re all about Cartoon Network and ABC Family. And whatever billion episodes of their favorite shows they’ve recorded on the DVR. Given that I don’t let them watch TV nearly often enough (according to them, anyway), when they’re given the chance to veg out in front of the set they’re looking for something a little deeper than what Dora might have in her backpack today.

But there was a time—and it doesn’t seem all that long ago, frankly—when Noggin was the key to my sanity. Times were different, back then. For one thing, I was still idealistic and believed that commercials would harm my precious developing babies. (Now I know that commercials harm them, but, eh, they’re big enough already.) When I discovered Noggin in all of its commercial-free goodness I fell to my knees and thanked the heavens for a channel that provided hours of non-commercial kiddie goodness without ever lapsing into home improvement shows. (Sorry, PBS. It’s nothing personal.)

On those rare occasions when my kids were sick or I really could’ve used another round of kids’ shows past dinnertime, the transformation of the normally innocuous Noggin into the teenybopper “The N” always annoyed me beyond measure. Why couldn’t they just be Noggin? Why did they have to be both?

Well, now they don’t have to be both. Both channels get their own home, which is awesome. And although my kids are a bit too old for Noggin, now, they’re fast approaching the right demographic to love The N. So I should probably look at the programming line up.

[Now I'm feeling all nostalgic for Little Bear. Even though his parents were always fully dressed and he ran around naked. (C'mon, admit it, that's weird.)]

Posted in Of Industry Note, Random acts of television | 2 Comments »

More on animation gone live action

Tuesday, August 14th, 2007

(Pictured to the side, there: He-Man. If it goes live action, can you really picture him being played by anyone other than Arnold Schwarzenegger??)

It’s been said that there’s a finite number of plots, and all stories are merely different retellings of those basic premises. Wait a minute; I’m getting the feeling I’ve talked about this before. Oh, that’s right, I have! But we’re going to talk about it again, because shockingly, Hollywood continues to insist upon recycling material.

What? Erm, I mean, Hollywood continues to innovate the movie industry with its daring use of, um, storyline recycling. Yes, that’s it.

From IGN we have a decent rundown of upcoming cartoons-turned-live-action movie projects currently underway, and to say that even they have mixed feelings would be an understatement:

Hollywood has been busy mining TV animation for more potential live-action feature film adaptations. This trend of turning cartoons into live-action films is nothing new, of course, but it’s been a crapshoot so far. For every hit like Scooby-Doo or The Flintstones there’s been a Josie and the Pussycats, Fat Albert or Aeon Flux. Remember Dudley Do-Right, Mr. Magoo, George of the Jungle, Casper and Inspector Gadget? Did you want to?! No, you did not!

(Awwww, come on. I sort of enjoyed Matthew Broderick as Inspector Gadget.)

Their list starts out with Alvin and the Chipmunks and Avatar: The Last Airbender, both of which we’ve discussed before. (In fact, I was hoping for some new Avatar news, but no such luck.)

Then they veer off into (to me) unknown territory. A project based on G.I. Joe?

The largest roadblock (no pun intended) facing the project is the challenge of bringing the characters and premise to the screen without seeming ridiculous, as well as the fact that America’s wars overseas might make a movie about the U.S. military unappealing to international audiences.

Gee… ya think?

Other titles include He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, The Jetsons, Johnny Bravo (really?? isn’t the cartoon annoying enough?), Jonny Quest, Neon Genesis Evangelion (who?), Speed Racer, Star Blazers, Thundercats, Voltron, and—of course—Transformers 2.

That seems like plenty to keep Hollywood busy, no? They shouldn’t have to come up with an original storyline until well into 2017 or so, at this rate….

Posted in Avatar, Movies, Of Industry Note, Transformers | No Comments »

It’s completely straightforward… maybe

Thursday, August 9th, 2007

I’m not an industry pundit, by any stretch of the imagination. (I know, you’re shocked. With a name like The Toy Box Mommy you expected me to be a big player in the field, rather than a mom who has allowed her kids to watch too much television.) Anyway, sometimes I have opinions on things (again, I can see the shock) and sometimes I just have to sit back and watch people with more information and experience than me battle it out.

This is one of those times.

The argument is an interesting one; first Jim Hill made some sweeping generalizations about Pixar films while directing folks to this survey that Pixar is conducting. As for me, I was too busy trying to read Hill’s piece inbetween all of the oversized graphics to really grasp what he was getting at.

Next, The Animation Guild took Hill to task for his comments, deconstructing his points systematically. The dry zingers were the best:

One handy explanation is that Mulan and Brother Bear (not to mention Lilo and Stitch) were done in the Florida studio and the artists therein were further away from the horrid West Coast suits. Made all the difference.

Ah, message to Jim? Those suits? They flew into Orlando all the time. (There’s an airport.) And they had lots of interaction with Orlando via media conferencing (it’s now all the rage.)

The conclusion may not thrill those who want easy answers when it comes to forecasting movies’ success, but it sounds spot-on to this layman (laymom?):

Here’s the problem with easy, glib theorizing. It works until it doesn’t. And the evidentiary graphs only work if you start them at the right place. (Like, there’s no point in showing how The Rescuers and Fox and the Hound were big grossers for their time, way back in ‘77 and ‘81. It blows the neat down-up-down storyline because the two features that followed it (Black Cauldron, Great Mouse Detective) were relatively low grossers before the trend-line nosed up again.)

So here’s my theory (or as Uncle Karl Rove might put it: “The theory”).

Every feature film is filled with its unique strengths and weaknesses. Some audiences like some features better than others, so some features make more money than others.

And trend lines always revert to the mean. Until they don’t.

Well, that clears that up.