I like Cheese · 2:45am Jun 15th, 2013
I've been really slow with making this post for a couple of reasons, I've had to work a lot more than I'm used to (money is great and all, but it can only stave off misery, not buy happiness; I did discover today that you can buy love with ice cream) and that limits free time, deciding to save a large piece I originally wanted to include here for later, spending quite a bit of my time with non-pony related (shocking that they exist) such a few non-fiction books, and struggling just to write, in general. I'm really starting to worry that I might be losing it. (I sometimes tell myself to break up my post into smaller pieces or just write five sentence reviews of fanfiction, but that takes away what I like about large posts).
But I do have a few things, a review of a fanfict, a few thoughts after seeing the Equestria Girls trailers (this really should have been posted way before the day of the premiere), and four cartoons (three of which rank amongst the best of three different directors).
But first, two bits I got from the onion: the first about how to get your work published if you're a writer, and this bit on George R. R. Martin's response to the Red Wedding (I already had it ruined for me by you nameless masses out there on the web, god dammnit I was going wait for the books to finish before starting them).
The Trouble with Phoenixes by Cold in Gardez
In article from 1930 about the Looney Tunes (this being when they first started), the writer John Scott wrote of cartoon-making, “The most difficult part of the whole business is to present a logical story in a ridiculous manner, at the same time making it entertaining.” I was thinking this when I read Cold in Gardez’s story, where Rarity’s home is invaded by phoenixes looking for a place to roost, and her attempts to get rid of them because the piece seemed to have taken that sentence to heart for the most part.
Characterization, while not earth-shattering, is certainly good. Everyone from Rarity slow descent into madness to the innocence of the crusaders is certainly in keeping with the characters as seen on the show (I would have expected them to act the same in the show themselves). There’s definitely a bit of head canon involved (as with a lot of his ficts, Gardez makes Twilight creepier for the sake of a joke), but none of them were particularly unacceptable or bad.
As far as laughs go, the story is filled with humor ranging from character-based comedy (mainly from Sweetie Belle and Rarity) to funny prose
(“The monstrosity stood before her, a refugee from a junkyard. A large metal hopper, open on one side, yawned at her, revealing a maw full of sharp steel teeth mounted upon an array of rotating shafts. In the spaces between the teeth she could see the guts of the machine – countless gears and pistons and belts that fed inexorably through its digestive tract, all leading to a chute on the far side aimed upward and out. … A woodchipper, in other words.”; it’s hard to find any good out of context examples) even going a little political (when you get down to it, the whole thing is a jab at the endangered species act; not something I had a problem with). None of these moments invoked any belly laughs from me (just snorts and chuckles), but that doesn’t surprise me, sadly. There’s always something (that I can never really put my finger on) about Gardez’s comedies that keeps me from laughing at them as much as I think I should, in spite of the fact I can easily see how good the humor is. Many others will probably take more enjoyment from them than I did.
As for the writing, Gardez style of keeping things light pays off. For the most part, it was well written and edited, almost never having a problem with choice or use of words and spelling and grammar. The only problem I did notice was that throughout his story, Gardez capitalizes boutique (in reference to the Carousel Boutique) when it’s by itself in quite a few places (it seems to be fixed up a bit since I first read it). It feels wrong or at least pedantic, for me of all people, to criticize or even mention that a work of fiction that is far better written and edited than a lot of stories on this site for such a minor error, but I did find it distracting whenever it came up, and, more importantly, my Chicago Manual of Style says that it’s wrong.
But overall, I feel like my criticisms are minor (at worst, I’m coming across as passive-aggressive). I wished I enjoyed it more given how good it was for the most part, but it doesn’t change the fact I did enjoy it. Most people will probably also more like be enthralled by it than I am, so if you haven’t read it yet (I’d be surprised if this was true), then do so.
I’ve avoided them for a long time, but I convinced myself to see both Equestria Girl trailers. My response can me summed up here.
Actually my first question after watching this was, is it there a gene specific to unicorns (or magic powered or horn creatures) that turns them asses (maybe there is a stick up their butts that pushes through their brain and then pushes part of their forehead outward and that’s why they have horns)? Seriously, think about all the horned characters that are just flat out jerks or villains; Trixie, Sombrero, Rarity, Queen Moron, Film and Flam, Iron Will, Celestia, and this new character, Sunset Shimmer (she even has a biker jacket in human form).
That aside, there are plenty of things that raise red flags and questions. The whole school aspect with potential romance (ten bucks Twilight and that guy kiss at the end), scenes that wouldn’t look out of places in Anthropology (I really hope the trailers showed the only jokes that show Twilight awkwardly adjusting to her surroundings, and I hope even more that the Lyra stand-in for this is not pony obsessed), where exactly is Twilight going to be staying and where is she going to get the money she needs to live (fortunate that Twilight comes with clothes when she goes through), why didn’t the others come with her (besides Spike) or at least put Discord to use, and the main plot of Twilight basically becoming homecoming queen (ugh). I don’t know what exactly people saw in the second trailer, but I saw nothing to raise my confidence. Admittedly, they could answer some of the questions, but
However, what really bothered me was in the areas of design and animation. As far as the show goes, there was always a limit in what the animation could achieve based on the look of the characters. Faust’s design are improvement over the previous generations, given that the rigid masks over the face was replaced with something capable of far more facial expressions, but it doesn’t eliminate one of the two central problem: equines and other ungulates aren’t very good at being expressive. Horses have hooves, and as such they lack the flexibility of animals with paws, claws, and hands (cats, apes, raccoons, rodents) that can turn those parts into arms. Think about how we use our arms in order conversation and communication, you can’t do that with horses as well. (The other problem is the need to keep the characters cute and on model (except for a few of Pinkie's spasms) whenever they move, squash and stretch are not welcomed here, sadly).
Humans are a lot more expressive, but they are also far harder to successfully animate because we are humans, we know how a human moves. The limits that occur in horses allow the animators to get away with a number of things without issue, but you can’t do that in human beings. Disney struggled with humans for years (if you saw Goddess of Spring, which I posted a while back, you would see how much of a problem it was for them), and it seems to me that the Studio 2 animators are having problems as well. The motions are too mechanical or cliché and stock to be effective. It doesn’t help when every character seems to have the same design (remove the clothes and it’s essentially the same character).
It’s still too early to make any judgment about Equestria Girls, but I don’t have any hopes. And just because there seems to a lot backlash against any sort criticism for something one hasn’t seen, let me point out that I’m free to say what I want and that as far as I’m concerned, saying it’s going to be great is no different than saying it’s going to blow. But again, it’s still too early to say. I can be wrong.
Anyway, cartoons I can have an opinion on.
How to Play Baseball – 1942 – Disney – Kinney
This was really the first cartoon were director Jack Kinney was coming into his own. While it was not the first “How to” cartoon for Goofy, it was the first one where Kinney used not one, but many Goofys as extras in the short. As such, Kinney was eliminating (more than before) the idea that Goofy was a character we were supposed to care about (the fact that it looks like Goofy shouldn’t matter to us). It’s just part of a piece meant to get laughs.
And Kinney was still working on his timing and other skills. There’s not much in the way of really funny bits, so much as that the fact that one can see the chick inside the egg starting to move. It’s still enjoyable, but it’s only a taste of what Kinney would later do.
Much Ado about Nutting – 1953 – Warner Bros. – Jones
Chuck Jones always seemed better at nailing the one-shot characters more than his fellow Looney Tune directors. I don’t mean that the others are bad directors (although I think besides Clampett, the others are at least a tier below), but I find myself coming to Jones’ one-shot cartoons far more than the others. Fresh Airedale comes to mind as does this one.
Here a squirrel tries ever but the kitchen sink to crack open a coconut. Like with the Roadrunner and Coyote cartoons, it’s easy to identify with his character’s constant struggle and the fact there’s no dialogue, helps the timing of the animation so that the gags have maximum impact. It’s a little slow at the beginning (a problem the Roadrunner series never had), but still very funny.
Kitty Kornored – 1945 – Warner Bros. – Clampett
This cartoon may look strange, disorganized, crazy, and sloppy when you watch it, but these problems, if they could be called that, are actually minor when you really look at it. It was one of the last cartoons Bob Clampett directed before he left Warner Bros, and it’s one his best. Featuring Porky Pig, Sylvester, and three other cats (these pussies are distinct in design, but barely even exist as personalities so that there might as well have two or even one of them; to call them one-note might be too strong), this cartoon is probably the pig’s best.
As with a lot of Clampett’s cartoons from this time, the joy comes from the animation, mainly from Porky. The constant changes in sizes (Porky’s head increases in size so that it’s almost as big as his window at one point as his anger builds up) and looks of the characters and even the background (when a cat attempts dives through a keyhole, the background of it is changed as soon as he smashes into it) create this high energy, vivid effect on the characters and makes up for the fact that they really aren’t much as personalities.
In addition the gags, which include references to Arsenic and Old Lace (the alcoholic beverage and the Teddy Roosevelt bit) and the Three Stooges (when we hear “three blind mice” which was the Three Stooges’ theme, Sylvester then pokes Porky in the eyes), are unimportant because they aren’t the funniest part. It’s the way the characters are that’s funny. It’s about acting. Plus, it has one my favorite lines (who doesn’t like cheese).
The Band Concert – 1935 – Disney - Jackson
This is a cartoon everyone should see before they die. It wasn’t the first cartoon to feature Mickey in color, but it was the first Mickey Mouse cartoon in color and in many ways it has things that shouldn’t work. Not only does its premise of Mickey and co. try to perform an open-air concert of William Tell, but are interrupted by Donald Duck playing “Turkey in the Straw” have far more in common with the plotless musical Mickey Mouse cartoons of the early thirties, but there are other things such as the design of the characters that seemed far too primitive in a color cartoon (for one, a bee, like many cartoon insects of the time, has only four appendages and he has only two body parts) that sometimes does make the animation less powerful (I’m thinking mainly with Mickey because he’s meant to show far more emotion, his grimace is just too generic for me).
And yet, like Kitty Kornered, these things ultimately don’t matter. Because basic structure of the story isn’t complex, the characters don’t necessarily have to be and the fact is the characters themselves aren’t the main focus, their designs aren’t fatal (after it’s trying to make us cry tears of laughter, not sorrow). The Band Concert is instead perhaps one of the best and cleverest integrations of music and action, seen through the staging of the characters (watch as Mickey stretches upwards to signal at the beginning of the piece, and you’ll notice his body actual gets a little longer), effects, and timing of the music (the lead into Turkey in the Straw from William Tell is so well mixed together you’d swear they were the same song). It was, as Michael Barrier said, the cartoon where Wilfred Jackson’s talent with such details was most visible, mostly clearly with the storm at the end, where Mickey and co. are scooped up a twister (seemingly summoned by their playing of the piece) but continue to play undaunted. From the way the wind blows, to the backgrounds, to the position of the characters as they play and are twirled, how the gags play out, the whole is just one the best moments in cartoons, if not filmmaking (the storm is one thing that no other medium, not literature, not painting, not comics could do as well). In short, the Band Concert is something that you should before you die. And I love it.
Glad you enjoyed it :) I actually wrote up a summary of my writing process that is extremely similar to your quote from the Looney Tunes creator. That should get posted in a day or so, and I'll be sure to link it.