I absolutely love good cartoon timing but I have to admit that I've come to love it less in recent years. I've just seen it abused too often. A lot of cartoon producers and nearly every cartoon writer believes that timing will save an otherwise mediocre cartoon. It won't. It couldn't even save the Coyote and Roadrunner shorts and you're not likely to see better timing than that.
It all goes back to the purpose of cartoons. The purpose of a cartoon is simple: it's to blow the audience's mind. Nobody ever watches a cartoon, or any form of entertainment for that matter, with the intention of seeing something tepid that just passes the time. People want to be transformed and exhilerated. Even after a long day of work when you flop down infront of the TV and your standards are as low as they'll ever be, you'll still find yourself hoping to find a diamond in the rough. Timing isn't capable of delivering a diamond any more than a really good set of tires can drive you to the grocery store. Timing is just timing, something vital that takes its place among other vital things. Good timing plus drek does not a good film make.
A common story in recent animated features has a bunch of animals run away from captivity to pursue their dreams in some far away haven. How do you blow minds with a story like that? Is the premise intrinsically mind-blowing? No, but you could argue that some classic comedies had plots that were just as thin. Are the characters themselves "great" characters? Probably not. Are the gags strong enough to support the film? Well, maybe they're not THAT strong. It becomes clear when you look at the pre-production art that the backbone of the film, the thing that everyone's hoping will save it, is the timing. The thinking is, tighten up the story, the animation and the editing as tight as they can possibly be and all the other problems will go away. But timing wasn't meant to bear that kind of burden. Timing is no substitute for charisma or imagination or street smarts or nobility or fine acting and animation or gut-satisfying humor and story. Timing is just timing.
25 comments:
Jenny: Your comment equating good acting with good timing is what inspired this post but I never got around to answering your point directly. Sorry!
Milt: The timing on the Simpsons is inordinately central to that show and is an exception to what I've written here!
Bravo, Eddie. Why do you think timing is such a hard thing to explain, analyze and even experience?
Hey Eddie, this is a little off topic but I just made a post and it has an old photo of oyu and I was wondering if you could give me some insight on it. I don't know where it came from. Check it out on my blog.
Hey Eddie! After seeing the Eddie F. of yesteryear on Max Ward's blog, one has to wonder...Who's black framed glasses came first? John K's or Eddie Fitzgeralds?
I think you are underplaying timing here..
Timing is super important, I would say just as important as any of the other important things that make a good cartoon.
As you said, timing is definitely no substitute for charisma & other things. But it goes both ways. Charisma is so substitute for timing. I could be watching the most charasmatic cartoon in the world; but if the TIMING is bad, odds are the cartoon will become bad (or at least drastically cripple it).
Timing can make or break a scene; in addition to totaly KILLING a joke if not done properly. Besides that, good timing can turn a funny joke into a HILARIOUS joke.
An example would be Clampett's scene in "Tale of Two Kitties" with the cat on the trampoline VS. Friz Freleng's take on the same exact joke where Sylvester & Tweety are on the cruise ship. Clampett's timing made that joke hilarious. Friz's timing simply made it amusing.
---MORE ABOUT TIMING & LENGTH---
If the timing to a scene/joke is too long, the viewer becomes bored & uncomfortable. If the timing to a joke is too short or abrupt, then the viewer:
A) has no time to laugh
B) has to think about the joke since the pacing didn't give them enough time to register it
C) is now MISSING the next scene because they are still trying to figure out that last, badly timed, joke.
D) is now more distracted than he/she should be during whatever visual story is being told
In my opinion, you're just tired of seeing 'good' timing in shitty productions IE that CGI movie with the animals that you mentioned.
Don't lose your faith in timing Eddie! Maybe once David & I get off our asses & actually DO something, we can make your love for timing bloom all over again ;)
PS the Wile E Coyote cartoons are GOOD cartoons. You should be ashamed.
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Friz Frelengs timing. The first genuine laugh out loud laugh I got from the WB Golden collections came from Friz. Timing was a strength for Friz (beyond his instance for the musical beat that some immediately catch as a stylistic trademark).
Chuck Jones once wrote or said that Wile E.'s falling from a high cliff (that ended in a poof of dust) was highly dependant on timing to the frame. One more frame or one less frame on camera, and it didn't work. It is hard to verify if this was an actual rule he followed religiously, or if he was just blowing hot air, because frames are regularly added (doulbled) or dropped when 24 fps film is transferred to 29 point whatever NTSC. Also, counting the frames is a good way to put yourself to sleep... I don't think Roadrunners hold up well to marathon viewing.. they need to be interspersed with 7 minutes of something else.
But that is just the way the great blue mother raised me.
>>..there are NO characters- it's just 'a lion with Ben Stiller's voice', 'a donkey Eddie Murphy' etc. I know the Looney Tunes were built on elements of existing comedians, but it's gone too far recently. <<
You couldn't be more right! The problem with cartoons today is that nobody knows how to create an original character anymore. Whatever happened to the proffession of voice acting?? There's no job openings to find new voice talents such as Mel Blanc or June Foray anymore because all the characters are just cartoon versions of existing big-shot actors (with those particular actors doing the voices of course). The terrible Hollywood shmoes took all the voice acting jobs. Now cartoon studios just cop-out and make an ant that acts like Woody Allen (of course the ant's voice IS Woody Allen), or a donkey that looks like Eddie Murphy (of course the donkey's voice IS Eddie Murphy. And the actors don't even create new character traits when they do their "voice acting"! They just speak in their regular voice! Who the hell decided that Bruce Willis should do a CARTOON'S voice? I blame Robin Williams and that damn genie for all this crap! He started it!
Now the cartoon studios are too lazy to even make the characters LOOK like the actors. Have you seen the previews to "Open Season"?? That bear looks NOTHING like Martin Lawrence (horrible voice, by the way), and that terrible excuse for a deer looks NOTHING like Ashton Krutcher (another BAD casting choice)! And both of those actors are acting the characters with their regular speaking voices. I thought they called themselves ACTORS! Why won't they ACT and create a character for chrissakes?!
The only true voice actors that I've seen in recent years is Billy West and Eric Bauza (thank God John knows how to find original talent in this world).
Create an original character, and an original voice that makes people laugh...THEN work on the timing!
I was never a real big fan of the 'Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote' cartoons because of the same, continual theme over and over again during a long period of uninterrupted time. A 'Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote' would be better served as a 30 second filler between other cartoon shorts.
And since the topic of voice acting has been mentioned, the character voices from 'The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show' were probably the most entertaining.
Eddie (and all other interested parties)
Below is a link to some of my cartoon work visible on the web:
Lumberjack Dan Fishing Expedition #1
It would be wonderful to have some artists actually look at some of my comic work. (Usually my artwork is viewed by fellow scientists.)
A 'celebrity' actor doesn't necessarily have to be a bad performance. I think Kelsey Grammer does rather well in Toy Story 2.
Back to timing, in every shade of meaning of the word, (comic timing and animation timing are a couple that come to mind), because I think bad timing has sapped some potential of material that could have been better, I'm not going to knock anyones misguided justification for working on improving the timing. I agree, it can't save a cartoon from mediocrity, but better timing get some attention rather than none. along with the other vital elements.
Animatin timing has gotten more growing attention in the past 10 years than it may have 15 years ago, in general.
Sorry if my last comment was completely off topic. Just trying to say that good timing will not save characters that talk like James Woods.
You are right it's Shawn, it is sham ethse howllyood buig shost are getting these evocie acting roles whcih belong to REAL voice actros. Also I want to add to your list of talented VAs of today:
Maurice La Marche
Bob Bergen
Joe Alaskey
Phil Lamarr
I'm confused with your sudden switch from discussing the current state of TV cartoon timing to feature animation, where you seem to think that regardless of careful attention paid to design, story, animation and all the many elements of a film the crew or whoever "they" are think that "timing" will somehow "save" a picture? This has never been the case in all my experience at several feature studios. I think you're imagining a bugaboo that isn't there. You may hate the animated features you've seen(do you go to see features?), but they just aren't made that way.
Anonymous: I could name a number of features that rely too heavily on timing. The last two I saw on DVD were like that: "The Incredibles" and "Ice Age." The Incredibles featured people shooting standard rays at each other from their arms, protecting themselves with standard ray bubbles, fighting a fairly normal tripod monster...lots and lots of old, off-the-shelf ideas that were made bearable only by the fast timing. Honestly, I could name lots of examples like this. If you've worked on features and haven't seen this sort of thing then I'm at a loss to explain it.
Ryan: You misunderstood me. I love good timing! I just think you need something good to put the timing on!
Eric: Nice work for a scientist!
Max: That was from an article about the Spumco split-up in "Film Threat" magazine. You can find it on the net.
I think good timing in combination with interesting, funny and original drawings can do a lot for a film.
Tex Avery used a lot of stock cartoon gags-the same ones every one else was using, but his funny drawings, combined with his timing made his cartoons a lot funnier than the other more generic stock cartoons that many others did during the same period.(Did you ever see that Disney Chipmunk picture that was a ripoff of Red Hot Riding Hood?)
Compare Tex's cartoons to the Famous cartoons that were full of eyeball takes and violence. They lay flat because the takes are drawn so ugly and the timing of the violence is so mushy that it comes off as just pure pain rather than humor.
The Tom and Jerry cartoons have pretty good snappy timing, but the drawings and actions are so generic and reused so many times that they come off flat and lifeless compared to Tex's cartoons too.
Today's feature animation is of two basics styles.
Pixar does big budget Cal Arts style student films-the expressions, poses and ideas are all recycled from Disney, Cal Arts films and Bluth so for me even when they have snappy timing, it doesn't do anything except zip from one bland stock pose to the next one.
Dreamworks looks like big budget Dic cartoons-the "designs" are like "Ghostbusters" super bland, non cartoony and ugly semi-realistic characters with too many details and heads too big. No amount of timing (not that they have any) could save anything that is so unappealing to the senses.
Madagascar was a departure for Dreamworks in that the design was more like Don Bluth or 70s Disney, still generic, but not so repulsive as Dic. The snappy timing was very mechanical and didn't hide the fact that all the designs and expressions, poses and movements have been seen a zillion times before.
The other studios are all somewhere inbetween Dreamworks and Pixar.
Real timing isn't a formula, it's customized to the content and the visuals. If the content is bland or stock, there isn't anything else you can do to make it good.
I WISH there was something as good as the Roadrunner today! As generic as it was for the period, it's full of funny and original drawings with great timing.
You feel that "Incredibles" was a bunch of "old, off the shelf ideas" saved by snappy timing??
Then I'm at a loss too. Pity.
Craig Kellman's beautiful main designs for Madagascar owe absolutely nothing to Don Bluth(WTF, seriously)or "70s Disney". They are Craig's. They are influenced by(among other things) Little Golden Book designs, which is obvious and was clearly stated in the discussions about the film's production.
Madasacar is the exact same designs as that Disney Barnyard picture that came out a few years ago and the same as Bedknobs and Broomsticks.
It's late 60s Disney style, the same thing that Bluth and everyone else in feature animation does.
Nothing at all new about it.
The celebrity voice problem began in earnest with Disney's "The Jungle Book" in 1967. They were so enamored by Phil Harris & company that they let celebrity voices define their lead characters from that moment on. Just look at their 1973 "Robin Hood", for Christ's sake. Phil Harris again, with Frank and Ollie on story for the first time. Or acid.
Madasacar is the exact same designs as that Disney Barnyard picture that came out a few years ago and the same as Bedknobs and Broomsticks.It's late 60s Disney style, the same thing that Bluth and everyone else in feature animation does.Nothing at all new about it.
Baloney.
No, it's not "the exact same". The Mad/Kellman designs are absolutely NOTHING like "Bedknobs & Broomsticks". Kellman's 2D designs and whoever did "Home on the Range"'s characters are also very different.
That's not looking very carefully, that's making rash assumptions based on your own prejudices.
I've seen the designs of the Mad characters Kellman did, and the final 3D models are very very close to his paintings he did in 2D. I never said Kellman's were "new", anyway, just that they are Kellman's, his style and his taste. He did what he wanted. You know his work. Don't care for it? That's okay. But it as much to do with Bluth's stuff as yours does: nothing.
All this has zero to do with timing...but it is bashing, I guess, isn't it?
It's all the same formula. The only differences are the amount and degree of pointiness at the corners.
Every character has the same eye shape and same forms.
Craig Kellman is a good mimic, not an originator. Madagasacar is the best looking Dreamworks picture, but it's still been done many times.
They should have had Martin Lawrence do all the voices in Madagascar. Then you would be so amazed by his talent that you wouldn't even care about the character designs or timing.
John,
"The Incredibles" was about the best animated feature ever, I think. I saw tons of original poses and animation, and keep in mind I've gone through tons of Clampett, Avery, Jones, Mckimson, and Disney cartoons frame by frame. I'm starting to think you just have too strong of a bias towards Disney to see any genius in Pixar. I just don't understand how an animation fan such as yourself can say Pixar is "stock."
"That Disney Chipmunk Picture" (Two Chips and A Miss, is not a rip off of the Red series, and to tell you the truth, I thought it was much better than those crappy formulaic Tex Avery Red pictures.
Post a Comment