Involvement of Creators in their Cartoons

R

Radoslaw P

New member
Most cartoons made today have a specific designated "Creator", but the functions of the creator vary wildly.

On one end of the spectrum, we have Matt Groening, whose involvement in the shows he's credited with creating is pretty much nil. Other than the Simpsons family and the basic art style of that show and Futurama, he really doesn't have much to do with either show and never really has.

On the other end, we have John Kricfalusi, who called all of the shots on the first two seasons of Ren and Stimpy. He voiced one of the protagonists (Ren), wrote episodes, directed a majority of episodes, and oversaw what his team did.

Most other TV cartoon creators fall somewhere in the middle or closer to the Groening end; most are executive producers, most set the art style for a show, some write an occasional episode (usually the pilot), some voice characters, a small few are credited with direction of episodes.

Are the creators of TV cartoons locked down in certain jobs? Is being a John Kricfalusi-style control freak discouraged? When the creator directs, does voices, etc. does that make for a better show?
 
One of the Angry Beavers' writers Micah Wright claimed a couple years ago that creator Mitch Schauler "wrote" most of the episodes himself. Or rather came up with most of the plot synopseses himself, and then just fed them to the writers. Even episodes made for season 5 were ideas Mitch had during season 1.
 
Early on, Matt Groening was an executive producer, and he attended writers' retreats and things like that. He only became less involved in "The Simpsons" in 1997, when he and David X. Cohen began working on "Futurama" (quite a few people connect his absence with the gradual nosedive in quality that the show took around that time).
 
For me, when a creator of the show is greatly involved in their series, it shows that they are really adamant about it and believe in its success, and have fun doing it.
 
Depends on the studio. Usually, you will find the creator being the executive producer and (occasionally) a writer/storyboarer. Sometimes they may even direct a few of the episodes. But some studios stop the creator from being anything other than a producer from what I hear.

Taking part in every area of production on your side of the woods is one thing, but being an epic control freak who wants every single part of their cartoon a certain, exact way is more than what the studio/network can handle.

Not really. While it shows that the creator really cares about his/her show, and truly want it do be the best it can be, you can't really say for sure that it's for the better of the show.
 
Still, it is true for the most part. As Greg Weisman said, "How can you expect others to have passion for your work if you lack passion for it"?
 
In my opinion, if a show turns out to be unsatisfactory in some way or the other, it's the fault of the creator(s) who created it, the production company that produced it (which are sometimes, but not always one and the same), and the network that aired it:

-the creator(s) for either not having enough passion for his/her/their work, and/or not at least trying (I can't stress this enough) to make certain that his/her/their vision of what he/she/they want to do is fully realized (this includes making sure that the creator(s) don't sign into the wrong agreements; long story).

-the production company for going in a different creative direction than the creator(s) intended because the company doesn't have the same passion as the creator(s) might, and/or because the production company has different ideas on what to do creatively.

-the network for demanding too many changes to the creation for whatever reason or another, and even for making unnecessary changes during the broadcast of a show.

That said, all three share the responsibility, but in regards to the topic, creator involvement is key into not only the success of a show, but is also key into the creative direction of the show (including the writing and directing), and capturing the vision that the creator(s) are trying to convey.

There's actually more to my position than this, but it's a very long story, so I'll just leave it at that.
 
Now the only instance I can recall when a creator oriented toon failed to get an interest for the most part would be Ren & Stimpy: APC. Sure the network wanted it to be more adult, but I get the feeling that the end result was due to John Kricfalusi thinking that fans wanted obvious in your face content rather than the subtle thought provoking adult tones.

Now The Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon in my opinion is an example of how passion for the material helps the quality of the product. Aside from his hardwork, Greg Weisman is an animation fan and a fan of comics (especially Spider-Man). Heck, it's been said that he wants the show to be the definitive Spider-Man cartoon.
 
It's possible that he wanted that the first time two but Nick was able to keep him in check. Either way, how does one go from a complete and utter masterpiece like "Stimpy's Invention" to a complete and utter piece of crap like "Onward and Upward"?
 
it was not just Greg in the case of Gargoyles, the entire staff, all the writers most of the people who worked on the show were replaced for Goliath Chronicals. I sure that if it had the same writers as the first two seasons it would not have ended up as bad. It was not the removial of one person that hurt that show.
 
Back
Top