[Groop]Cartoon show....

[Mark Evanier]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:45:47 -0800, "Grossmann, Gary"
<GaryG at DOR.WA.GOV> wrote:

>So Craig McCracken, Van Partible, and Genndy Tartakovsky don't own the Power
>Puff Girls, Johnny Bravo, and Dexter's Laboratory, respectively? That
>stinks.   
>
>Is it possible that then unknown creators like them could have gotten a
>decent contract for new cartoons that turned into big hits or is it pretty
>much a given that they were reduced to little more than hired help at a
>fixed price regardless of ratings, comic book deals, movies, merchandising,
>etc?  -Gary G.  

ME: Well, the thing to remember in all this is that there's a
middle-ground between total ownership and being a slave.  Charles
Schulz did not own PEANUTS but he managed to enjoy virtually all of
the creative control that he'd have had if he had, and he made a
helluva lot of money off it.  Most live-action TV shows are not owned
by their creators but they negotiate sophisticated contracts that
protect the creator's interests.

The problem in the area of comic books and animation has often been a
refusal to negotiate that middle-ground, which is why some of us have
strived to own what we created.  In many cases, it WAS a matter of
ownership or slavery.  But both comics and animation have matured
somewhat and it's now difficult but by no means impossible to work out
a satisfactory arrangement.

The folks you mention above -- like Craig McCracken -- do not own
their properties but they're by no means "slave" deals.  The folks in
question have a lot of creative control and they do make a lot of
money.  Don't feel sorry for them.  There are other things going on in
the world that are much more troubling.  (I hear something's going on
with some place called Iraq...)
------------------------------
www.POVonline.com - a website about comic books, cartoons, TV,
movies, Groo the Wanderer, Broadway, Las Vegas, Hollywood,
Stan Freberg, Laurel & Hardy, Jack Kirby and possums in my backyard.