[Groop]Cartoon show....

[Leonard Dempsey]

>From a lurker:

I've always enjoyed an will continue to enjoy reading these issues pertaining to Groo.  And I do like the current issue revolving around creator rights, limitations, etc, etc.  But from my own point of view, based on my experience, a whopping 33 years, I've learned that there is no true middle ground on this issue.  I believe Marks words are the best available to uphold this issue.  I'll just elaborate with my own experiences.

I once did consulting work in the Bay area, or "consulted" for a consulting firm which was located in the Bay area.  I have to put the word in quotes because in reality I was not a consultant, I was just a Joe Shoom worker who loaded his truck with his worldly possessions - books, a single bed, a twin sofa and the Groo comics.  And there I was off into the BIG wide world California from the outback's of Arizona.  In all in two and a half years of consulting I learned a lot about life in general.  I have to share one item that I learned a lot about which is 'if your going to take a flying leap off a bridge, research others who did the same leap and ask them a lot of questions.'  Particular questions that come to mind are 'what should I be cautious about', 'does this contract look legitimate', 'how do I cover myself so that I'm not taken advantage of and I don't take advantage of other' (unless you intentions are otherwise), etc, etc.  For the most part I was taken advantage of but in the long run I learned which is the greater good.  

Making a long story longer bouncing a few questions of Mark on a Groo email listing is nice, but for a person to answer questions in an in-depth manner would more then likely require consulting fees.  And if a person is serious about the conquest of a goal those consulting fees will more then likely be worth it.  In all I've seen, experienced and heard about artistic talent being taken advantage of by those willing to take the artist's work and display it to the world.  But that is one end of the spectrum as Mark alludes to, and at the other end of the spectrum there are those artists who are not artist who take advantage of the promoter.  And these all come down to contracts.  I'm sure the artists of today consult people like Mark to review contracts to make sure they are not taken advantage of, but that is for another debate, and time I have consume quite much of.  Thus pick up thy pick and shovel, and stop reading these groo messages, for the quota for salt is never filled.  Hack and hew you gallant knight, ride boldly ride . . .

>From a lone lurker . . .

PS.  And yes there are other significant issues in the world to which I'll say, "God made all, great and small, including Groo . ." . 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Evanier [mailto:mail at evanier.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:56 PM
To: groop at groo.com
Subject: Re: [Groop]Cartoon show....


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.

_______________________________________________
Groop mailing list
Groop at groo.com
http://mailman.newdream.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/groop