I wonder if I worked on one (or two) of your episodes…good chance that I did.

I could always tell the difference with the writers who ‘got’ the show and those that just didn’t quite. It sounds like you really got it (especially being a former board artist yourself).

I loved getting a script that showed their relationship and played with that. That’s what I like to dig my hands into. Instead of them just running around doing a bunch of ’stuff’. It’s just not the same.

That show was a good lesson for board artists and writers alike it seems. Thanks for the great comment!
K

Another great post from a terrific, informative blog.

I was one of the writers on The Amazing Adrenalini Brothers. My writing partner and I came in during the second half of the season and wrote a whack of them. (We were the fresh horses). The experience truly encapsulated how much better stories are when the motivations and story are clear and and simple right down the line.

All three of the Adrenalini Brothers needed to have a single, clear want and that motivation then drove their every action from that point forward. Every writing choice from that point on was dictated by their want.

We made an effort to suggest the physicality of the characters (their acting) but so much of that is in the hands of the storyboard artists. You guys are the actor and just cutting and framing the action isn’t enough if the characters don’t come alive within your frame.

I used to be a storyboard artist myself so I try to keep this stuff in mind when I write. I remember working on Ned’s Newt early in my career. I had a talking scene on an airplane that was funny but then the director reworked a moment by having the Newt rub his finger along his laptop screen and examine the dust as he spoke. Almost instantly the character was a living, breathing thing!

Keeping that physicality in mind gets lost when writers (and board artists) rely too much on talking. We’ve all seen cartoons where characters tell us exactly what they are doing. We can SEE what they are doing so much of that dialogue is redundant. Talking heads saves us time and painful thinking, but it doesn’t make for good, animated television.

The show helped us streamline our writing and lose any old habits that may have dragged the action down to a crawl. It was our chance to do the kind of silent, Buster Keatoneque comedy I grew up loving.

It’s a lesson I’ve tried to keep with me since production on that show finished.

Could be even more important for comic books. They don’t pose out as much as storyboards, so you *really* have to choose your posing to make the most out of it .

I would think…since I’m not from comic book land. (I’m one town over…in storyboardville. )
K

Coming from comic book land, we do the same. You have to make the most of that one panel for what’s being said. Just a static, un-acted character would kill the emotion to the story. Gotta give it some movement and life.

@ Ravyn – Hi and welcome!
Yes, it’s not just in cartoons where using visuals can help explain things and make them clearer. It can make complex ideas simple if used the right way.
Thanks for your perspective!
K

Even plain-writers could get a great deal of good out of remembering to detail out the body language. I once demonstrated this to one of my friends with a seven-paragraph “conversation”–actually one person giving a report to four others and the reactions and debate that followed–in which I switched off the sound and concentrated entirely on visual cues like placement and body language. Despite the fact that he’d told me he doesn’t usually “get” that sort of thing, he understood what was going on almost perfectly.

It’s pretty nifty to get these things to work.

K

(Wow..the power of cartoons is awesome, isn’t it?)

Except for Caillou, though.

He sucks big-time!

Pictures….thousand words…and all that jazz…is actually true!

Yay for cartoons.
K