Will Singapore watch an animated sitcom?
-
It will be a challenge to make a show that will cross-over from net-happy, love-to-see-something-wicked viewers to will-only-watch-traditional Chinese drama fans.Originally posted by ArdusKane:That's because you have the internet. The average drama-watching Singaporean couldn't appreciate this type of humour.
I do believe most Singaporean viewers will accept a show that looks like South Park if the content is local.
If the characters are recognisable and the humor can be pushed a little further than live-action ever could, the novelty value alone will ensure ratings and if the quality is there, people will come back. -
I love South Park, The Simpsons, The Family Guy, and Futurama...Only the Simpsons are shown on TV, so for the rest, I bought DVDs from the States.Originally posted by iskander:Hi everyone,
I'm Iskander and I make cartoons and animation. In 2000 I saw a show called South Park and thought, "I want to do animation like that!"
So, I made some very rough samples, without sound effects and/or without music.
I went around town to pitch the idea of an animated sitcom, and the industry feedback was:
"Singaporeans think animation is for kids. They'll not watch an animated sitcom for adults, especially one that looks like South Park."
I started this thread for a practical purpose. I can't convince the network to make this show just by telling them Singaporeans want to see it. Singaporeans will have to tell them directly. -
I think Iskandar has some very wrong conception of southpark.
Having watched every single episode (yes, do try and quiz me on it), I can tell you that southpark is really more than just redneck-eque sex/gore/racism humour. Southpark humour derives alot it's dialogues plot (very important)/ characters and relevance (this can be disputed for early season).
The most impressive thing about southpark are it's characters. Every character has a unique, distinct and sometimes, queer, personality. Their personalities are not just for differentiating characters, but also closely tied to the plot of the story. One of the most memorable reflections of Cartman's vengeful personality has to be "Scott Tenorman must die". You can watch it here http://www.southparkzone.com/episode-vid-501.htm. Point is, characters are important elements and to not develop it fully will only make your film dry and impersonal. Yet from the clips you have shown, the characters are simply tools to relate storylines in your film, they have no importance and will be just as funny if they were replaced with any other character. Yet, Southpark would no longer be Southpark if any of it's character changes (which is why Kenny is always "reborned").
The next thing is dialogues, Southpark is certainly have very fantastic dialogues . Dialogues are clear, interesting, reflective of personality and most of all, funny. They keep the film interesting even in very dry, and perhaps necessarily dry, times. Dialogues also frequently carry double-meanings and are heavily connotated by influence from various cultures. This makes it an extra perk for those who catch it. To substantiated my point for excellent dialogues, http://www.southparkzone.com/episode-vid-902.htm.
Lastly, plots are often beautifully... (I would write more, but i have to eat dinner)
While you may argue that the style of your directing, tv switching-manner of plot progression, doesn't allow much for any of the above, it may be pertinent that you ask yourself whether it is worth giving up all the above elements for your unique style of directing. I think it's a hit or not situation.
I can tell that you are trying to emulate the style of southpark while adding your own flavour. I think it is a great idea, but I feel that this is not easy, and you'll really need to be able to do better than Southpark if you want it to be successful. After all, emulations often lead to comparisons. -
Yeah I totally agree. Another thing though, South Park may seem like a light-hearted not-to-be-taken-seriously comedy but it actually deals with very serious issues such as homosexuality, racism, etc. Usually at the end of an episode Stan would go into his "I learned something today..." speech. If you look past all the jokes you'll find a very meaningful satire of important global issues. That, in my opinion, is what makes South Park one of the greatest comedies.Originally posted by Where Is God:I think Iskandar has some very wrong conception of southpark.
Having watched every single episode (yes, do try and quiz me on it), I can tell you that southpark is really more than just redneck-eque sex/gore/racism humour. Southpark humour derives alot it's dialogues plot (very important)/ characters and relevance (this can be disputed for early season).
The most impressive thing about southpark are it's characters. Every character has a unique, distinct and sometimes, queer, personality. Their personalities are not just for differentiating characters, but also closely tied to the plot of the story. One of the most memorable reflections of Cartman's vengeful personality has to be "Scott Tenorman must die". You can watch it here http://www.southparkzone.com/episode-vid-501.htm. Point is, characters are important elements and to not develop it fully will only make your film dry and impersonal. Yet from the clips you have shown, the characters are simply tools to relate storylines in your film, they have no importance and will be just as funny if they were replaced with any other character. Yet, Southpark would no longer be Southpark if any of it's character changes (which is why Kenny is always "reborned").
The next thing is dialogues, Southpark is certainly have very fantastic dialogues . Dialogues are clear, interesting, reflective of personality and most of all, funny. They keep the film interesting even in very dry, and perhaps necessarily dry, times. Dialogues also frequently carry double-meanings and are heavily connotated by influence from various cultures. This makes it an extra perk for those who catch it. To substantiated my point for excellent dialogues, http://www.southparkzone.com/episode-vid-902.htm.
Lastly, plots are often beautifully... (I would write more, but i have to eat dinner)
While you may argue that the style of your directing, tv switching-manner of plot progression, doesn't allow much for any of the above, it may be pertinent that you ask yourself whether it is worth giving up all the above elements for your unique style of directing. I think it's a hit or not situation.
I can tell that you are trying to emulate the style of southpark while adding your own flavour. I think it is a great idea, but I feel that this is not easy, and you'll really need to be able to do better than Southpark if you want it to be successful. After all, emulations often lead to comparisons. -
double post
-
if you did something like this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6CTD1B-Y-Cg
then i would watch. of cos it has to be a local context.. like use pizza hut or canadian 2 for 1 or something n rescript based on wad we know abt them like their guarantees etc. -
Totally agree! South Park has so much more behind its simple animations.Originally posted by Where Is God:I think Iskandar has some very wrong conception of southpark.
Having watched every single episode (yes, do try and quiz me on it), I can tell you that southpark is really more than just redneck-eque sex/gore/racism humour. Southpark humour derives alot it's dialogues plot (very important)/ characters and relevance (this can be disputed for early season).
The most impressive thing about southpark are it's characters. Every character has a unique, distinct and sometimes, queer, personality. Their personalities are not just for differentiating characters, but also closely tied to the plot of the story. One of the most memorable reflections of Cartman's vengeful personality has to be "Scott Tenorman must die". You can watch it here http://www.southparkzone.com/episode-vid-501.htm. Point is, characters are important elements and to not develop it fully will only make your film dry and impersonal. Yet from the clips you have shown, the characters are simply tools to relate storylines in your film, they have no importance and will be just as funny if they were replaced with any other character. Yet, Southpark would no longer be Southpark if any of it's character changes (which is why Kenny is always "reborned").
The next thing is dialogues, Southpark is certainly have very fantastic dialogues . Dialogues are clear, interesting, reflective of personality and most of all, funny. They keep the film interesting even in very dry, and perhaps necessarily dry, times. Dialogues also frequently carry double-meanings and are heavily connotated by influence from various cultures. This makes it an extra perk for those who catch it. To substantiated my point for excellent dialogues, http://www.southparkzone.com/episode-vid-902.htm.
Lastly, plots are often beautifully... (I would write more, but i have to eat dinner)
While you may argue that the style of your directing, tv switching-manner of plot progression, doesn't allow much for any of the above, it may be pertinent that you ask yourself whether it is worth giving up all the above elements for your unique style of directing. I think it's a hit or not situation.
I can tell that you are trying to emulate the style of southpark while adding your own flavour. I think it is a great idea, but I feel that this is not easy, and you'll really need to be able to do better than Southpark if you want it to be successful. After all, emulations often lead to comparisons.
Btw, episode 1008 Make Love, Not Warcraft just got another Emmy. -
Yes, both Simpsons and South Park have certain elements which keeps viewership.
iskander, which age group are you targetting at? -
Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.Originally posted by Where Is God:I can tell that you are trying to emulate the style of southpark while adding your own flavour. I think it is a great idea, but I feel that this is not easy, and you'll really need to be able to do better than Southpark if you want it to be successful. After all, emulations often lead to comparisons.
As mentioned, I am going as fast as I can to load a scene or two from Circus.
The show has 5 main characters, the episode has a solid ten minute story. I won't post the whole episode because there's interest from two major distributors, but I will post two scenes.
Good feedback, it is much appreciated! -
13-40Originally posted by M©+square:Yes, both Simpsons and South Park have certain elements which keeps viewership.
iskander, which age group are you targetting at? -
South Park is actually quite effective at discussing contemporary social and global issues in a manner that doesn't make you want to hold your head and say , "Enough!"
-
not bad an effort. i hope to see a singapore version of south park one day. provided the MDA don't get to you first.
but 2 things the creators of south park have that i think singaporeans don't.
south park is funny because their creators are funny. they don't really need to brain storm for ideas etc, they're just as funny and full of crude jokes in real life.
and also, they don't face fierce censorship. -
your animation can involve politics or recent news,but i honestly hope you wont be criticised nor get sued by political figures.I wish you all the best,i just feel that it's time someone stood up for REAL free speech.
-
I pitched an idea for a sitcom for adults (and young adults, age 13-40) to MDA quite a while back. The feedback was, "Can it be more like The Iron Giant?" (the animated movie about a boy and his enormous alien robot)Originally posted by dumbdumb!:not bad an effort. i hope to see a singapore version of south park one day. provided the MDA don't get to you first.
I found out later that the man who'd said that was an army colonel. He'd been appointed head of MDA and apparently like The Iron Giant a lot. Maybe because it looked like a huge walking tank, which he must've liked, being a colonel and all. I thought the staff were joking when they refered to him as "the colonel", and that it meant he was a tough boss.
Needless to say that meeting was not a success. -
I uploaded scenes from the locally produced pilot episode of Circus.
Any and all feedback is very welcome. -
Thats seriously one of the best episode i have seen.Originally posted by chenc:Totally agree! South Park has so much more behind its simple animations.
Btw, episode 1008 Make Love, Not Warcraft just got another Emmy.
"How do we kill those that have no life?"
And the bloody Sword of a thousand truth
Some of my other favourites are the Ninja one.
Where kenny throw the shurinken into butter's eye.
And they pasted fur onto him to make him look like a dog.
I think its 801 or 901.
And finally the one that stan's dad become a dolphin and stan becomes a bloody nigga. -
All your comments apply to the short I made and the clips from the sketch show. What did you think of the scenes from Circus?Originally posted by Where Is God:I think Iskandar has some very wrong conception of southpark.
Having watched every single episode (yes, do try and quiz me on it), I can tell you that southpark is really more than just redneck-eque sex/gore/racism humour. Southpark humour derives alot it's dialogues plot (very important)/ characters and relevance (this can be disputed for early season).
The most impressive thing about southpark are it's characters. Every character has a unique, distinct and sometimes, queer, personality. Their personalities are not just for differentiating characters, but also closely tied to the plot of the story. One of the most memorable reflections of Cartman's vengeful personality has to be "Scott Tenorman must die". You can watch it here http://www.southparkzone.com/episode-vid-501.htm. Point is, characters are important elements and to not develop it fully will only make your film dry and impersonal. Yet from the clips you have shown, the characters are simply tools to relate storylines in your film, they have no importance and will be just as funny if they were replaced with any other character. Yet, Southpark would no longer be Southpark if any of it's character changes (which is why Kenny is always "reborned").
The next thing is dialogues, Southpark is certainly have very fantastic dialogues . Dialogues are clear, interesting, reflective of personality and most of all, funny. They keep the film interesting even in very dry, and perhaps necessarily dry, times. Dialogues also frequently carry double-meanings and are heavily connotated by influence from various cultures. This makes it an extra perk for those who catch it. To substantiated my point for excellent dialogues, http://www.southparkzone.com/episode-vid-902.htm.
Lastly, plots are often beautifully... (I would write more, but i have to eat dinner)
While you may argue that the style of your directing, tv switching-manner of plot progression, doesn't allow much for any of the above, it may be pertinent that you ask yourself whether it is worth giving up all the above elements for your unique style of directing. I think it's a hit or not situation.
I can tell that you are trying to emulate the style of southpark while adding your own flavour. I think it is a great idea, but I feel that this is not easy, and you'll really need to be able to do better than Southpark if you want it to be successful. After all, emulations often lead to comparisons. -
801 - Good time with weaponsOriginally posted by Xephone_xenon:Thats seriously one of the best episode i have seen.
"How do we kill those that have no life?"
And the bloody Sword of a thousand truth
Some of my other favourites are the Ninja one.
Where kenny throw the shurinken into butter's eye.
And they pasted fur onto him to make him look like a dog.
I think its 801 or 901.
And finally the one that stan's dad become a dolphin and stan becomes a bloody nigga.
901 - Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina (Its Kyle and his dad who went for surgeries)
Dude if you like these episodes, you should watch the entire series!
-
Originally posted by iskander:
1) none of it had anything to do with singapore. looks like an imitation of south park or simpsons or some western adult cartoon or just a bad copy of happy tree friends.
I uploaded [b]scenes from the locally produced pilot episode of Circus.
Any and all feedback is very welcome.[/b]
2) The quality of the drawings were okay. lip sync was so-so.
3) No 3 act structure in story. No engaging storyline. No change in beats. Predictable - the boy will obviously get his head bitten by the lion, it's just how bloody and gory and stupid it will be, the reason for which the lion tamer left was stupid too.
4) I can't believe i spent time lookin through those clips. There was no emotional change. The characters did not go through any change from start to end of each clip. It looked like a school animation project at best.
5) The child getting his head bitten off by a lion is a just revolting when there is no meaning to it. I don't even know when that scene was there.
6) Haiz. I don't think it will work. I mean take a look at the simpsons - at least there's logic there. If homer simpson got his head bitten off by a lion, at least it might have been because he dropped a doughnut into the lion's mouth and wanted it back. Or perhaps he wanted to look down the lion's throat. He would probably also have stuck his hand in first, then be stupid and put his head in. At least there's a reason for him to put his head in - you character has no reason whatsoever.
7) Your characters are just like robots - EVERY ONE OF THEM. They have no depth whatsoever. There appears to be not much difference between each of the characters except for their appearance. All of them have no brains and cannot think at all.
There is no CONFLICT.
9) If you haven't taken a scriptwriting class before or some form of film studies, try taking one? -
Thanks for your nine-point review. I felt it only just to take the time to write a nine-point reply.
1 Circus was made for and targetted at a global market. It was made in Singapore, not about Singapore. The reason I ask people to view the clips is to see if they like the style and type of humor, and if they would like to see a local animated sitcom that will look and sound like it, but of course with completely different situations and characters.
2 Thanks. I don't see any problem with the lip-synch.
3 Three-act structures usually don't show in scenes, only in entire episode.
4 I appreciate the time you took to look through the clips, and I'm sorry you didn't enjoy them.
5 The boy's head getting bitten off is about how people who try too hard to have fun often don't worry too much about safety, especialy other people's safety.
6 The boy's character is not Homer and Circus is not The Simpsons. In your first point you say Circus is an imitation of The Simpsons, now you say it's not enough like The Simpsons. I can't do much with reviews like 'Why isn't it more like The Simpsons?"
Again, this scene is about a little boy who is pressured into a very dangerous situation and it doesn't end well. It's not about donuts, and the boy doesn't want to do it in the first place but is pressured into it by the adults.
7 Maybe you prefer less subtle expression of emotion, more exaggerated inflection and bigger emoting. I don't, and purposely kept everything more low-key. That is not everyone's taste. Some people like over-the-top acting. I think they feel more comfortable with it, so there's no mistaking they're watching a comedy. They can tell from the rising pitch and the laugh track that there's a joke. I prefer subtlety and would like to see a local animated sitcom without a laugh-track or high-pitched exchanges.
8 This remark is addressed in 7. Just because no one is screaming, it doesn't mean there's no conflict.
9 No comment.
Not everyone will like the humor, the animation or the characters. Circus isn't your cup of tea. You are entitled to your opinion.
I would like to say again how much I appreciate the time you took to watch and comment. Thanks! -
double post! Crap.
-
Some tips, your characters must have motivation>action>conflict/conclusionOriginally posted by iskander:Thanks for your feedback. -
Thanks for the tip.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Some tips, your characters must have motivation>action>conflict/conclusion -
In short, I cannot grasp what your premise is, I can't see any beat changes, there is no motivation in the actions of the characters, there is no setup & payoff, there is no conflict (no, not the screaming at each other and fighting kind), etc.Originally posted by iskander:Thanks for your nine-point review. I felt it only just to take the time to write a nine-point reply.
1 Circus was made for and targetted at a global market. It was made in Singapore, not about Singapore. The reason I ask people to view the clips is to see if they like the style and type of humor, and if they would like to see a local animated sitcom that will look and sound like it, but of course with completely different situations and characters.
Since it was for the global market and nt for sgporeans, i rest my case on this point
2 Thanks. I don't see any problem with the lip-synch.
There isn't any problem actually, it's just that the lip sync is mainly stop-motion instead of continuous?
3 Three-act structures usually don't show in scenes, only in entire episode.
Not entirely true. Every scene should also have it's own beginning middle and end and of course every scene must be motivated.
4 I appreciate the time you took to look through the clips, and I'm sorry you didn't enjoy them.
5 The boy's head getting bitten off is about how people who try too hard to have fun often don't worry too much about safety, especialy other people's safety.
I don't see them trying too hard to have fun and frankly, they just seem to be doing like "Let's go to A." "Okay" Walk to A. "Now what?" "Let's get eaten by a lion" "Okay" Head gets bitten. and it's rather pointless?
6 The boy's character is not Homer and Circus is not The Simpsons. In your first point you say Circus is an imitation of The Simpsons, now you say it's not enough like The Simpsons. I can't do much with reviews like 'Why isn't it more like The Simpsons?"
Again, this scene is about a little boy who is pressured into a very dangerous situation and it doesn't end well. It's not about donuts, and the boy doesn't want to do it in the first place but is pressured into it by the adults.
I'm not asking for it to be like the simpsons. I'm just using the simpsons as an example of motivated action. Here, I can't see the boy's motivation for putting his head in the lion - other than by the instruction of the teacher who which i see no motivation either. It's like "I have a lion here with a big open mouth" "oooo! boy go put your head in" "okay." Head gets bitten off.
None of the characters are motivated by anything it seems. I'm only using simpsons because i suppose thats a show we both have watched. I can easily use another show to illustrate my point.
Also, you say that the boy is pressured. I'm telling you that for a first-time viewer, I don't see that.
7 Maybe you prefer less subtle expression of emotion, more exaggerated inflection and bigger emoting. I don't, and purposely kept everything more low-key. That is not everyone's taste. Some people like over-the-top acting. I think they feel more comfortable with it, so there's no mistaking they're watching a comedy. They can tell from the rising pitch and the laugh track that there's a joke. I prefer subtlety and would like to see a local animated sitcom without a laugh-track or high-pitched exchanges.
I don't particularly fancy a laugh track or canned laughter either. In fact, I never talked about laugh tracks. Simpsons (perhaps you can tell me another show you watch and I could use that instead of simpsons for examples) doesn't have laugh tracks either for the most part. Over-the-top would be theatrical. I don't fancy that either. I was just referring to (once again) motivated action of characters.
8 This remark is addressed in 7. Just because no one is screaming, it doesn't mean there's no conflict.
You don't quite get me. I'm not referring to conflict per se. I'm referring to the conflict that is present in every story. This is taught as part of the basics of script/screenwriting. Not the conflict as in fighting/screaming at each other. Research a bit on what is meant by conflict in stories for screen. -
Hi, here are a few references for you:
The Basics of Screenwriting:
http://www.fathom.com/course/21701762/sessions.html
There are 5 free sections that detail
The Premise, Character Development, Screenplay Structure and Visual Storytelling, Setting the Scene, Formatting Your Masterpiece
Under Character dev, i quoteEvery good script starts with a protagonist, or pivotal character. According to Egri, the protagonist "is the one who creates conflict and makes the play move forwardÂ…A pivotal character must not merely desire something. He must want it so badly that he will destroy or be destroyed in the effort to attain his goal.
Although just a guideline, you can see that your lion biting head off scene has no protagonist and there is no central character(s).
and before you reply this, pls take the short time to read through the free sessions available on that website (although getting a proper scriptwriting book from the library or other sources would be better than the free documents online) and understand what i'm trying to say so that we do not waste time debating over "what i mean" and "what you mean".
at least be on the same level, then we can move on from there =)