Slashdot Mirror
Matt Groening on Internet and Cartoons
prostoalex writes "Online Journalism Review posted an interview with Matt Groening, the mastermind behind The Simpsons and Futurama. Matt lists his favorite comic sites, talks about how Internet changed the cartoons, shares his view on Fox Network's idea to put Simpsons on cell phones, as well as his own plans for Web cartoons."
My favorite web comics would probably have to be jerkcity, , and Leisure Town.
Anyone else really enjoy these? Most people either just think these are too offensive or just too far out there, but I think they're great.
Doh! Groening's Guide to Digital Cartooning
... I've reserved mattgroening.com. (Laughs) It's said "This Site Is Under Construction" for three years now. I'll get around to it. I know how disappointed I am when I go to a Web site and nothing has changed, and until I'm ready to wade in on a regular basis, I'm holding back.
Robert Abele
posted: 2003-01-09
Matt Groening's success as a cartoonist/animator may be the best counter we have to the old P.T. Barnum adage that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the public. From his early notoriety as the man behind the comic strip "Life in Hell" -- which he still produces weekly -- to his ongoing bastion of American satire "The Simpsons" and its skewed, sci-fi cousin "Futurama," Groening has shown that the comedy of dysfunction and disrespect can pull in a wide, devoted audience. But much has changed technologically in the 20-plus years since "Life In Hell" made its first appearance in an alternative weekly -- even in the 13 years since "The Simpsons" first revitalized and revolutionized animated television. Here, Groening offers his views on Web cartooning, digital vs. hand-drawn animation, and how technology has changed the way we view comedy.
Robert Abele: How has the Internet changed editorial cartooning?
Matt Groening: When I started "Life in Hell," I photocopied and stapled my own little issues of the comic book together and just handed it to people. I guess it was a zine, but this was before I knew of any other zines. The thing about the Internet is you have a forum for your stuff and you don't have to pay for Xeroxing and printing. You just give people your Web address and do a Web log or cartoon blog. You can read all sorts of cartoons on the Web. Sometimes they print them up as comic books. I think, why should I buy this? I can read it online. (Laughs) I think it's great. You can present yourself and live or die by your talents.
RA: Do you have favorite comics sites you go to?
MG: I love Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonists Index on Slate.com. He's got cartoons lined up by theme, like baby dangling. You see the same idea done by different cartoonists. Then of course Lynda Barry, I check out marlysmagazine.com. I check out The Comics Journal Web site. There's a vituperative message board that amuses me. Also what the Internet does for me is it serves as a place to go to when something pops up in my mind. I go, "What about that comic book I read when I was ten years old and haven't seen since?" I have a fond memory of the Katzenjammer Kids, for instance, and yes, there is a Web site devoted to the Katzenjammer Kids.
RA: Do you feel the Web has allowed certain non-establishment cartooning to flourish?
MG: Yeah, there's all sorts of stuff out there. What I think is great, and it hasn't quite happened yet, is that entire archives of daily comic strips that have lasted for more than 50 years could be accessed on the Net. I imagine it will happen eventually, cause I fantasize about reading every installment of the great historic comic strips. Only the tip of the iceberg has been republished in book form. I think the major syndicates should do an archive. I'd pay.
RA: What steps have you taken with your own stuff in that regard?
MG: Um
RA: Regarding animation, how do you feel about the hand-drawn versus computer-drawn?
MG: I think the timing is off, generally, in digital animation. Everything is too busy. Too much going on at the same time. I like the meticulous timing of classic Warner Bros. cartoons. Now it's all about constant dazzle and movement and shifting and swaying. I find that wearisome.
RA: How has computer animation changed your TV shows?
MG: "The Simpsons" is still hand-drawn, it's just inked and painted digitally rather than paint slathered on cells. But actual pencil drawings are scanned into the computer. With traditional animation there is an amazing history where you have the mark of brilliant artists, and what we try to do, at least on "Futurama" and now on "The Simpsons," is have it look as much like traditional animation as we can.
RA: What do you feel is a big story in entertainment not being addressed right now?
MG: As somebody who's a glutton for entertainment, I'm amazed that I can listen to Indian pop music on the Internet from New Delhi radio stations. Yet there are whole regions of the world that I can't easily access [when it comes to] DVDs and television shows. I bought myself an all-region DVD player so I can watch British TV shows that aren't broadcast over here. But you can't play them here [without it]. I don't know if that's a phenomenon, but I think it's overlooked.
RA: Fox is looking to put "The Simpsons" on everyone's cell phones. How do you feel about that?
MG: I think the quality is pretty shoddy. (Laughs) I hope people don't watch the show on their cell phones.
RA: How do you think technological advances have changed the way we view entertainment?
MG: I've noticed that people's ability to process information is at a much higher velocity than it used to be. In looking at comedy, contemporary comedy is so much faster paced than it was even ten years ago. Watching classic sitcoms on television, I'm amazed at how leisurely paced they are. And certainly going back to older movies, like Laurel & Hardy, they're glacial. And although I dig them, it drives the young people I've forced them on -- for instance, my children -- right up the wall. (Laughs) I think that's a diminishing return, however, in the way commercial television is heading, the relentless insistence on holding your attention with crawls across the bottom and a little bug in the corner, and faster cuts. It just makes your eyes glaze over. What ultimately catches people's eye and holds their attention is something that surprises them, and there's nothing surprising about quick cuts anymore.
One of the neat things about the Web right now is you can get into it as an entertainment medium. You can go online and play games and interact with kids. I think it's going to be a generational thing. It will take over kid culture, and people over a certain age will be completely baffled by it. My kids are very excited about online gaming, and I'm fascinated with it as a new form of storytelling. But I'm more old-fashioned and I'm more interested in the printed word, so I like going online and reading people's personal opinions about the things they come across. However, I don't want anyone to e-mail them to me. (Laughs) Let me find them on my own.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Here
Contains lots of simpsons trivia
http://dabel.no-ip.com:8080/fusk/listor/
How about because the story is about online cartoons, whereas you talked some tedious crap about multi-region players and MPAA etc? Just because he says he has a multi-region player does not mean that a tired old rant about DMCA/MPAA/RIAA etc is on topic.
an article on science has in it: "I was just driving in my car, when I finally worked out the last part of this equation on the color of the universe vs sex with dolphins!"
you say:
"...I was driving in my car" GAS PRICES ARE TOO HIGH WE SHOULDNT GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ!!!!
that is fucking off topic. Even ignoring that the DMCA is too long to be tatooed to a forhead
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
"an" hilarious, please.
What you did was focus on this single throwaway comment, and extrapolate it to a rant about the ??AA et al. Normally this may be acceptable, except that virtually every slashdot article ends up with this sort of rant in; what's the point of different articles if the same arguments come up in all of them?
So, any comment that isn't about the major point of the article (in this case online cartoons) is offtopic. Save this reference up for an article about the MPAA, and say "Look, even MG uses multi-region!" but it ain't on-topic here.
"When Noel Tolentino finished the first issue of his zine Bunnyhop, he sent a copy to Simpsons creator Matt Groening, along with a gushing fan letter. For the magazine's cover, Tolentino had used Binky from Groening's Life in Hell comic, and he assumed his hero would appreciate the homage. Shortly thereafter, Tolentino and co-publisher Seth Robson received a cease-and-desist letter from Groening's lawyers. Lacking the resources to fight, the Bunnyhop publishers were forced to destroyed the covers on all remaining copies. Although Groening personally apologized to Tolentino for the suit, he later defended his actions in a Mother Jones interview (May 1999), saying, "If I don't vigorously pursue my copyright, then other people can steal it." Groening did not comment on The Simpsons' habit of parodying everything from A Clockwork Orange to The Cosby Show. "
Why Matt, Why?
www.illegal-art.org