Ed's Newsletter - August 2005

A group of artists and computer scientists at the Animation Institute, a division of Filmakademie Baden-Wurtemberg in Ludwigsberg Germany, are mid-way through a three-year project in which they are building an on-line database of human facial expression. Constructed under the leadership of Volker Helzle, the database truly is a remarkable achievement and will be a valuable resource to animators everywhere. It is divided into Expressions and Action-Units, which are the building blocks of the expressions, and there are both photo and video references. If you are already familiar with the pioneering work of Paul Ekman (“The Expression of Emotion in the Human Face”), you will be impressed with this site, which builds on Professor Ekman’s research. Registration is free. Go to: http://research.animationsinstitut.de

RE SCREEN ACTORS GUILD AND VIDEO GAMES

Speaking as a card-carrying member (35-years) of SAG and AFTRA, I generally support the concept of residuals. In my own case, residuals allowed me to earn a middle-level income in Hollywood for many years, and I now draw a monthly pension from SAG for the rest of my life. I am grateful to the unions.

Having said that, I think the concept of residuals is not a good fit for video games, and I submit that it is time for both sides to think outside the box about the issue. The recent acrimonious negotiations between the performing unions and the game industry are a harbinger of future trouble.

The game industry dynamic is something like the live-action movie-making biz was back in the 1920’s. It was a Wild West, every-man-for-himself kind of deal. No unions. Producers were taking all of the financial risk and wanted 100 percent of the financial rewards. Actors were disposable if they made too many demands or complained too much about long hours or bad working conditions.

The concept of residuals came about during the 1950’s, with commercials re-use. Then it was applied to movies and television shows. The leaders of Screen Actors Guild, bless their hearts, are pretty stubborn when it comes to compensation formula. Residuals on a pay-per-play basis is really a 1950’s kind of idea and will have to give way to some other formula at some point. When performances can be turned into zeros and ones, it becomes increasingly difficult to track re-use anyway.

Still, the game industry is going to have to pay more than it currently does for the services of trained, professional actors. I know first hand that it makes a difference to the quality of the finished games. I have heard enough sound tracks recorded by friends and neighbors of the animator staff to know the difference between that and a professional recording

Just thinking out loud, it seems to me that SAG should be looking to the book publishing industry for a more appropriate paradigm. I’ve written a few books myself, and the formula for author royalties makes some sense. You (the author) get paid an amount based on tiered book sales. Less than, say, 10,000 copies gets a lower royalty rate than, say, less than 25,000 copies. The author shares in the financial risk that the publisher takes. Also, SAG has a residual arrangement for commercials called “wild spot”. Instead of pay-per-play, it compensates the performer for unlimited use in specific geographic regions, on a thirteen-week basis. I can see a combination of the wild spot principle and book royalty tiers applied to video games.

I realize the game industry is worried about precedent, and I don’t blame them. If actors get residuals, first thing you know, the animators will want them, too. This is one pony the game execs want to keep in the barn. But they will not be able to keep it there indefinitely. Too much money is at stake. When SAG went out on strike in the 1950’s it was to establish the principle of residuals. The actual dollar amount in the resultant agreement was meager. The precedent was the thing.

ED HOOKS'S UPCOMING SCHEDULE

August 1 SIGGRAPH, LA
Sept 17-18 Loyola Marymount University, LA
Sept 30 Vancouver Film & Trade Forum
Oct. 13-16 Projector Fest, Dundee Scotland
Oct 22 College of Creative Studies, Detroit

CRAFT NOTES

SAFE GAMES ILLINOIS ACT

Illinois has become the first U.S. state to prohibit the sale of violent or sexually explicit games to minors. Retailers in Illinois are subject to a fine of $1,000 if they sell an “Adults Only” rated game to anybody under eighteen.

Libertarian rant: This won’t work. Prohibition never works. It didn’t work to ban liquor; it doesn’t keep teenagers from smoking; it doesn’t keep porno off of computers; it doesn’t prevent prostitution; and it doesn’t decrease drug addiction. One would think that people would learn this after a while.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich said, as he recently signed the legislation, that he got the idea after hearing about a game called “JFK Reloaded”(put out by Traffic, a Scottish company), in which the player assumes the part of Lee Harvey Oswald and assassinates the President. It is extremely realistic. When you look through the sight of the rifle, you clearly see John F. Kennedy and Jackie. I certainly agree that this is about as awful and offensive a concept for a game as one could think of, but I predict that because of this legislation, sales will now go up, not down. And maybe Traffic will raise the price.

The Illinois law is probably a prelude to federal legislation. The news has been full of reports about hidden sex scenes in “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas”, and the politicians in D.C. have picked up on it. Frankly, I’m surprised the Rockstar people would put hidden sex in the game. It is a no-brainer that this would backlash on the company and the industry. If you want to do a game with sex scenes, then go for it. Advertise it on the box and, if you like, label it Adults Only so buyers know what they are getting. But don’t sneak around and do it like it is a dirty little secret. Doing that helps create a climate that is ripe for censorship.

It is in the cards that some video games will be rated XXX, just the same as some movies are. We all know that sex and violence sell, particularly in the U.S. of A., and there are plenty of producers who are not interested in choosing the artistic road less traveled. They’re in it for the bucks. I think this is the price we pay for having an open and free retail market and a First Amendment.

But regardless of how offensive the game content, there is no justification for censorship or prohibition. The correct arena is for each of us to examine the underlying values of our children and our society. Why is there a market for this stuff in the first place? Stop buying it, and they’ll stop making it. Try to prohibit it, and they’ll raise the price. The legislative precedent being set in Illinois is very troubling.