Grad Thesis semi-Answers

I got the following e-mail from Gore the other day. I don't usually encourage going around the system this way. But the guy seemed to be under deadline pressure, so I cut him some slack and moved him to the head of the line. I'd ask that others not abuse the process. Thanks.

Subject:
[Fwd: Graduate Student needs Greg's Help]
Date:
Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:21:44 -0500

Just forwarding something that was sent to me.

-[Gorebash]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Graduate Student needs Greg's Help
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 14:21:57 -0500

Dear Mr. Weisman,

My name is John Diego Hernandez. I am a full time graduate student in public relations at Rowan Univeristy in Glassboro, New Jersey. My research topic for my thesis is "toys and cartoons" and how the two fields relate to one another when it comes to development of both toy lines and animated serials. As part of my thesis research I am required to survey individuals who pertain to my investigative studies. As creator of an animated television serial, your knowledgeable expertise would be an invaluable
wealth of information that would remain in my thesis throughout perpetuity.

The survey consists of 12 short questions posted below. It will only take 20 minutes of your time - no longer. If you can find some time from your busy schedule, I would be most indebted. You do not have to answer all the questions if you choose not to. If you wish to remain anonymous, I will not put your name or personal data in my thesis.

Thank you for your time,

John Diego Hernandez

1. Do toys affect what cartoons you make?

Yes. The profit margins on children's programming are so slim these days (largely because of misguided government regulation coupled -- ironically -- with the deregulation that has allowed entertainment companies to vertically integrate) that potential money from consumer products (including but not limited to toys) has become a greater factor than when I started in the business in 1989. Toy companies can help fund programming -- for better and for worse -- that might not otherwise get made. And even original properties benefit if there are multiple forces (e.g. a toy line) that maintain incentives to keep a show alive.

2. Do you choose what toys are made?

Never.

3. How significant is a hit animated show to sales of toys?

It can be very significant, in that an animated series can virtually act as a 30 minute daily commercial for the toy -- a commercial that establishes play patterns and allows the audience to invest in both characters and the property as a whole.

4. How many cartoons a year are related to toy lines?

I have no idea.

5. Must the toy manufacturer pay royalties to cartoon producers?

Depends on the origin of the property.

6. Does a successful cartoon guarantee a hit toy line?

No. Some shows are not considered 'toyetic'.

7. Does a successful toy line guarantee a hit cartoon?

Never. But it doesn't hurt.

8. When your company is in search of a new animated serial, where do they look first - current toy lines or creative innovators?

There's no one place. (And that either/or you just gave me is ridiculously simplistic. Implicitly biased even. There are plenty of creative innovators working at toy companies, for example. And there are more than just two places where you might look for inspiration or series springboards.)

9. Approximately how much do cartoon producers allocate to the funding of toy lines?

Doesn't work that way. Toys help fund cartoons (in simplistic terms) not the other way around.

10. Which usually comes first - the toy line or the cartoon?

Again, there's no one rule. In certain countries, like England, if a toy line exists already then you CAN'T air the property at all. But here in the U.S. it can go either way. Though often the cartoon will appear first to help promote the toy line.

11. May I attribute your responses? Yes / No

Yes.

12. If yes, please list name and/or title and company name:

Greg Weisman
Freelance Writer/Producer

While I'm thinking of it....

Behold the following exchange (then skip to the bottom):

Received from pc-17.di.uoa.gr on Monday, September 17, 2001 04:52:03 AM
Aris Katsaris writes...

'kay, you were in your Disney office and couldn't answer this the last time I asked it, so you told me to repost it... Here goes:

<g> Another timeline thingy - this time less of a question though and more of a possible correction (unless I'm missing something)...

You recently said that Tom, Katherine and Magus entered Avalon on September 28th 995. But we also know that the eggs would normally hatch on the spring equinox (about March 21st) of 998. This means that there normally remained 2 and 1/2 years for the eggs to hatch... This time they spent on Avalon.

You can probably see where I'm going... Multiply by 24, and we see that they had to spent 60 years (Earth time) on Avalon. This takes them all the way to 995+60 = 1055.

Obviously the closest "20-year circle of the earth" was 1058... Quite near by. So why did you have them hatch on 1078, 20 years later, instead?

I don't think I've made any errors with the math... :-)

Greg responds...

The eggs were laid in 988. From 988 until 995 (seven out of the normal ten years for gestation) time passed normally. That means they needed @three more years to hatch once they arrived on Avalon. One year on Avalon equals 24 in the real world, as you noted. 3 x 24 = 72. 995 + 72 puts us at 1067. Making the closest twenty year cycle at 1078, as I noted.

You're calculations assume two and a half years instead of three to hatch. And that makes sense given the dates listed. The obvious dopey answer is that I was not calculating to the month but to the year. And so I could acknowledge the mistake and redo everything. And maybe on my next pass through the timeline, I'll do just that.

But to be honest, maybe I won't. When dealing with Avalon's mysterious flow of time, I believe my calculations are close enough. If the eggs weren't ready until March of 1059 even, then I'm still correct -- so it's not quite as big an error as it appears at first glance. Four years passing in the real world represents only two months on Avalon. Perhaps all that traveling and magic, etc. set the eggs back just a bit. If it set them back two months, then I'm right, and they're just slightly late bloomers.

And yes, I'm making excuses. So I'll save this exchange and decide at a later date.

For now, I'm sticking with my current calculations.

recorded on 03-04-02

With all this in mind...

I know I've established -- both here and in my own head (particularly with regards to G2198) that eggs hatch on the Spring Equinox.

But does anyone remember whether (and where) I've established what month the eggs are laid in?

I can't recall if this has come up yet.

Anyone know? And would this solve my problems at all?