by Michelle Klein-Häss
Unlike its Feature Animation and Fox Kids Network cousins, the Fox Television Network's prime time division deserve kudos for encouraging and supporting edgy animation. From their longtime hit The Simpsons to their new hits King Of The Hill and MadTV featuring clay animator Corky Quakenbush's side-splitting shorts, they are making encouraging moves to support independent animation in America.
Their future moves are also encouraging... after Fox Kids Network dumped The Tick, they are now funding 5 Tick primetime specials and looking at the possibility of moving this hilarious show to primetime...a place where the show belonged in the first place.
So why are they developing the Dilbert TV series as a live action series?
Is it a fear that Fox has too many animated series on its prime time schedule?
Is it a fear that a Dilbert animated series would cost too much?
Firstly, there are not too many animated series on the Fox prime time schedule. I suppose I am a little bit biased...I love animation and would like to see more of it on TV. But The Simpsons and King Of The Hill are not overkill, and nobody says that they have to run all their animated series in a single bloc. With Married With Children leaving the air, they have an ideal place to put this new series. Yes, MadTV is now airing in primetime, but the Quakenbush shorts and the Klasky Csupo "Spy Vs. Spy" bumpers are only a fractional part of the show. There's room for one more animated show on their lineup.
Would a Dilbert animated series cost far more than a Dilbert sitcom? For one thing, Dilbert really should be done in the sparse, spare style that is a hallmark of Scott Adams' work. The animation doesn't have to be the relatively smooth type you see in The Simpsons...it can be as choppy or choppier than King Of The Hill and work very well. In fact, a choppy animation style would suit the Dilbert oevre. Ask the folks at MTV Animation...it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to do Beavis and Butt-Head or Daria episodes.
And of course, the idea of a Dilbert live-action sitcom begs the question of what they would do with Dogbert, Catbert, Ratbert and the other surreal non-human characters that live alongside Adams' downtrodden Engineering Nerd. Would they cheap out, like the WB Network did with Unhappily Ever After, and just have a puppeteer do Dogbert, Catbert and Ratbert? That would truly and totally suck, in my not so humble opinion. Dogbert in particular is a character who is almost as important to the comic strip as Dilbert himself. Dogbert as a stupid hand puppet? No, that wouldn't be believable. And then there's the "Dev Null" alternative...use puppeteers, motion capture rigs and computer animation to create Dilbert's animal pals. But unfortunately this technology is not entirely ready for prime time...even a high-end Silicon Graphics Onyx workstation would be unable to produce real-time animation that would look believable next to human beings. The late, lamented show "The Site's" virtual coffeehouse waiter Dev Null was a talking head conversing with a seated Soledad O'Brien...even though in latter days he got five-fingered hands, a little more facial detail and changeable flannel shirts, he remained very choppy and still didn't have a lower body. And anyone remember how poorly Moxy from the Cartoon Network moved? Anyway, the motion-capture/computer animation alternative is hardly a cost-effective one....SGI workstations of the caliber needed to do this kind of work don't come cheap.
Neither alternative would work, and it would be a shame if this very important part of Dilbert was excised to make a live-action sitcom work. Imagine a Dilbert series without Dogbert's sardonic commentary and hairbrained management ideas, Catbert's endless toying with his human prey as the sadistic HR director, and Ratbert's earnest sidekick-ery...that would be a tragedy. And don't even get me started about animal suits...YECCH!
So please, Fox Primetime, Scott Adams and United Features Syndicate...please give at least a THOUGHT to the idea of an animated Dilbert series. It's less expensive than you think. It's the best way to do the hottest comic strip of the 1990s justice. Computer ink and paint, overseas animation houses and the minimalist style of the strip will make this work for about the same cost as a 3-camera sitcom film shoot. And not only animation fans will support this...every office worker who has tacked a favorite Dilbert strip to their cubicle walls, surfed to The Dilbert Zone on company time or given The Dilbert Principle to their bosses as a "get a clue" gift will respond to a Dilbert animated series.
Fox...what is your hottest series in primetime next to The X Files? It's King Of The Hill, right? King Of The Hill had familiarity with Mike Judge working for it, but its characters were totally unknown before they premiered on TV. But everyone knows Dilbert, the satanic Boss, Dogbert, Ratbert, Catbert and all of Dilbert's colleagues. There is instant recognition of the various characters. You wouldn't have to sell people on new characters...they are familiar.
An animated Dilbert is the only treatment of Dilbert that makes sense. Anything less would be a tragic waste and the missing of a terrific opportunity for a big primetime hit.
Do it. Don't blow it, guys.
If you have a rebuttal to this editorial, send it to mhass703@2cowherd.net. We'll be happy to post it here.
(Webkeeper's note: in late 1997 Fox dropped its option on Dilbert, and Scott Adams and United Media were instantly courted by United Paramount Network. A UPN Dilbert ANIMATED series is in the works for the 1998-99 season...thank Goddess!)
More "Confessions" essays|Back To Menu
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Page last updated 1/15/1998
This web site was built by Catseye Creative Services, Ink.