by Jake Friedman

Gary Conrad has put his stamp on some of the most memorable kids’ cartoons shows since the ’90s. Now finishing up a four-year directing stint for Nickelodeon’s über-popular “Fairly Oddparents” and beginning a new project for Frederator’s “Random” cartoon series, Conrad shares his history, his mistakes and his advice.

JF: What was your career path post-college that landed you where you are now?

GC: Well, I graduated CalArts in 1984, and I was offered a job at a little studio in Cincinnati as an animator where I worked on commercials for three years. But I missed Los Angeles, and I was lucky enough to move back to work on a presentation for a Garfield movie, which did not sell. For I while I animated on several of the Garfield prime-time specials. I also worked on some of those later Charlie Brown shows they were doing over at Melendez, which was fun. Then they sold the “Garfield and Friends” series, so I moved onto that series as a storyboard artist. After a couple years they sold a show called “Bobby’s World,” so I was moved onto that show as a storyboard artist, and then I became a director and then a producer, which lasted for six years. When that wrapped up, I went to Nickelodeon as a storyboard artist on “The Angry Beavers.” They asked me to direct, and I moved into directing again. After that, I moved onto “Dora the Explorer,” which was brand new, as its director. From there I went to a little studio in San Francisco called Wild Frame Brain where I directed a series for them called “Mr. Baby,” and then I came back to direct “Fairly Oddparents” for four years. From that I moved on to “Danny Phantom,” and from that to “Random Cartoons,” where I am now.

JF: What was it like to be a producer and then being a storyboard artist again?

GC: It was actually my choice. Although I enjoyed producing, it wore me out. What I learned from producing was both creative and administrative, and I realized that what I really loved about this business was the creative side. I actually was offered another producing job after “Bobby,” and I turned it down - and the money - to go back to storyboarding. I was so happy to just be focusing on that, as opposed to having so much to deal with. But I think I would produce again. I wouldn’t rule it out.

JF: Do you have any tips for people breaking into storyboarding?

GC: I was lucky. I actually started doing storyboard revisions for “Garfield,” and then moved into being a storyboard artist. Over the years I’ve seen lots of people become storyboard artists from starting out as doing revisions, but there are those people who just have the knack. I do think having an animation background itself is good, especially in TV. In a way, storyboarding is animating the characters. You’re posing them and doing the acting and staging the cutting. And so to have that filmmaking sense will serve you well.

JF: How is directing different from producing?

GC: In my case, when I was a producer on “Bobby,” I was involved from the very beginning with the scripts until the very end at post-production. In directing, you’re more in the middle. It’s preparing the show for the animator, and you’re not involved in scheduling or budgeting or those nuts and bolts of running the show.

JF: Why did you choose children’s television?

GC: I can’t say I chose it - it probably chose me. I was fortunate enough to get to work on the Garfield project, and from that it has been one thing after another. But I certainly do enjoy kids’ TV.

JF: What was it like working with Bill Melendez?

GC: I thought he was a complete sweetheart. In fact, I loved the Charlie Brown specials and still do, so I deliberately wanted to work on them. It was just the greatest experience for me. That was ‘87, ‘88.

JF: Did you ever think, when you were faced with the industry and its challenges, that maybe you chose the wrong field?

GC: A resounding yes! When I graduated in 1984, animation was dead. Anyone who knows the history of it knows that it goes through cycles, and ‘84 was a colossal down year. Disney was talking about shutting down their animation department. This was also before cable TV, “The Simpsons,” Roger Rabbit, The Lion King, Pixar and “South Park.” And I was going, “What have I done? I got a degree in a dying artform.” But of course things turned around. I think now it’s taken seriously, and it’s much less limited than it was twenty or thirty of forty years ago.

JF: If you were to start your career path over again, would you choose film over TV?

GC: That’s interesting, because before CalArts, my interest was filmmaking. I used to make my own super-8 movies and so forth. Although I chose animation and I love animation, I always thought of animation more as filmmaking than drawing cartoons. I think successful studios, like Pixar, view what they do as storytelling on film more than making cartoons.

JF: What’s a good example of solid storytelling in animated TV?

GC: The one that comes to mind would have to be “The Simpsons.” There again, it’s animated, but it’s really a sitcom. It’s a TV show regardless of whether it’s live action or hand-drawn.

JF: Do you have an opinion about cartoon TV shows that aren’t very cartoony, like “King of the Hill” or “Daria?”

GC: Years ago I used to be a staunch believer that if you’re going to animate it, it should need to be animated. I’ve actually moved away from that, because I do think that there are different approaches. I remember in “King of the Hill,” there was a scene where Bobby was really despondent over something and he was stretched out on the floor, and it was a held cel, so he was absolutely motionless. And it struck me as funny because in live action, it wouldn’t play the same way as this animated character absolutely frozen in that pose. So I think there’s room for all kinds of ways to go.

JF: Have you ever tried pitching your own show ideas?

GC: I have on occasion pitched ideas, but I can’t say I’m driven to do so. If my pitches gets picked up, that would be great, but if not, that’s fine too.

JF: What’s the market like now for people who want to pitch shows?

GC: I don’t want to be discouraging, but I do know that while all the studios are open to taking pitches, there is certainly no shortage of people pitching shows. It very much is a crowded field, but anyone who wants to pitch a show should go for it.

JF: How do you bounce back after having your pitch ideas discarded?

GC: The people I know who pitch shows have thick skin and tenacity and perseverance. I also think they also have an understanding that just because someone says “no” doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. It could easily just not fit what they’re looking for right now, or it could be a hundred other reasons. And I think the important thing is to remember that it doesn’t mean that it’s not worthy, it’s just that it may just not fit into their demographic. For instance, Butch Hartman who does “Oddparents” and “Danny” literally spent years pitching various ideas, and “Oddparents” is the one that went.

JF: You’ve worked on a lot of shows that have had a long run. Have you collected any pearls of wisdom on what makes a show work?

GC: I wish I knew the secret; I’d bottle it and sell it. I would have to say that, #1, it needs a good idea to start with, and then #2, a good crew of people that can execute it well. “Oddparents” is a great example for Butch, who really had such a strong, clear vision of what he wanted that show to be, and he assembled a whole crew of people who got his vision. I’m sure it’s no secret to anyone that it’s never just one person who makes the show. It takes a lot, and I’ve been lucky to work with a great team of talented people.

JF: What’s a good way to set a path in motion for a career in children’s TV?

GC: I don’t think there is one way. The beauty of CalArts is that it’s not just reading about it, it’s actually hands-on doing it. And that was huge, because after four years of CalArts, you kind of come out of there with the ability to do various things, and ultimately that’s what anybody who’s hiring is going to look for - not a degree, but if can you actually do the job. So in one way or another, I would say it’s deciding what it is you want to do and then having the ability to do it. From there I think you’ll be fine.

JF: How many hours of post-school independent learning would you do just to stay on top of the changing industry?

GC: I’ve actually been pretty lucky, because when I came out of CalArts I could animate well enough to get a job doing it. And then I’ve been fortunate to learn what I needed to learn on the job, the storyboarding and following the directors and seeing what they were doing. Every show’s a little different, but you learn how different shows work and what needs to be done on that show.

JF: Are there personality traits new people in the industry should foster?

GC: Well, let me say that I don’t mean to discourage taking classes. It’s always a good idea to learn new things and keep on top of things with independent study. The other half of it is that it’s always good to be known and to be acquainted with people who are on the inside. And people obviously like to work with good team players and people who have good work ethics and are simply nice to be around.

JF: Have you made any mistakes along the way that you care to share?

GC: Looking back on it, I would say there were probably times where I took it too seriously. And I have since learned that, for heaven’s sakes, we’re making cartoons, and that should be fun! But I’m at a point now where I try not to forget how lucky I am and to be grateful for the fact that I get to make cartoons for a living.

JF: Do you have any personal projects?

GC: As I mentioned, I used to make little super-8 movies, and when super-8 died I got some video equipment and started making little silly video projects. I’ve continued to do that, and I’m actually working on a little documentary project, just for the fun of it. I’m real lucky to do animation for a job, but the fact that there’s a paycheck obviously means you’re doing it for someone else. Doing your own personal project just for the joy of it really does recharge your batteries and is a great outlet.

JF: Didn’t lots of people from CalArts get trained solely in the Disney style?

GC: More so in 1984. One thing about working in animation, it’s important to be versatile. I do think sometimes people will look at what you’ve done and say, “oh, that’s all you can do.” And there is an unfortunate fact that sometimes people get typecast doing only one kind of thing. But I do think that for the most part, animation people find that they can adapt and move around.

JF: Drawings for film storyboards seem less on-model than drawings in TV storyboards. How important is it to draw in different people’s drawing styles?

GC: That points out the difference between TV and movies. In movies, a storyboard really is more for storytelling, and from that point everyone down the line will plus it. In TV, the storyboard is pretty much the show, and it really does need to be nailed down. The storyboard sent overseas is not going to be interpreted; it’s going to be followed pretty much to the letter. TV is also done at a faster pace than film. There just won’t be a lot of reworking or rethinking later on, so everything is for keeps.

JF: Are there any traits that a good TV director should have?

GC: A couple of things. One would be a background in the various aspects of the show. I’m lucky that I’ve kind of done every phase of production, so I have an understanding of all the specific aspects. The other thing is being able to work with people and being part of a team, because it’s always a team effort.

JF: Are there any last words you’d care to pass on?

GC: I would say, if there’s something you want to do, you should go for it!
Jake Friedman is a New York-based animator. Visit him at [ jakefriedman.net ]