From One Screen to Another

The star of “Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius” is an inventor, part Einstein, part Bart Simpson. He blows a gum bubble big enough to float him to school when he misses the bus. He creates a pair of pants that put themselves away at the end of the day, and he builds a toaster that ejects slices of browned bread at rocket speed.

Earlier this week, the powers that be in the entertainment industry applied some of their own special chemistry, nominating the movie for best animated feature, a new Oscar category that includes two much bigger films, “Shrek” and “Monsters, Inc.”

Furthermore, the relatively low-cost “Jimmy Neutron’s” box-office performance, at $78 million and counting, has impressed Nickelodeon and Paramount enough that they’ve greenlit a sequel, in addition to the upcoming TV series.

For the creators of “Jimmy Neutron,” Tuesday’s announcement validates work that began on a handful of desktop computers in Dallas and eventually drew a comparatively small $30-million budget from Nickelodeon and Paramount.

“And we stayed on budget. We didn’t have a lot of creative cushion,” said Steve Oedekerk, “Jimmy Neutron’s” lead writer. “That’s a real number. I know animated movies have a huge track record of undercutting their budget and saying it was less than it was.”

DreamWorks SKG put up $60 million for “Shrek,” and Disney and Pixar bankrolled “Monsters, Inc.” with $115 million. “Jimmy Neutron’s” budget wasn’t its only small-scale approach. It was the brainchild of six animators working on Lightwave 3-D rendering software by Newtek.

Once Paramount and Nickelodeon came on board, the team of animators grew to 120.

“But,” Oedekerk said, “the model stayed the same: goosed-up home computers with off-the shelf software to make the movie.”

In contrast, “Shrek” was built in state-of-the-art DreamWorks studios, and “Monsters, Inc.” came from Disney and Pixar, whose signature velvety 3-D look mesmerized audiences of both “Toy Story” movies and “A Bug’s Life.”

“DreamWorks and Pixar have the same equipment, and they write their own software that enables our characters to communicate emotions with a subtle facial expression,” said Andrew Adamson, one of the directors of “Shrek.”

Even with the disparity in finances and technology, “Jimmy Neutron,” “Monsters, Inc.” and “Shrek” are bound by the technique of computer-generated imagery, or CGI, unlike animated films that used the traditional cel images, like “Atlantis: The Lost Empire,” or stop-motion clay animation, like “Chicken Run.”

“I was so proud of the filmmakers who made ‘Jimmy Neutron,’” said executive producer of “Monsters, Inc.” John Lasseter, a director of the “Toy Story” films and “A Bug’s Life.” Speaking from his home in Sonoma, Lasseter said, “‘Jimmy Neutron’ is testament that access to ‘materials’ bring more sophisticated competition to the market.

“What’s exciting is that these tools are available to everyone,” he said. “No longer is the excuse that you don’t have access to the tools. With the Macintosh, you can get all this 3-D animation software....

“My goal has been to get these tools in the hands of more artists, in the way that if you get oil paints and canvas in the hands of different artists, look at the art you get.”

It allows, he said, for spontaneity outside of Hollywood’s food chain, which is exactly how “Jimmy Neutron” came to the big screen. Oedekerk, 41, read about a character named Jimmy Quasar who had been created by a team of animators at a company in Dallas called DNA Productions Inc. Oedekerk cold-called DNA and asked if he could help develop the concept.

“They were out doing local car commercials in Dallas,” Oedekerk said. “Cut to five years later, we’re the David and Goliath aspect of the third choice.”

Well, not exactly. Although its origins were humble and its budget relatively small, “Jimmy Neutron” was backed by the muscle of two arms of a media conglomerate that launched full-blown campaigns to influence voters of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

“I called all my friends,” joked Albie Hecht, president of Nickelodeon and executive producer of “Jimmy Neutron,” who added that “Paramount really put on a very classy for-your-consideration campaign. It wasn’t overblown hype. It was very classy.”

Oedekerk says this year’s new category and the ability of a little squirt named Jimmy to stand aside expensive green ogres and blue monsters bodes well for creativity.

“We are approaching a day when six kids are buddying up in the house and coming up with a brilliant television show,” he said over the British-accented alto voice of a GPS system in his Range Rover. After the synthetic voice instructed him to “please, move left to the motorway,” Oedekerk apologized for the computer’s interruption.

“Technology will never negate the need for talent,” he said. “It allows people to play a game that previously they never would have been able to play.”

Meanwhile, Oedekerk and DNA are preparing their brainchild for his weekly TV series debut on Nickelodeon in the fall. As for his movie career, “Jimmy Neutron II” is planned for summer 2004. Keeping it frugal, Hecht said the sequel will be made on roughly the same budget as the first, but with a new batch of inventions and adventures in Jimmy’s hometown of Retroville.