The Atlantic notices the obvious.
... [S]ays established Hollywood director Jon Favreau: "It is a game-changer from a production standpoint certainly in the way he's using motion capture and operating a camera within a volume... the line between animation and live action is blurring in many ways." Favreau told an interviewer he will mimic Cameron's use of motion capture and CGI in his upcoming action film Iron Man 2 ...
Sitting in the middle of Animationland, I've been noting for, oh, a couple of decades that the "line" between animation and live-action has been fading away. Thanks to the digital revolution, animated components in live-action now take up way more screen time. Animated effects and characters and stunt doubles. Virtual sets. It's all standard stuff now. In fact, if you've got yourself a big live-action extravaganza, you've got to have loads of this stuff in your movie or you're not really legitimate.
What this means is that the overall animation industry has grown steadily, even as different segments of Toonland have bounced up and down. Back in 1960, there were a couple of thousand cartoon people working in L.A. Hanna-Barbera and Disney a couple of small pretenders, various commercial houses, and that was about it. Now there's eight or nine times as many people employed in the multiple branches of what we're pleased to call animation, everything from live-action effects to television graphics to video and on-line games to traditional toonage and its teevee cousins.
So the fact that a national magazine now takes note that the latest big-budget picture is changing the landscape of movie-making is fun, but obvious. It's been going on for years. Avatar might increase the velocity of change in the business, but it won't change the direction. That was determined long ago.
Posts
28 comments:
And the largest job category in the union is, what? Foolish me, I wasted most of my life drawing. No wonder it's no longer called The Screen CARTOONIST'S Guild. All those numbers are good for you, not so good for us. How many Technical Directors are signing up for the Life Drawing class?
How many Technical Directors are signing up for the Life Drawing class?
Yo, I'm a TD, and I take life drawing classes at the American Animation Institute every chance I get.
I started off as a traditional artist and ended up learning the technical director trade. I took a ton of life drawing classes back then.
How many 2d animators bothered to try learning some maya? Probably not the unemployed ones.
Have you tried that recently?
No but I stayed at a Holiday Inn recently.
Ha ha. I was making a couple of serious points. First, about the nature of the work; it's nice to know that artists have successfully made the transition into CG work. I must have the wrong idea of exactly what a TD is or does. Maybe that position isn't what it used to be. Suffice to say it does not involve cartooning or drawing.
Second point: Given the job market, hiring practices, and increasing competition, "some Maya" is not enough. Actually, it never was. Nice to know you got yours, though, and can afford to be smug.
More than a decade ago, the Animation GUild spent much money spear-heading retraining for traditional artists, all on our own.
For two years TAG paid the salaries for retraining classes as Disney and other studios (but principally Disney.)
A bit later, we were the largest participant in a federal retraining grant for artists (this was the late nineties) that the Bush Administration terminated when it came into office.
Nevertheless we have soldiered on with retraining. And I'll be honest, many artists have found the transition to CG difficult. Several years ago, when we analyzed how many successfully jumped the divide, the transition rate was about one in five.
The problem is, the industry goes where technology leads it. Back when we initiated classes at Disney (when the writing was pretty much on the wall), there were animators who elected not to take retraining classes and stay in the hand-drawn part of the business. Some have survived, most have had to move on to boarding or design work or another career.
Most of the business now is computer driven. Even if you're drawing (and many are) you're drawing on a Cintiq.
>>>>
"the multiple branches of what we're pleased to call animation, everything from live-action effects to television graphics to video and on-line games to traditional toonage and its teevee cousins."
>>>>
The lines have truly blurred, but I think it becomes problematic when you broaden the definition of animation so that everything is included as "animation" , so then nothing is distinctly animated.
More jobs are always a good thing. But how many of the people doing CG special effects and motion graphics for movies, television, (and especially) gaming are represented by TAG ?
The big difference is between animation technology (particularly mo-cap) being used as a special effect to enhance live-action movies vs. films that feature full blown character animation , whether hand drawn or cg . Both have their place , but I think what most people still intend when they use the word Animation refers to character animation in films like "UP" or "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" , "Coraline", or "The Princess & the Frog", to name just a few recent examples.
The increased "realism/details" in CG animated films such as "Kung Fu Panda" is still being applied to basically caricatured, "cartoony" characters that no one is supposed to mistake as being real.
A film full of cg effects like "Avatar" or more subtle use of cg effects as in "Benjamin Button" has a different purpose: the cg is supposed to be completely invisible and blend in seamlessy so that that eye is fooled into thinking that the images on the screen are just a real as the live-action elements that are in the scene. It's not about giving a personality-based performance , it's about enhancing an illusion. (like the difference between an illustration or a portrait, vs. a trompe l'oeil painting . )
Technically it's all "animation" I suppose , but I think that is sort of like classifying an old school matte painter special effects artist like Albert Whitlock as being the same job category as an animation Background painter such as , say, Ralph Hulett. Technically they use the same skill sets and tools (brushes and paint) and they could have switched places without too much difficulty adapting to the roles (Hulett painting mattes for live-action films , Whitlock painting BG's for Disney animated films) , but I doubt that Whitlock or similar special effects artists would have identified themselves as working in "animation" .
Nice to know you got yours, though, and can afford to be smug.
I love how someone taking the initiative to learn, grow, and become relevant has earned them the title of smug.
People with attitudes like that deserve to be unemployed.
Steve,
No one is blaming you. You are to be commended for investing so much time, effort and expense in supporting animators in adjusting their skills and staying viable in the marketplace. You did the right thing. Bravo.
What is disturbing is the 1 in 5 statistic. In spite of all of your efforts. In spite of the implicit commitment expressed by the participants in these training programs, there was only a 20% success rate. Why?
You seem to have reached a conclusion about that; the artist found the transition "too difficult." It's the artists' fault. They were inadequate to the challenge. They gave up too soon, or were not committed enough etc. Bad artists! They got the unemployment they so richly deserved.
Another possible explanation is that training, no matter how thorough, is only half of what is needed. The other half is the cooperation of the industry. We don't have it now and we didn't have it then, except at the expense of the union.
Contrary to the above poster, it takes more than a "little" Maya. It takes a lot more.
g,
A little hypersensitive, are we? Yes, that's right; smug, self-righteous, dismissive- I'm-employed-so-you're-a-shmuck.
I was referring to the "little" in a little Maya. No one is putting down initiative, but let's not turn it into a fairy tale. The 4 out 5 union trainees statistic reveals the truth.
Everyone "deserves" to be employed. Between the two of us you would profit much more by a little spell of unemployment. It might teach you a little humanity and compassion.
A) You dont fucking know me, what Ive been through to earn and keep my jobs, or how often Ive been unemployed. Hell, I might even be your boss.
B) If you want to draw for a living, fine. But dont whine like a little snot nosed brat when the industry has changed around you and you havent kept up with it.
C) I dont know who originally made the "a little Maya" point, but it wasnt me. But I agree with their sentiment. Progress is unstoppable. If you were a professional carburetor designer, and refused to keep up with new-fangled fuel-injection systems, you'd be unemployed too. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Point is, dont call someone SMUG when the truth is, they did what was necessary to feed their families. If thats the definition of smug, then the opposite of smug is LAZY or STUBBORN.
Gains in digital employment have unfortunately come at a cost with losses in the creative and artistic influence of TAG. Artistic signature in the art that appears on the screen, success of artists transitioning to writers and animation directors within the field. A price has been paid. TAG used to be more than a technical trade. It is unfortunate.
Here is the ugly little reality:
Disney and Dreamworks had a lot of 2d animation bandwidth in the 90's. They hired and trained a lot of people to fit that very specific pipeline.
There were many people doing things like cleanup and CAPS-type work who called themselves animators, but really did not know how to animate. This was fine until the 2d pipeline fell away.
The cleanup people who allowed themselves to become overly specialized had a very hard time finding new gigs. Those who had simultaneously nurtured other skillsets did not have as much problem.
Most people I know who are talented and not overly specialized have had no problems finding a place within the new order.
CG is just another artistic tool. A really high-tech pencil. If you haven't figured this out yet, you probably are indeed quite obsolete.
>>>>>>>>>
Everyone "deserves" to be employed.
>>>>>>>>>>
This is absolutely not true. You are given employment when you have a skillset that can fill a need that company has.
I wasted most of my life drawing. No wonder it's no longer called The Screen CARTOONIST'S Guild. All those numbers are good for you, not so good for us.
>>>>
Drawing and thumbnailing are the most important parts of my CG animation process. I took them with me when I made the switch.
The world changed a long time ago. I find it unbelievable that I'm still hearing these "poor me" rants. In 2002 it was understandable. But if you havent done anything about it by 2010, you have no one to blame but yourself.
>>>>>>
All those numbers are good for you, not so good for us.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Don't think that all of "us" who still draw are interested in being part of your sad little club. Those industry numbers are good for me, and I draw for hours everyday.
... [T]here was only a 20% success rate. Why?
You seem to have reached a conclusion about that; the artist found the transition "too difficult." It's the artists' fault. They were inadequate to the challenge.
I don't know how you infer that I've "reached a conclusion." I'm simply reporting what I know.
In 1997, when we could see the wave forming and a Disney animator asked if we could help getting people trained, I talked to Disney management and we formed a partnership getting training classes going.
What I thought was going to be a few classes for a few months exploded from demand, and we ran classes -- with Disney's heavy assistance -- for years.
Later, we participated in a two-year Federal grant for retraining. 800 TAG members participated.
At the start, I had no idea how many people would be able to transition. But of the people who took classes -- assistants, animators, some other -- about 1 in 5 managed the switch.
I have never assumed that it was some defect on the part of artists that prevented them from getting into CG. I simply noted the success rate at that time.
the artist found the transition "too difficult." It's the artists' fault. They were inadequate to the challenge.
>>>>>>>>
I'm not sure where else to point the finger.
Disney, the union and government threw a tremendous amount of resource behind retraining. I think the 20% success rate must say something about the group involved.
There was culture of entitlement in the studios prior to the shutdown of 2d production. Many people who had useful, but not particularly stellar skills mistakenly lumped themselves in with real stars like Andreas Deja and Glen Keane. When their limited skills were no longer useful to the studios, they blamed everyone but themselves.
A lot of others saw it for the opportunity it was, and adapted.
I'm a member of the guild, and was back then during the timeframe being discussed.
I used to moonlight teaching classes at a well-known technical school for production artists.
We had two types of students that we had on our roll sheets. One was for students who paid for themselves, and the other was for the ones attending on one of those grants. Those people had to attend every single week in order to not be charged for the class.
So I knew by taking roll, who were there on their own dime, and who were traditional animators attempting to make the switch.
At the end of every semester, all the homework projects were due, and accounted for most of the grade in the class.
Without fail, the cross-trainers never, EVER, turned in any. ANY. Of the assignments for the entire class. While every other student always at least had most of them. No student there on a grant ever turned in even one assignment.
They were there every week, and they could have even done most of the work during class time. But no. This pattern repeated itself every term.
Think that dulled my sympathy for the poor 2-Ders swept aside by new technology?
You betcha.
If these were steelworkers or coal-miners or auto-workers, and not coddled baby artists, you think they'd be such layabouts waiting for someone else to take all the initiative and get them into their next job?
Animators have no place to whine, in this economy. We are SO far from struggling.
I also have experience being in classes where a lot of 2D artists were retraining in 3D.
Many of them had adopted a defeated, pessimistic attitude, often hissing "I HATE the computer!" Since there was often no obvious cg equivilant to what they had done before (cleanup, CAPS, etc.), they were already convinced there was nothing they could do, and all was hopeless.
There were exceptions. A few had positive attitudes, and overcame their natural aversion to the computer. They put a lot of time and effort into learning cg, and developed an interest in a particular aspect of the cg pipeline (lighting, rigging, modeling, etc.) Sadly, these people were about 1 in 15.
I learned an important lesson from this experience. Attitude and outlook are at least 50% of managing a transition like this.
For some reason, my last two comments, which had specific responses to points made by others, were not posted.
I am not going to try to recreate the missing postings. Instead, I will comment on the most recent ones.
I am shocked at the tone of what I am reading. The indifference of largest corporate employer doesn't match the arrogance and self righteousness of these posters.
I'm employed because I deserve it by virtue of my talent, positive attitude, industriousness and insight. You're unemployed because you deserve to be; you just don't have the talent and skills of wonderful me and you have a bad attitude. You deserve to be unemployed. I'm special. You're not. Everything is exactly as it should be. It ain't broken, we don't have to fix it.
Everyone who enrolled in any course at any time, then or now, whether they paid or not, (I will concede here that paying out of pocket, for anything, does provide an additional incentive- nobody wants to throw money away), expressed an interest and commitment to learn CG animation, expecting and hoping for a result.
Did it ever occur to any of you that what you interpreted as resistance or laziness or apathy was actually discouragement and/or frustration? Not everyone learns at the same speed and not everyone starts from the same place. If the students gave up, it wasn't necessarily a rejection of CG work or a sign that they don't have the "right stuff." I can see where believing that, though, gives you an ego massage and an opportunity to pat yourselves on the back.
How about a little more charity and compassion? Everyone can't be employed, especially if their skills are not yet at pipeline level, but if an artist has potential and makes a sincere commitment, there should be a way that a thriving growing industry can meet them halfway, especially in times like these.
How about a little more charity and compassion?
>>>>>>>
If you went into training looking for charity and compassion, I can see why you failed.
There are training courses with very high success rates. Have you heard of the Walmart training program? Everybody that takes the course is guaranteed to be special and also pass with flying colors.
You are supposed to be a professional. If you weren't able make a go of it, you have no one to blame but yourself.
>>>>>>>>
there should be a way that a thriving growing industry can meet them halfway,
>>>>><
I told an architect friend about the training being offered at that time and he was amazed. In most professional situations, this is unheard of. To say that the industry didn't meet halfway is ridiculous.
The helpless attitude I see reflected in this post is exactly the attitude that one would want to purge from any industry. If I knew you personally, I'd probably feel bad saying that, but I don't and it is the reality.
First anon,
You weren't there, I was.
"Did it ever occur to any of you that what you interpreted as resistance or laziness or apathy was actually discouragement and/or frustration?"
We had an hour, each week for in-class work, while I was there for questions and help. This was a BASIC class. As basic as you could get. I could teach a high-schooler the same material.
These people showed no more nor less ability than most of the students in the class. I saw them work, right there in class. They didn't have any problem understanding the material. They seemed to have a problem doing the work, which should have taken at most one hour of lab time a week.
"I can see where believing that, though, gives you an ego massage and an opportunity to pat yourselves on the back. "
Thanks for the analysis, Dr. Freud. But sorry, they didn't even try to do the work. I can only take them part way there, they have to do the rest. I'm their teacher, not their head-shrinker, and not their motivational life-coach. Also not their mommy.
"How about a little more charity and compassion? "
I showed charity and compassion to those who treated MY time as valuable. I'm there to teach them, on money paid out of my union dues and my taxes, and they pissed it away. I took time out of my personal life, and my schedule to do that, including uncompensated time for helping anyone who asked. Guess who never asked.
Note that it was during this same time that a lot of the 2d folks didn't have a lot of very nice things to say about us, their co-workers and union brothers and sisters.
And by no means is this everyone who either made the transition or didn't. And a lot of fantastic, fantastic people DID either make the switch, or didn't, but were still mensches about it. A lot of people were and still are mensches in the animation community. And my time is given freely to anyone who wants me to teach them anything, so long as they show genuine interest and initiative.
This is only anecdotal, as far as this goes. And it may have been that I got only the 6 or 10 bad apples, and all the dozens and dozens of good apples had a different teacher.
But it did change my attitude somewhat about the transition and how sorry I should feel for the folks needing to retool.
"there should be a way that a thriving growing industry can meet them halfway,"
Yes. We did. At least the students who were TAG members that I taught needed to reach the other half of the way.
Just personal experience talking. Take it or leave it.
I notice others have noted the same general experience.
This conversation sheds some light on why some 2D animators dont think CG animators are animators.
Because they really dont know what it takes to animate in CG. Its full-balls animation, not simply some pipeline trick or technical ability.
"This is only anecdotal, as far as this goes."
Thank you. That was the word I was searching for. You, and the other teacher/poster drew an awful lot of generalizations from a limited experience. Not only that, it was a long time ago, at least ten years or more. It was a time when Disney was still cranking out hand drawn features, there was much more TV work, most home computers could not handle Maya and most universities and colleges did not yet have CG animation programs. Obviously, things have changed.
It was also a time when studios were more willing to retrain, as I see now, with encouragement and support from the union to retrain their valued 2D artists to do 3D. The door opened a crack, then it closed.
I would like us to forget about ten-year-old missed opportunities and bad attitudes and focus on today. Now, most of the work is in CG. You guys win. That should mean more opportunities. That should mean more employment for many more of us. Somehow, it hasn't. Blame is not the point. Let's talk solutions.
"This conversation sheds some light on why some 2D animators dont think CG animators are animators."
You want all the work AND respect? Seriously, I personally don't know anybody who feels that way. I think you are confusing art with performance. CG animators certainly have to be good actors and create convincing performances just as traditional animators do, but the lack of the individual touch and feel that you have in hand drawn art is scary. I believe it makes CG animators seem interchangeable to producers. According to the union survey, CG animators are already averaging lower salaries than traditional.
"You, and the other teacher/poster drew an awful lot of generalizations from a limited experience. "
To be fair, you must admit you were throwing away my necessarily (because I am only human) limited experience from a position of no experience or counter example that you were willing to share.
I was working at the studio in question, at the time that all this was going down. So I did have a front seat to that period in history, as well as the perspective of teaching these classes outside of the Company.
Where were you then, and what did you see? How is your perspective somehow so strongly superior that you are able to wave away mine?
"I would like us to forget about ten-year-old missed opportunities and bad attitudes and focus on today."
Sure. Is there a backlog of people still wanting to make the transition who are unable to find or afford the classes they need?
I honestly haven't kept up with what's being offered through TAG.
Ask Pixar how they feel about their animators. Have they ever given any extra credit to an animator? They're all cogs in their nmachine that can easily be replaced.
All through animation's history the stars of animation were well known to , if not always the public, then withing the ranks of the animators themselves. Not so anymore.
The only mention of CG animators I hear about is in regards to someone like Baxter that made the leap.
That's why Pixar feels they don't need to pay animators well. As much as JL claims to love animation I doubt he loves CG animators very much - or not enough to pay them the repsect of a decent salary.
That should mean more opportunities. That should mean more employment for many more of us. Somehow, it hasn't. Blame is not the point. Let's talk solutions.
I'm not sure what you mean. Hiring is much as it always is--when a project is gearing up, there are employment opportunities. At the large studio I'm at, we have been hiring a lot of people, both experienced and noobies. Other studios have had similar hiring waves within the last year or so.
But obviously, they are only going to hire someone who has a good reel, or can show through other means that they know the job they are applying for. The number of schools teaching this stuff has never been higher, there are countless online resources, etc. Anyone who truly, truly wants, desires, CRAVES to learn cg has a plethora of choices from which to pick.
I would imagine that is the solution.
CG animators certainly have to be good actors and create convincing performances just as traditional animators do, but the lack of the individual touch and feel that you have in hand drawn art is scary.
Im not sure how to respond to this, since its typically the goal of CG animation to make the character look, act and feel like the character, not look like Andreas Deja drew it or Eric Goldberg drew it.
I mean, I see your point, but saying that CG animators dont put their individual touch on their animation isnt quite accurate. If that were true, there wouldnt be "good" CG animators and "bad" CG animators, which is definitely true.
And incidentally, at every studio Ive worked at (and Ive worked at a few) you can definitely learn which animators did which shots because of their personal touches...
Post a Comment