Per the Nikkster:
[According to SNL Kagan,] average revenues for the decade’s 101 animated films ran 108.4% ahead of costs. DreamWorks Animation’s Shrek 2 led the category with a 462% margin. The 71 sci-fi/fantasy films had a margin of 108.1%. Fox’s Avatar is the winner here with revenues 554% ahead of costs. ...
Sort of explains why fantasy and sci fi features, heavy with CG effects, get made so often. And why CG animated features are being produced by every major conglomerate. They are just too large a profit center to ignore.
But if you've been awake and paying attention during the past, oh, twenty years, you undoubtedly know this. We're a loong way from the sleepy days of Fox and the Hound, Pagemaster and Once Upon a Forest. And we're a long way from Saturday morning kiddie cartoons.
Computers and their spawn have turned the industry upside down and inside out, and made animation a high margin* part of moviedom.
* We're speaking here in relative terms.
Posts
31 comments:
My relatives don't get it.
"We're a loong way from the sleepy days of Fox and the Hound, Pagemaster and Once Upon a Forest. And we're a long way from Saturday morning kiddie cartoons."
And yet our "leverage" in the industry is not much different now than it was in those days. When will animation and vfx artists (including and especially those in the Games industry) going to wake up ?
The high-point of leverage was in the mid nineties ... when supply was waay behind demand.
Steve nailed it. When we were doing this in the 90's and even briefly early 2000's, you needed an agent and named your price from film to film for multiple year contracts. Today the resources seem incredibly deep to the studios based on the output from so many schools, and many are good especially when trained by the veterans that are now teaching.
Unfortunately I feel the studios don't see the difference in talent levels the way they use to when it was hand drawn. That is a double edged sword. Because the artists and directors can still see the varying talent in CG, but the studio cutting the work for hire or project agreement doesn't always see it that way.
^Which is why I've always believed that computers are the great equalizers in animation, and that it takes much more talent to be a good 2D animator than it does a good CG animator.
As I was told by a wised old union veteran, "Animators are actors". While agree that it takes more talent to be a 2D animator than a 3D - that additional talent is a talented wrist that makes the actor into a skilled draftsman. The computer model makes that skill obsolete. 3D animators need to be aware of the animation fundamentals but they need not worry about keeping their characters on model. This allows many young animators, who were born with a mouse in their hand it seems, to hit the production floor running and rise up through the ranks displacing their seniors (if not their betters) along the way. Schools like Animation Mentor, Ringling College of Art and Design, and the others graduate hundreds of students every year and while there may only be a small percentage of great animators in their ranks there are many "good enoughs" to fill the workstations at the studios around town. While at Sony Pictures Animation I remember hearing that 1/3 of their new hires were to be pulled from within the ranks of these recent graduates. Given the size of their animation crews across their various productions that number may be as high as 30 animators. Assuming that the previous class is retained and is promoted up to make room for the newbies that formula displaces those at the top within a few years. Okay, let the snarky comments about my posting commence.
^
Oh, give me a break ... don't start that crap again.
That is just not true . And I say that as a traditional animator. I love hand-drawn and I hate the fact that in the mainstream Hollywood industry it has been marginalized , but don't blame CG animators for that. If you think doing GOOD CG animation takes less talent you are sorely mistaken.
We shouldn't even have to be rebutting this ridiculous notion any more.
NOTE: my comment about "give me a break , don't start that crap again" was directed at Anony who posted at 9:52 am , not the post directly above mine at 10:20 am.
It's easier to be a "good" CG animator than a "good" 2D animator. But to be truly great takes the same amount of time, discipline, and ability.
And there's also plenty of crap animators at both.
So can we please put our rulers and penises away? Thanks.
"But to be truly great takes the same amount of time, discipline, and ability"
Not true. As was stated above becoming a great draftsman takes time but as the computer takes over the lion's share of that work in CG it leaves the animator free to hone their acting skills - taking less time to advance. No penises being exposed just facts. This is also not a slight to 2D animators as they are skilled in two disciplines - the creation of the line and the performance but the world moves on. One of the largest studios out there tasked with the creation of maquettes revealed that they have recently released all of their traditional sculptors in favor of artists skilled in CG modeling because those modelers could create sculpts (via a 3D output machine) that equaled those being created by traditional methods in a fraction of the time/cost. Does this mean that the traditional sculptors were not talented and due a healthy level of respect? Of course not. But it is yet another John Henry-esque tale of the old being replaced with the new.
And the new is more plentiful and there for cheaper.
And I disagree. Attaining an expert level of acting/animation ability exists as a struggle regardless of the medium. Some people are born with an innate ability to draw and take less time to advance, and likewise some people are very familiar with computers (born with mouse in hand, as you said) and understand the technicals of deformation and anatomy better than others, thus taking less time to advance (and dont forget, off-model exists in CG too, in a big way)
Acting, and making something live in an expert way is a separate, monumental task no matter if its a pencil or mouse. And there's only a handful of TRUE experts in both mediums.
""But to be truly great takes the same amount of time, discipline, and ability"
"
ABSOLUTELY true. No one cares about drawing or not. Least of all audiences. Stop being such a baby. Some of the best draughstmen are the lousiest actors (Deja). But it's the ACTING that matters most.
Drawn animation is fine, but it's also easy to hide behind the lazy idea that it's harder than to admit the reality that drawing matters less than PERFORMANCE.
"If you think doing GOOD CG animation takes less talent you are sorely mistaken."
Are you kidding? CG Animators are just puppetiers. Pulling levers and strings. Any monkey can do it, thats why the most seasoned 2D Animators that have been allowed to do CG work ANIMATES EVERYTHING that comes in a scene, as opposed to a single character, as is done in 2D.
The result is in the credits: animators are credited in a more faded way than ever before. Sometime not even being mentioned.
Tons of jobs in CG, but its just not the same anymore.
Clueless.
Ironically, many (but not all) seasoned 2D animators are typically relegated to background or C-D level shots because they cant lean on their draftsmanship anymore and their bad acting ability is exposed.
Calling CG animators dime a dozen monkey string pullers is an argument from COMPLETE IGNORANCE. If CG animators were completely interchangeable, there'd be no such thing as supervisors, senior-level animators, and all shot's would just be distributed at random. Only the really talented heavy-hitters get the good shots, because they can handle it.
Quality animators in c.g. command good salaries.
So maybe the marketplace is telling us that quality matters.
"Only the really talented heavy-hitters get the good shots, because they can handle it"
Agree 100% but as someone deep in the trenches I can tell you a couple of cold hard facts of life. This is not opinion or wishful thinking it is based on being on production experience. The kids that are coming in from the various colleges are very good. The are hungry and they are cheap. Yes, you do need senior level and sup level but if you look at the production pyramid you dont need many of those higher ranking and higher paid positions. The bulk of a productions team can be these industry newbies. Give you A players the good shots - the meaty ones - but how many of those are there in your average feature film and how many lesser shots are there by comparison? It seems to me that the middle class of animator - the intermediate level are the ones getting the squeeze from below.
Steve - have you seen animators salaries drop over the past decade? I know when I was at Imageworks back in the early to mid 2000's I could get a lot more than I am able to command today. They have NO problem telling me that the glory days are over.
"One of the largest studios out there tasked with the creation of maquettes revealed that they have recently released all of their traditional sculptors in favor of artists skilled in CG modeling "
What studio was that?
Steve - have you seen animators salaries drop over the past decade?
They've dropped from the nineties, no question. But here's the last two years of data for 3D animators:
(2010) low: $1018 medn: $1,565.82 max: $2,836.36
(2011) low: $1,366.45 medn: $1,808.41 high: $4,388.00
Minimum scale is $1628.56
'If CG animators were completely interchangeable, there'd be no such thing as supervisors, senior-level animators'
just titles.
"Ironically, many (but not all) seasoned 2D animators are typically relegated to background or C-D level shots because they cant lean on their draftsmanship anymore and their bad acting ability is exposed."
The "many" were relegated to 3/4 rear shots, B & C scenes, lived life being humiliated by the management,(pretending to walk tall among all others), and still were able to use their status to buy into more than they could handle and also pick up chicks and get laid.
I seriously doubt you'd have your balls attached any more if you told the seasoned 2D Animators left in this bunch that their acting abilities they excersized in the movies that made you go WOW! and provided you with dreaming material no longer apply in CG when in reality their place in the Animators Roster has been equalized because again: any monkey can do it. Simply, it saves money and lots of it.
"The kids that are coming in from the various colleges are very good. The are hungry and they are cheap."
Learning is fun when you are young. But they are just pulling levers.
"It seems to me that the middle class of animator - the intermediate level are the ones getting the squeeze from below."
Not so on 2D Productions, because they have to be developed animators to be assigned footage.
"They have NO problem telling me that the glory days are over."
The worse is yet to come. Save your money money money. It aint gonna come easy when CG is equalized to the point of the reality that anybody can do it.
Agree 100% but as someone deep in the trenches I can tell you a couple of cold hard facts of life. This is not opinion or wishful thinking it is based on being on production experience.
You speak as if the people debating here are not also deep in the trenches and have years of production opinion. Dreamworks is crunching right now, as is Disney.
It seems to me that the middle class of animator - the intermediate level are the ones getting the squeeze from below.
Same was true in the 2D heyday (both of them).
My response was in regard to the person bagging on CG animators. I dont think that was you though.
Most CG animators are better actors than their hand drawn counterpoints by FAR. Hand drawn animation is quaint, but audiences don't care about it, and CG allows for far more interesting artistic choices.
just titles.
Bullshit, and easily provable. Just ask any CG animator at any studio and they'll instantly name the superstars in their department.
It aint gonna come easy when CG is equalized to the point of the reality that anybody can do it.
Never gonna happen. Thats the beauty of meaningful animated acting. Its a skill that takes a long time to develop, regardless of the medium.
PS) I think I might know who you are. Bitter 2D animator struggling to do CG who is vocal all the time about it? That is a thin veil if you are the studio I think you're at.
"Most CG animators are better actors than their hand drawn counterpoints by FAR. Hand drawn animation is quaint, but audiences don't care about it, and CG allows for far more interesting artistic choices."
^
That is just as ill-informed and stupid a remark as the one earlier in this thread that claimed "it takes much more talent to be a good 2D animator than it does a good CG animator."
You're both idiotic trolls.
(unless you're the same troll playing both sides just to stir the pot.)
No, just responding to blatant ignorance on your part.
Just to be clear, there's several anonymous-es on both sides here
aaaah...the arrogance of youth!!
d.
Ahh....the assumption that the people who disagree with your opinion are younger!
No. Just lazy.
Poor Daniel, beaten back by the fact that he's wrong in thinking (and ignorant in stating) it takes more talent to animate traditionally than with a computer. Ignorance must be bliss in his limited little world.
Post a Comment