tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post2608502910788329233..comments2024-03-26T22:42:06.412-07:00Comments on TAG Blog: Disney TuesdaySteve Huletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537689111433326847noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-77522707387821548722008-08-30T12:33:00.000-07:002008-08-30T12:33:00.000-07:00way to shamelessly pimp your blog. :|way to shamelessly pimp your blog. :|Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-20748531685542577942008-08-28T03:29:00.000-07:002008-08-28T03:29:00.000-07:00http://www.animationoptions.com/blog/http://www.animationoptions.com/blog/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-64893219732038055502008-08-28T03:27:00.000-07:002008-08-28T03:27:00.000-07:00Will “The Glen Keane Of CG” Please Stand Up?http:/...Will “The Glen Keane Of CG” Please Stand Up?<BR/>http://www.animationoptions.com/blog/2008/08/28/will-the-glen-keane-of-cg-please-stand-up/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-56314156988601098502008-08-28T03:26:00.000-07:002008-08-28T03:26:00.000-07:00Robiscus, wages hyper-inflated during the pissing ...Robiscus, wages hyper-inflated during the pissing match between Eisner and Katzenberg, when DW was staffing up and animating assistants were getting limo rides from Jeffrey.<BR/><BR/>Your wages were not lowered because of a computer or a computer artist, sorry.<BR/><BR/>KGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-43264673022297656212008-08-27T22:21:00.000-07:002008-08-27T22:21:00.000-07:00quote:The passing animation fan could TELL that Gl...quote:<BR/><BR/>The passing animation fan could TELL that Glen Keane did the Beast in "Beauty in the Beast", just as they could tell that Dejas did Jafar in Aladin, just as they can see the tell tale precision of Richard Wiliams in Roger Rabbit.<BR/><BR/>end quote<BR/><BR/>You DO know that Glen and Andreas and Richard werent the only animators on those characters, right? They were the leads, but there were dozens more animators (and also rough in-betweeners, etc) who touched those characters and scenes. So, your point there might be moot.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, I think CG film has gotten way past the floatiness factor. Horton is a prime example of some 2D-inspired, CG animation. Go watch Snow White again and see some floaty animation ;)<BR/><BR/>Just to put my 2 cents in here, Ive worked on 3 CG features as an animator, and I would say maybe 1 or 2 in a crew are really technically able, probably 10 who have a background in 2D, and the rest are just ridiculously talented animators (who could work in any medium if payed to)<BR/><BR/>By the way, some animators are content being animators, and not directors. Is that what you mean by being technical and not artistic? How can you be a good animator and not be artistic? Perhaps you've never animated in CG before, so I could see how it might appear to be like "the computer doing the work," which of course is completely untrue. Thats what a lot of people believe though.<BR/><BR/>I kind of see your points, but I think you are a bit extreme in your opinions. Also, I think Cartoon Brew is a bit harsh with Bolt, and doing a bit of prejudging and using the worst possible images to form an opinion. From what Ive seen of the film (which is, all of it, since I worked on it) its pretty awesome. :P Not the best thing ever, but definitely a solid "good film."<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I wish you luck with your endeavors, and keep an open mind! Theres a lot of good work being done out there, even on the computer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-86723662615539566622008-08-27T13:56:00.000-07:002008-08-27T13:56:00.000-07:00I don't see VOICES in CGI animation - no one does....I don't see VOICES in CGI animation - no one does. You are very close to the industry, working in it and you are saturated with individuals work all day long.<BR/><BR/>The passing animation fan could TELL that Glen Keane did the Beast in "Beauty in the Beast", just as they could tell that Dejas did Jafar in Aladin, just as they can see the tell tale precision of Richard Wiliams in Roger Rabbit.<BR/><BR/>Even if they can't tell who did it, they can see that <I>that</I> character moves a certain way and has personality in that aspect.<BR/><BR/>CGI is STILL (we're all waiting...) trying to get the movement down so that it doesn't look "floaty". Kung Fu Panda was a huge leap forward, but the limits of the rigs and the schedules it takes to make a CGI film have prohibited the expression that 2D has always had.<BR/><BR/>On top of that, studios are more than happy to fill their ranks with technical animators rather than artistsic animators and yes, because of that the bar has been set lower to be an animator and the work has suffered.<BR/><BR/>On top of that - like the poster mentioned above - there is an overhwelming GLUT of style in CGI. More than 3/4 of the movies made have characters that all look like thy could inhabit the same world. Its not a distinctive film to the moviegoing audience, its "just another 3D animated movie." With interchangable characters.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Its sad that you accuse me of being inferior to you by deriding me as someone whose career was left behind. Such a haughty tone. That must be the case with the dozens and dozens of posts by fanbs over at CartoonBrew who echo the same sentiments I have. Or maybe Keith Lango and Mike Watt and other animators in the industry who have mentioned the same shortcomings are lesser than you. You have it allfigured out! Clearly everyone whocriticizes CGI for its flaws(and it has many on many different levels) is just bitter. <BR/><BR/>Say what you want about John K, but he eviscerates the current standardf of srtistry in CGI here:<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/5udj56<BR/><BR/>... and the funny thing is that he's talking about "Shark's Tale", which came out FOUR YEARS AGO, and its <B> the very same problems</B> that are seen in the preview pics of Bolt over at CartoonBrew.<BR/><BR/>Do I need to mention anything else?!!?!<BR/>Where is this ever evolving art form you are so proud of when the symmetry and wretched designs from four years ago are still being seen today?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Look, I'm modeling stuff in Maya right now. I like working in 3D - I <I>really</I> do. BUT... there are real problems with the state of the industry right now and I'm free to criticize them. The post at CartoonBrew shows I'm not alone. The only way to get change from the lame aspects is to criticize them. There is nothing sacrosanct in CGI - if you think there is, then you're too thin skinned to talk to.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I'm the guy that would happily(and eagerly) criticize 2D films. The crutch of animating realistically, the Disney designs, the endless dutch angles. I hate that stuff, but there aren't any 2D movies to discuss. <BR/><BR/><BR/>You are free to disagree with me, but I'm saying wages are lower because studios can "get by" with animators who are more technicians than artists. There are lots of people lobbying for jobs here in LA, and that makes wages lower - but the skill sets of the people who studios will hire are much much much less than they were. CGI has allowed the dazzling textures and photorealisitc renderings to cover up bad animation, on top of the still persistent limitations of the software.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-15383231877723684822008-08-27T12:32:00.000-07:002008-08-27T12:32:00.000-07:00Robiscus-I'm assuming you didn't see Atlantis. Or...Robiscus-<BR/>I'm assuming you didn't see Atlantis. Or Home on the Range. Or Quest for Camelot. Or Hercules. Or Space Jam. Or any number of traditional 2D animated films.<BR/><BR/>Because in terms of art direction, and overall artistry, Kung Fu Panda matched them all, and in many cases, exceeded them. So did Ratatouille.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but while you may have had a point several years ago, CG features are quickly coming to a point where they are as visually pleasing as 2D. KFP was on a par with Mulan, art direction-wise.<BR/><BR/>And I see you just blithely ignore earlier points that individual CG animators ARE unique, and do have individual styles. Interesting that you can't intelligently respond to those points.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry that CG came along and ruined your career plans. But the fact is, all of my colleagues who were truly talented, and not just cogs, have been able to continue working just fine. Good films still require good artists, and a high degree of talent. Those who were left behind were the ones who didn't have much talent to begin with.<BR/><BR/>While I'm disappointed that wages appear to be stagnant, it's probably important to remember that wages came down around 2000, before the glut of CG. And I'll also point out the obvious fact that there are a number of individuals working in CG who make quite a damn bundle, much higher than scale. Their talents are indeed recognized and paid for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-32929741125872424422008-08-27T11:02:00.000-07:002008-08-27T11:02:00.000-07:00When you say one animator is indistinguishable fro...When you say one animator is indistinguishable from the other, do you mean per film, or overall in the industry? (ie, you cant tell what studio made what film, like back in the day when it was easy to distinguish between a Bluth film and a Disney film)<BR/><BR/>Point is, its typically a goal of most directors/studios to have the character feel the same from shot to shot, regardless of who animated it. But if you mean that certain studios dont have a particular style, (or all studios have the same style) you have a point. Like, I would believe if someone told me Blue Sky made Kung Fu Panda or Sony made Wall-e....technically and artistically, everyone is pretty much on the same level these days. Im just trying to understand which you mean.<BR/><BR/>Also, you spend so much time criticizing CGI, but why not embrace it for what it is, all the while still embracing 2D. I mean, Disney is doing it again, it isnt dead (and showing signs of a larger revitalization), so whats the problem? Why so angry?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-17893395151292915152008-08-27T10:45:00.000-07:002008-08-27T10:45:00.000-07:00Yeah, Kevin and you're talking about an industry w...Yeah, Kevin and you're talking about an industry with a massive presence that traditional animation never even came close to in that time. a measly 15 years?... with 4 or 5 feature films from 4 or 5 different studios for more than half that time. The output is unparalleled, the technical advances are never ending... and the level of artistry is nigh.<BR/><BR/>All of those movies and all of that animation and ne animator isn't recognizable from another. The animation shows that the bar has been lowered, and so have the potential for better wages. Thanks CGI!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-443034276302194242008-08-26T15:42:00.000-07:002008-08-26T15:42:00.000-07:00You can also look at how faithful films such as "O...You can also look at how faithful films such as "Open Season" were to their 2D character designs.<BR/><BR/>Storyboard are not character designs. If they were, you'd see the character mutating from sequence to sequence. And any loss of appeal from storyboard to final output is ultimately the fault of the director, who approves everything. I can pull out just as many examples of 2D films that have lost their charm along the way, when the boards are compared to the cels. It's the man, not the medium.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I love absolutest statements that use the word "never". :-) I'm going to tape "There will never be a Glen Keane of CGI." to my monitor.<BR/><BR/>Glen's animation shines through as Glen's despite the army of in-betweeners, cleanup artists, painters and scanners who work over his drawings. And there's no reason why an animator cannot reach the same heights in CGI.<BR/><BR/>You're comparing a medium with less than 15 good years under its belt against one with more than 70. It will take a fraction of that 55-year discrepancy for "never" to occur.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>KGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-77373555108642729182008-08-26T14:42:00.000-07:002008-08-26T14:42:00.000-07:00There will never be a Glen Keane of CGI. Like what...There will never be a Glen Keane of CGI. Like what was stated earlier, the digital processes (and the many "artists" who can't draw and know nothing abut crafting an excellent image) strip away any singular voice.<BR/><BR/>Here:<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/67qxngAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-80182572976661103992008-08-26T02:48:00.000-07:002008-08-26T02:48:00.000-07:00Depends on what you call "low". I entered the indu...Depends on what you call "low". I entered the industry as a digital artist at $50k in 1995, and was making 5 times that within ten years. May not be Glen Keane money - and I've never owned a vineyard like some key assistants from days of yore - but I'm not crying poor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-30136168582971611752008-08-25T13:36:00.000-07:002008-08-25T13:36:00.000-07:00" You dont think any CG animated films have been s...<I>" You dont think any CG animated films have been successful both artistically and commercially?"</I><BR/><BR/>Have they been a success for the artists working in the industry? Wages have remained low and my suggestion was that the reason for this is, in quoting a post from above:<BR/><BR/>"the barriers to entry (in the industry) are not as formidable as they once were"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-58218806694503948392008-08-25T09:25:00.000-07:002008-08-25T09:25:00.000-07:00By the way, just for the record, I think everyone ...By the way, just for the record, I think everyone here is pro CG AND pro traditional...<BR/><BR/>...why arent you? You dont think any CG animated films have been successful both artistically and commercially?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-79631305015683755612008-08-25T09:19:00.000-07:002008-08-25T09:19:00.000-07:00Now I know you're delusional. The first thing you...Now I know you're delusional. The first thing you said was:<BR/><BR/>"No.<BR/><BR/>The best animators in the world ALL can draw. If a person can't recognize this, then they know hardly anything about animation.<BR/><BR/>You might be talking about puppeteers - but not animators."<BR/><BR/>If that's not childish flamebait, I dont know what is.<BR/><BR/>By the way, Im pretty sure that a singular artistic vision comes from the director. It sounds to me like you're more against large studios and pro-independent films, than you are CG vs traditional. 2D films have the same problems as CG films, where artists have to stay on model (even if the design is crap, Atlantis comes to mind) and problems occur due to the large-studio, assembly line environment.<BR/><BR/>But thats a discussion you're having with yourself. The original debate spawned from your snarky, arrogant comments regarding what qualifies an animator, which you're still wrong about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-10283305853575447552008-08-24T23:49:00.000-07:002008-08-24T23:49:00.000-07:00"CG" animators & artists are not any..."CG" animators & artists are not any more thin-skinned than "traditional" animators & artists. In fact, far from it. We've put up with sneers from that direction for years, and were even expected to help train the same folks who regarded our medium with such derision.<BR/><BR/>Where you get into trouble is when you make ridiculous statements such as this:<BR/><BR/>> Look - there isn't even such a <BR/>> thing as an independent CGI <BR/>> animator. <BR/><BR/>That is the sort of nonsense guaranteed to bring out "thin-skinned" CG artists in droves.<BR/><BR/>KGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-90436874783970430992008-08-24T22:33:00.000-07:002008-08-24T22:33:00.000-07:00Invariably you are forced to knock CGI animators f...Invariably you are forced to knock CGI animators from the droves off them in here because ANYHTING said negative about their field is taken personally and blown out of proportion.<BR/><BR/>What I said <B>originally</B> is that one of the inherent shortcomings of CGI animation is that the production has SO many processes to it and it is so compartmentalized that there is no single artisitic vision. Just a collective of talent; interchangable parts.<BR/><BR/>You don't think I'm right? Look at this image from Shrek 3:<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/5aj5cr<BR/><BR/>...and read the accompanying article. Now, it would be ignorant to say that the image shown is that horrendous because CGI artists don't have any talent. Thats not necessarily true. Its because of the process. If you don't believe that, then you haven't worked in both CGI and traditional. I have and CGI suffers from the compartmentalization of the work force. <BR/><BR/>Even veteran animator Keith Lango explains this shortcoming in the article above.<BR/><I>"no single artist is responsible for this. It is assembly line imagery. The flaw is in the system under which this is made."</I><BR/><BR/>I've come around to notice that wages have remained static as the CGI train chigs along and I think the process is why.<BR/><BR/>But again, if you think that there are NO drawbacks to CGI production in hollywood. Then believe that. I'm sure its bliss.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-89637112768516651842008-08-24T18:07:00.000-07:002008-08-24T18:07:00.000-07:00See, the problem here is, you're hell-bent on knoc...See, the problem here is, you're hell-bent on knocking CG animators, as if they're "not animators" or lesser artists, which is completely untrue. They work differently. No one here (from what I can tell) is knocking traditional animators, so why are you so bend out of shape?<BR/><BR/>Do you really have such a fragile ego that you have to say that only 2D animators can call themselves animators? <BR/><BR/>I mean, cmon people, we just make cartoons here...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-35367875358733233532008-08-24T18:00:00.000-07:002008-08-24T18:00:00.000-07:00No, its more like, Im a fashion designer and Im wa...No, its more like, Im a fashion designer and Im way better at using a sewing machine than sewing by hand.<BR/><BR/>Dude, give it up. You're just plain wrong. Its pretty pathetic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-46118291176495071242008-08-24T17:36:00.000-07:002008-08-24T17:36:00.000-07:00Yeah, I'm jealous of people who are ENTIRELY depen...Yeah, I'm jealous of people who are ENTIRELY dependent on a program to animate. You're writing your own ticket on that one.<BR/><BR/>"I'm an animator, but I need a computer and software to do it" is equatable to "I'm a fashion designer but I know nothing about sewing so I need a crew of people to put my designs together."<BR/><BR/>Are there these kind of people in the world? Yes. Are many of them successful? Yes.<BR/><BR/>Do they get as much respect as designers who actually know their trade? No. <BR/>Same goes for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-91211269577547058822008-08-24T10:05:00.000-07:002008-08-24T10:05:00.000-07:00I wouldn't worry about it. Robiscus is just troll...I wouldn't worry about it. Robiscus is just trolling or is simply jealous that he can't animate as well as the non-drawing crowd.<BR/><BR/>My guess is that he lost his job to someone who can't draw.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-86461975261650249092008-08-24T07:18:00.000-07:002008-08-24T07:18:00.000-07:00Im a fantastic sculptor (in clay). Im a feature f...Im a fantastic sculptor (in clay). Im a feature film animator. I can model, rig, animate, texture, all of it. But for some reason, I cant draw.<BR/><BR/>Weird, innit? I cant explain it myself either, but all I know is I do well for myself in all other areas of animation.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I animate all my shots on ones. Every frame and every control is hand keyed. No fancy mel-script heirarchy here....whatever that means. You obviously are very ignorant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-83719700941622445772008-08-24T00:01:00.000-07:002008-08-24T00:01:00.000-07:00"Is that to say that stop motion animators "aren't...<I>"Is that to say that stop motion animators "aren't creating any images really"? Truly, this is ignorant discourse."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>No, because stop motion animators invraibaly design and creations they animate. Harryhausen was an amazing artist and designer.<BR/><BR/>The CGI animatros who can't draw... well, they're really dependent on the studio they work at aren't they? If they were challenged to make a film, what are they going to create?<BR/>Movement is only part of being an animator. Anther half is being able to design and yet another half is knowing what things look like from every angle. Step conveniently glossed over for the animator who inexpicably specialized in only movement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-24031438807834461962008-08-23T23:27:00.000-07:002008-08-23T23:27:00.000-07:00> Great CGI animators put in the key> frames...> Great CGI animators put in the key<BR/>> frames, and have a fancy hierarchy<BR/>> and mel script, but they aren't <BR/>> creating any images really, just <BR/>> moving around what the computer<BR/>> provides them.<BR/><BR/>Is that to say that stop motion animators "aren't creating any images really"? Truly, this is ignorant discourse.<BR/><BR/>The computer doesn't provide you with anything that you don't input yourself. Great animators, such as Ranieri and Zondag, don't just take "what the computer provides them". They are active partners in the creation of their CG characters. They work directly with the modelers and TDs to define rigging capabilities, facial controls and the like which push the boundaries of the art, and truly personalize it. When you look at the scene of Buck Cluck talking to Chicken Little in the car, you can "see" Nik the animator. It is every bit a personal performance, evocative of his other great work in 2D.<BR/><BR/>You state that "anyone experienced with the program can do it competently", and I entirely disagree. True, the barriers to entry are not as formidable as they once were, but "compentence" is not a given and "excellence" is still hard to come by - and requires just as much artistic proficiency as ever. There is as much of a "glut" of kids out there with good 2D drawing portfolios and animation reels as there are "college kids who are wizards with the program everywhere".<BR/><BR/>Animators - 2D and 3D alike - are as "replaceable" as they ever were.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-54936399742639014882008-08-23T23:10:00.000-07:002008-08-23T23:10:00.000-07:00"But drawing is not animation--movement and acting...<I>"But drawing is not animation--movement and acting are!"</I><BR/><BR/>No, actually animation by definition is <B>creating</B> the illusion of motion by creating images that, when viewed in sequence, are brought to life. Its about understanding how to fool the eye of the viewer because of the persistence of vision. <BR/><BR/>So drawing really is an integral part of animating. Its much more integral that a program. You're saying you need a program to animate. Thats ridiculous. Its like Britney Spears needing a harmonizer to sing in concert. Sure she's a singer, but pardon me if I'm not impressed. <BR/><BR/>Great CGI animators put in the key frames, and have a fancy hierarchy and mel script, but they aren't creating any images really, just moving around what the computer provides them.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Anyone experienced with the program can do it competently, and thats why wages don't go up. Because its still going to look <I>good enough</I> with the computer providing the image no matter who does it. Put a couple beers in ANY executive and ask them and they'll tell you. Talent isn't at the premium is was with 2D. There are college kids who are wizards with the program everywhere. Animators have never been so replacable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com