CGI for Television: Don't End Up In The Cartoon Graveyard

DCDC's Josh Prikryl relates ten years of experience and gives us advice about how to produce a successful full-CGI show for the crushing requirements of television.

TV animation is sometimes thought of as being the ultimate in disposable entertainment. It is mostly a 2D art form, but recently we've seen both some exciting, and not so exciting, forays into CGI animation for TV. The term 'tra-digital' comes to mind when I think of CGI productions that use 2D methodology and planning. Producers of TV animation, who only a few years ago were thrilled at the possibilities of CG production, now want to avoid what has become a cliché. CGI is now sometimes seen as an undependable and dangerous investment. A number (but not all) of CGI series have been delivered late, gone over budget and been difficult to control creatively. In general a feeling of overall predictability has eluded the producers who need to have control over what should be no more complicated than the 2D animation process. If CGI is to thrive as a commercial viability for television over the next few years, we must try to ensure that it will be as predictable as 2D animation production.

I have worked on most of the "all CG" animated TV shows that ever saw airtime and were produced in the United States. This gives you an idea about how small the CGI for television animation community is. Most recently I was CG animation director on Butt-Ugly Martians, which is currently airing, or is soon to air, in most territories worldwide. We completed 26 episodes of this all CG animated TV series on time and on budget. It was also my first experience working overseas, at DCDC, in Hong Kong. I have 10 years of production experience in the animation industry, and have signature approved close to 20,000 scenes as an animation supervisor. Having supervised two all CG animated TV series that were both completed on time (52 half-hour episodes), I would like to share with you my opinions; some of what I believe works for CGI television production and what does not.

Here are four areas of how some TV animation producers have gotten into trouble with CGI animation for TV and ended up in or close to that cartoon graveyard.

Stylized sets and characters were hallmarks of the late series Voltron: The Third Dimension, on which Josh Prikryl was a supervising animator. TM & © World Events Productions.

1. The Producer's insistence on extreme realism, rather than a stylization of the characters and sets.
This points to producers' preference for realism in CG television, and although the technology might arguably be available, it is not always practical to produce realistic CG TV animation at this time. Why not, you ask? There have been very few realistic CGI TV shows that have been produced on time, so there's some history to think about. Kids don't necessarily prefer it, and they are the intended audience. It's a burnout for your animation crew to produce overly realistic scenes while on a TV animation schedule. People complain about the "weird" look the characters sometimes have. If it doesn't make good financial and practical sense to produce a realistically animated 2D production for television (can you name one?), then it probably doesn't make sense in 3D production. To develop a realistic look that is maintainable is one thing, but when one combines this difficulty with some of the other pitfalls it becomes impossible.







Comments


Cutting Corners in 3D Render at a lower resolution and upres in Photoshop. Render at 24 or 15 FPS. and if you need ones you can use Retimer to create them. Motion blur can be added as POST (Reelsmart motion blur for after effects) as well as DOF effects using depth maps. Good animation will cover everything else. Animate using Low res version of your high res models. then switch at rendertime. Far away objects can be less detailed. and the main thing is dont be afraid to cheat...just make sure that what does get seem doesnt suck. And while i hate to criticize anyone, and i only saw 2 minutes of BUM....the martians didnt have any life to their motions...i believe they should be animated more like ANTZ. SNAP, Squash and stretch!! hope this helped out someone.
Tom Lillehoff (not verified) | Wed, 01/30/2002 - 01:00 | Permalink
Having seen Butt Ugly Martians on T.V. and been thoroughly astounded at how terribly poor it is in both story-line and animation, I cannot understand how it managed to get onto T.V. in the first place when there are so many good companies who are not getting the commissions. CGI is a tremendous and effective tool if used well and is sensitive to the context in which it is employed. Looking to the Film world, Toy Story and Antz, etc. prove this case wonderfully. So also do many commercials on U.K. T.V. Without intending any personal offence towards Josh Prikryl, I unfortunately have to fall in line completely with what Vic Debaie had to say on the matter in his letter on December 11/01, where he stated "The show is terrible, the animation is weak, the stories are lame and the characters look as stiff and dead as their movement". I would also add to his this that the lip-sync and sound effects are completely dead in the water and unconvincing. I myself am an animator and am well aware of the restrictions of time, budget and commissioning- bodies. However, if there are to be CGI T.V. shows, then please could they be good, with well developed story lines and not loosing any quality in animation. In terms of source material, one can take a good long look at British animation of the seventies with it's treasure-trove of magical gems.
Tim Chapple (not verified) | Sat, 01/12/2002 - 01:00 | Permalink
I haven’t seen BUM but there is good stylized and bad stylized. I’m sure the 2d world was horrified to see Pokemon or Neon Genesis for the first time. I think these are really good examples of where we should be pushing TV 3d animation.
JAy Kyburz (not verified) | Sat, 01/05/2002 - 01:00 | Permalink
Great Info: I would like to know more specifics i.e. from experience where are good places to cut corners...(rendering with no shadows, lower paid animators, modelers?)....and where are good places to spend money (i.e. storyboards, higher paid animators, modelers?)...and so on. Very good article
Scott Jones (not verified) | Fri, 01/04/2002 - 01:00 | Permalink
I understand the fact that "Butt Ugly Martians" was done on time and on budget, but come on....if that is the type of show that producers want, then fine, I officialy quit the industry. The show is terrible, the animation is weak, the stories are lame, and the characters look as stiff and dead as their movement. I refuse to believe that this is the type of production that people need to work on....this is the type of production I need to stay away from. What can an animator learn by working on a series that's motto seems to be "don't worry it's good enough, and besides kids are too stupid to notice that (insert problem here)!" I have seen all of the productions that Josh Prikryl has worked on.....remind me again why motion capture is considered animation....it turns the animator into a mouse monkey "tweeker". I am sure Josh Prikryl has alot of experience and I agree with alot of things in his article, but the fact that a terrible series like "Butt Ugly Martians" has been plastered all over the net, and is use as an example on how to do a cgi tv series for kids......ill put up with the advertising of the series, but there is no way I will look at it as some sort of goal to attain.
vic debaie (not verified) | Tue, 12/11/2001 - 01:00 | Permalink
Really, it was a very interesting read. I am greatful to have such a wealth of knowlege to draw from. Re: the show itself.... we'll, it's terrible. It's fodder for the masses. I've never seen such terrible animation and production values... BUT... Kids love it. THAT's what counts. Animators (including myself) are snobs. We can't help it... Good article, terrible show, and congralations for getting it done on budget and on time! (serisouly, congrats :) We need to see more on telly (admittedly better than this, but we need more, like you say, successful productions).
Larry Dickens (not verified) | Tue, 12/11/2001 - 01:00 | Permalink
Great summary, Josh! And great job on the BUM Series. Gary Selvaggio
gary selvaggio (not verified) | Wed, 12/05/2001 - 01:00 | Permalink
Hmmmmm...this article began with what seemed like a valid and interesting topic. However, he is CG director for, IMO, the worst animated series in terms of visuals, story (everything) i have ever seen. AWN, don't put people like this in the firing line! BUM is absolutely terrible! It is guilty of all the crimes this Prikle is going on about and more! He needs to take a step back and stop congratulating himself on signing off 4 millions scenes...because most of them are awful! Sorry for all the exclamation marks. I am surprised that he cannot see what utter drivel he is involved in producing himself. On the positive side, i did wonder when i accidently was tortured by watching Butt Ugly, whether those art criminals who were involved in it realised it was poo and now I have my answer. It is a shock to me that a reasonable human being could think that it was of an acceptable standard. The strange things money does to your artistic sensibilities...please beat that guy round the head with some art and tell him to shut up.
Allessandro Del Piero (not verified) | Wed, 12/05/2001 - 01:00 | Permalink

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.