Director and After Effects: Storyboarding Innovations on The Iron Giant
Editor's Note: Due to the sensitive nature
of the material in development, Warner Bros. was unable to provide artwork
from The Iron Giant or photos of the
studio. So, readers: use your imaginations and wait for the release in
1999! Many years ago, I had an argument with a fellow animator
(now a Disney director) about the way animated features were storyboarded.
This artist had been trained in the Disney method, as I had, and was convinced
that it was the most effective way to plan an animated film. Simply put, the
Disney method is to develop the "business" of the story (gags, situations,
emotions, etc.) completely before dealing with how the business is
to be presented. To consider the staging of a scene at this early point was
seen as a straight jacket; a restriction of possibilities and a liability
to the healthy growth of a story.
While I believed in the effectiveness of the Disney method (it's hard to argue
with Walt's results), my insatiable appetite for well-directed movies had
begun to have an effect on my own thought process. It became increasingly
harder for me to have an idea without simultaneously imagining how the idea
was staged. "Why separate it?" I challenged. "If someone comes
up with a better way to do a scene, you can always change it!"
While staging is no substitute for story, I felt then, as I do now, that the
camera is an unseen character, the eyes of the audience. It can assume a million
different natures: a restless child, a cold killer, a fly on the wall...
Developing Story and Scene
I had no idea at the time that my impatience with the process would save
my hide a few years later when working on The Simpsons, with its demanding
mixture of priceless material and merciless schedules. In almost every episode
there was a gag that was difficult to stage as written, plus, the comedy was
more complex and the show's pace more accelerated than any other comedy, live-action
or otherwise, on television.
At the time, all animated shows were staged in the same boring way: a wide
establishing shot every time a location was introduced, medium shots anytime
someone was moving around, close-ups whenever the characters were talking
-- all rendered at a consistent, and dull, eye-level.
It quickly became clear that the ambitious nature of The Simpsons scripts,
where the average half-hour contained an hour's worth of twists and turns,
demanded more elaborate staging than the delightful "one-minutes"
for The Tracy Ullman Show from which they sprang. The script's wild
veerings between the lowest butt-crack jokes and Noel Coward references demanded
a visual equivalent, and I started pushing the storyboard artists, many of
whom had trained on "Saturday morning animation," to think of each
episode as a movie, and to look toward Hitchcock, Welles, Kubrick and Scorcese
for inspiration rather than other animation.
Many of the techniques these master filmmakers used to heighten drama could
also be used to heighten comedy. We also tried to push the pace; doing long
takes (a tremendous hassle when one is filming one frame at a time) one minute
and then, going into a rapid series of jump cuts (also a hassle) the next.
Camera movement is always kept to a minimum in TV animation (pans are discouraged,
except to follow a character in a walk or run cycle), but I felt camera moves
were an important story-telling tool, especially because we had to keep our
drawing count down. I pushed the use of short pans to get more movement into
the shows, and as a way to reveal information in a comedic way. We had no
time to ponder how a show was to be depicted, we had to get it out now
because another episode was coming down the conveyer belt.























Hey my name is Marvin Gray, soon to become an Animator. I attend at Kendall College of Art & Design my major is 3D Animation. I want to know is how much time and work, and people does it take to create a Animation, and how can I, mybe when I am done with college to work for the company.
Post new comment