Search form

CG Animated Series, Pros, Cons, Examples?

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
CG Animated Series, Pros, Cons, Examples?

Hey Guys! I'm new to AWN forums, but have read the magazine for years. I've been doing 3D VFX for about 9 years, orginally based in LA but now currently based in Berlin as head of 3D for a small studio called Shape Minds and Moving Images.

I joined because I am (with a partner) currently in the process of developing a cartoon series to pitch to TV and Cable networks. We are pretty early in the process and I am doing some research. I have a similar discussion going on CG talk but I also wanted to get the input of this forum as well, since it is not as CG centric.

Firstly, I've been doing research on existing CG animated series. I've got a list going, but I feel like there are some I am definitely missing feel free to add any you can think of. I am specifically looking for the typical 22 min, 13-16 episodes in a season kind of shows but other good examples are welcome. Also if you know of any long running CG web series that would be great too.

-Reboot
-Beastwars
-Jimmy Nuetron
-Tak and the Power of Juju
-Dan Dare
-Green Lantern the Animated Series (upcoming)
-Rolie Polie Olie
-Handy Manny
-Higglytown Heroes
-Mickey Mouse Clubhouse
-Star Wars: Clone Wars
-Sid the Science Kid
-Transformers Prime
-Father of the Pride
-Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles
-Action Man
-Backyardigans
-Donkey Kong Country
-3-2-1 Penguins

The next question is a bit more subjective. What about these series worked well, what didn't and in what areas could these shows use improvement?

I've got some more specific questions but I'd like to see what people have to say about those first two before adding them to this thread. Any general opinions on CG animated series are also totally welcome.

Thanks!
Chris

csmallfield's picture
--------------------- Chris Smallfield Head of 3D - Shape Minds and Moving Images My Work

---------------------
Chris Smallfield
Head of 3D - Shape Minds and Moving Images
My Work

Here are some.

-Get Ed
-Jane and the Dragon
-Code Lyoko, you need to know that this show is a mix of CG and 2D animation.

Cool, I had not heard of any of those.

Code Lyoko has a cool style. I think Jane and the Dragon is the only one to have a female main character, goo to know there is at least one!

Thanks!

Chris

---------------------
Chris Smallfield
Head of 3D - Shape Minds and Moving Images
My Work

Latest one

not a PG-13 catalog kinda guy.. There were some successful tv series, but it cost 2million max on anime per episode the more data you save the more cheaper u gets and always have to dealing with tv rating, parenting ( the one pay $$ ).. Family markets is a huge selling and much wider audience could leading to commercial products. My question to your questions is what specify things u wanna know ? Pre-production> in-production> post-production ?

PG-rate:
kung fu panda legends of awesomeness
Ben 10
spongebob
dora the explorer
Avatar
Blue's clue's
Curious George
The fairly odd parent

Not so PG-13
Simpson*
South-park
Family guy
American dad
King of the hill

The next question is a bit more subjective. What about these series worked well, what didn't and in what areas could these shows use improvement?

The shows selected are all across the board in terms of their looks/styles, animation, quality, and the fact that they got on the air at all is about the only thing they have in common.
If there's a commonality between them, its that they collectively look better than if they had been done in 2D or Flash.

In terms of improvement............well, most of those mentioned are no longer on the air.....most went one season, maybe two.........orders of 13 to maybe 26 eps and that was it. Seldom do they run longer.
That says they cost a lot to make, didn't make a lot in revenue from the sponsors and the networks decided to try something else--which is par for the course. It takes a pretty strong brand to return again and again--Star Wars is one......but very few can match its stature in the market.

A property that has some solid legs is likely a good choice for an animated series--a few years back I did a storyboard for a Thomas the Tank-Engine series that went from miniatures to all-CGI. I cannot speak to what the final product looks like in CGI--because I have not seen the CGI footage--but the property is enormously popular to begin with.
But for a small studio, one has to negotiate with all the other players for the privilege of grabbing a property like that.

If anything, my observations are that a show should look like it has some visual substance, yet be clearly in the elements it uses. CGI is notorious for static, bland, cheap backgrounds, because backgrounds usually mean additional animation to bring them to life, along with the spot-lit characters.

Now the thing is that really should be necessary. If the stories are worked in advance and the locations are clear and decided on ( such as, say, the primary setting being in a park) then certain environments can have animated cycles added to them for visual flourish.
But you'd have to be cagey with it. Three varied breeze cycles for a tree can be randomly placed in the background, to accentuate a scene. Its a small, barely noticed element, but it can give a great deal of ambience to a scene. A lot of studios drops such things because of economy........they don't think it'll be noticed at all.....and it will not be noticed consciously.......but it will be felt! And that is the key.

The problem is.....who do you rein something like that in? What has those kinds of elements, and what doesn't? How much does the environment change per episode, and how talented is the animation staff?? Get one "brilliant" story set in a blustery day and everyone is out ready to murder the scriptwriter. Set every story in a gentle twilight snowfall and the audience gets bored wondering if they have any other weather in the story setting.

Again the oft-considered option is to just drop it, and have some soft-focused visual-frenzied environ take up the slack to make the world seem "lively". These are tactical decisions that have longer-term strategic considerations.
Toy Story was a huge boon to CGI cartoons, but it was also a huge curse.......because a LOT of CGI shows look very plastic and toy-like. That's a homogenization that works against CGI-I think--but its hard to gauge what an audience really finds appealing. One could do a storybook kind of show, full of wispy, feathery soft textures and forms.......like a finely-wrought water-colour painting......but will the audience dig it? The critics might love it, but the general public??? Who knows???

The end-game clearly is to give the audience something that is interesting and engaging, and not too-much-like something else they have seen. CGI tends to have that sameness--at the cheaper end. Textures, timing, pacing, visual tricks.....its the real mechanics of the thing that make it stand apart, especially when its not some very well known property.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

CGI is notorious for static, bland, cheap backgrounds, because backgrounds usually mean additional animation to bring them to life, along with the spot-lit characters.

I looked over the list of shows here and every single one has static backgrounds. It would be hard for me to remember a show that was not static or stiff in some way.

This sounds like a niche market ready to be filled. A studio that develops backgrounds on the cheap, for any show.

If anyone put this plan into action, I wont a piece. ;)

Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I'm actually pretty knowledgable about the actual development process and I've been a 3D VFX artist and supervisor for the last 9 years.

My question is this:

What works well or doesn't work well in fully CG 3d animated series?

I am developing a cartoon and still not sure if I'd want to make it 3d or 2d, so I was looking to start a conversation discussing it. I don't need to discuss the pros and cons of actually making it in 2d or 3d, but I am curious about peoples opinions on what makes a 3D CG animated series good or bad.

Thanks,
Chris

---------------------
Chris Smallfield
Head of 3D - Shape Minds and Moving Images
My Work

@Ken Davis: thanks for the great reply!

You are right that they are all over the place in terms of visual style. Although there does seem to be a core group that has a typical CG "look", such as Action Man, Beast Wars, Dan Dare, Transformers, Starship Troopers, reboot even, but at least with reboot, it was the first.

I would expect that they would take longer to make and would be more expensive than there 2d counterparts, although I believe the increases in tech have brought them closer. The bottlenecks of yesterdays CG are different than today's. For example, faster nicer looking renders are possible now, but I get the feeling that actually animating characters and creating new assets per show are the new bottleneck.

Do you find that CG shows tend to appear and fade at a faster rate than their 2d counterparts?

I'm definitely thinking about ways of keeping the production quality high if I were to do it in 3D. I think if more time is spent at the beginning setting up nice enivronments and including some long loops of secondary background animation that could help. Do you get the feeling that 3d shows reuse their sets too often?

Do you think there is room for a clever 3D series? One that can avoid the pitfalls of sameness in terms of look? At some point in my development process I'm going to sit down and figure out what would really be necessary to make a dynamic 3D show with enough charm to escape the CG-ness of the other shows. I predict that it would be something along the line of having a different ratio of artists working on it. Have several matte painters on hand at all times to add some power to the backgrounds and have a big percentage of the crew be animators rather than modelers or riggers.

The first rule I've already set is "No crappy walk cycles" most of the CG characters walk so badly and even in a couple seconds you can see the looping.

thanks for the input, greatly appreciated!

---------------------
Chris Smallfield
Head of 3D - Shape Minds and Moving Images
My Work

Do you think there is room for a clever 3D series? One that can avoid the pitfalls of sameness in terms of look? At some point in my development process I'm going to sit down and figure out what would really be necessary to make a dynamic 3D show with enough charm to escape the CG-ness of the other shows. I predict that it would be something along the line of having a different ratio of artists working on it. Have several matte painters on hand at all times to add some power to the backgrounds and have a big percentage of the crew be animators rather than modelers or riggers.

If you wont a better understand of the state of the industry, you will have to do some serious research.

In my opinion, you need to select titles that are current in production, waiting for release, or have been produced within the past three to four years. Read the credits to see who was involved and research them to the best of your abilities.

I know that "Get Ed" involved companies around the world in its production.

Good Luck...and if you find out why the killed my favorite shows, drop us line here.

@ Ken Davis, yeah that helps, I hadn't thought about the medium being successful relating to the market, but you are right, it seems the best or at least most effective CG shows are the pre-school aimed ones. I imagine it has something to do with simplicity that is acceptable, such as Pokoyo. It has a very simple but very clear and effective design, simple enough to be rendered very nicely with some stylistically elegant animation.

When you say action shows are expensive to produce, I can understand why. Do you have an idea about cost differences between 2d, flash and CG action shows? Like is a CG action show 20% more expensive to create on average? I would guess that the gap is decreasing, but it's hard to find clear information on this.

@Wontobe, I think you are right that there is a niche to fill, but I think it's making enitre dynamic shows not just backgrounds :) That brings up another good question though, are there studios that specialize in just parts of shows like a show in which the backgrounds are done by one company and another produces the characters? Obviously sound is probably not done in-house so why not splitting the animation tasks between companies?

I am definitely doing research now, but you are right to focus on things coming out now or out recently. I think my initial goal was to mainly just find things that I liked or that I thought were done successfully. Of course ultimately, more than technique, it comes down to story and character development, even voice acting can play a bigger role than the actual animation in forming the success of a show.

Oh and Wontobe, sorry I missed it, but what is your favorite show that was cancelled?

I really liked ReBoot when I was younger, although it looks dated now, they put some significant effort in the actual storytelling and were clever enough to make a story in which the style was totally logical and actually pretty forward thinking. The idea of 3D games at the level of their renders was unheard of, I think the Sega Genesis was the state of the art at the time.

Thanks for all the good info guys! Keep it coming!

-Chris

---------------------
Chris Smallfield
Head of 3D - Shape Minds and Moving Images
My Work

I really liked ReBoot when I was younger, although it looks dated now, they put some significant effort in the actual storytelling and were clever enough to make a story in which the style was totally logical and actually pretty forward thinking. The idea of 3D games at the level of their renders was unheard of, I think the Sega Genesis was the state of the art at the time.

I was involved in the early stages of Reboot; contributed designs for some of the secondary characters, and storyboarded on the 2nd episode ( it had a racing theme, iirc). Reboot was pioneering for its day, the first few episodes took over TWO YEARS to produce--because nothing like it had ever really been done before. There was a ton of money thrown into the thing--and I'd bet, with adjusted-for-inflation dollars that the first, oh...........6 episodes of Reboot could be the most expensive cartoons of all time.
There were literally millions of dollars spent to get it off the ground.

I can say that the story process was meticulous, and somewhat "political" in that there were several directors looking over the very early episodes at one time, and changes to the stories and storyboards were often spurious and arbitrary. Having been in the thick of it for a short time, I thought it a wonder their early shows made any sense at all.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Oh and Wontobe, sorry I missed it, but what is your favorite show that was cancelled?

Thanks for all the good info guys! Keep it coming!

-Chris

They were all my favorite show. In hind sight, shows have to give way for new material to surface. I just feel like that are too many books that are being published but are only partially written.

@ Ken Davis - That is really cool that you worked on ReBoot, thanks very much for the insight into the process. Even in commercials I often wonder how anything gets done, working on a project with a singular vision is a dream, but is about as rare as a dodo bird.

@ Wontobe - yeah it is really heartbreaking for a series to end in the middle of the story leaving you hanging forever. Cartoons are especially bad at that, not getting a chance to end it properly. I wonder if you could ever get it written into a contract that if the show is canceled you get one last episode to close it up.

-Chris

---------------------
Chris Smallfield
Head of 3D - Shape Minds and Moving Images
My Work

to csmallfield wasnt reboot a 3d kids show with a character on a surfboard if thats it I didnt care for it. 3d was limited at the time and moved horribly. but you should do something that you like and have some interest or passion for.

if your more concerned with if it sells. than have a genuine interest for what your doing. than its really more of a marketing piece. than something dear to you. the marketing mindset tends to show up in the work

@tyree - I definitely agree. Also I think going into animation to make money is a poor choice, you better love it :) Not that you can't make money, just that if that's your priority, you'd be better off as a lawyer.

My interest in CG examples is more or less so I know what is achievable in that format on a technical level. I am pretty knowledgable about the world of commercial and short form CG, but doing 12-16 22 min episodes in under a year means that you have to be efficient and make some sacrifices in quality in certain areas. It's always interesting to see what different people do with the same limitations. Make the limitation a stylistic element and you can get away with it. Pokoyo is a good example, very nice animation and characters, nicely rendered, super minimal background. It's very effective. The more informed I am about things like that, the more effectively I can design a cool show that is actually possible within current tech and budget constraints, at least that's my theory :)

In defense of ReBoot, it was a very different time, different technology, so you have to look at it through that lens, in my opinion. I really enjoyed it and some elements of it still hold up.

-Chris

---------------------
Chris Smallfield
Head of 3D - Shape Minds and Moving Images
My Work

to no degree was I saying dont do 3d. I do 3d. Ive even done 3d that looks just like 2d. and I dont mean cel shading. on big projects 3d will save you time. but you have to be well versed in it already. trying to learn on demand and produce something of quality is tough

Chris-- do you mean in terms of subject matter?

If so, pre-school shows work very well in CGI. Flash can also work well with pre-school material.
Comedy shows tend not to work well in CGI.
Action Adventure shows tend to be expensive to produce in any medium, CGI, 2D, Flash etc....

Does that help??

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)