You know i do understand that with time comes change. But this type of change really gets under my skin. Traditional animation is what i grew up with and its what lured me into the field. But the fact that CG (Though i do love) animation is completely taken over bothers me. After hearing that Disney terminated its 2d department was like a knife to my heart. Maybe im old fashioned, maybe i need to embrace change and get over it but i still believe that there is room for both 2d and 3d. but something tells me that in 10 years or less the animation world will be completely 3-dimensional. What do u think animation will be like in 10 years?
—
What would scooby do?
While your description of Disney's latest 3D tools is overly idealistic (we have very artist-friendly proprietary 3D tools, but there is currently no tool where "you draw your stuff and the computer makes it 3D for you"), your assessment of the fundamentals of animation remaining the same is on the money.
It may surprise people to know that half of the animators on "Chicken Little" are former 2D folks. So are half of the Layout artists, painters, etc. The current crew at WDFA (though much smaller than it used to be) is a pretty vital blend of "2D" and "3D" folks, hard at work on 3D digital films (I hate the term "computer animated", because PEOPLE animate - and when they let the computer "animate" the result is typically crap).
I don't know how many of you saw the "Cartoony Character Setup" presentation at last year's SIGGRAPH conference, but I think many will find "Chicken Little" to be very heartening in terms of the results you can get when you apply traditional principles (and artists) to digital technology. Results which make designations of "2D" and "3D" entirely secondary to "great animation" and (hopefully) "great film". Wait until you see what Nik Ranieri and the others are doing. :-)
Chin up!
Kevin Geiger
(Full disclosure: Disney CG Supervisor, MFA in Computer Graphics, BFA in Painting and Sculpture)
[I]Kevin Geiger
Director & Co-founder
The Animation Co-op
http://www.animationcoop.org/[/I]
pretty much the same..
some good, some bad, some green, some blue...
some smart ones,some stupid ones..
Animations with soul and heart, others that are pure selling devices, marketing ploys..
generally regarder as beeing for kids..
tv series and features...
maybe there will be a dip in the " prominence of animation" in the media world, maybe not..
all in all, it changes while remaining the same..
as far as the " techniques" go..
oh yeah.. that will EVOLVE...
as far as beeing three d...
have you ever looked at some of the old popeye animations???
i'm thinking about ali baba and the 40 thieves.. when they go into the cave..
all of a sudden, you have that three d impression because they'd shoot the animation drawings through a different lens!
wow..
that was,.... whe,, in the forties??
wow...
have you ever seen john lasseter's first piece??
the one with the pixel art that is all three d but was actually done one drawing at the time( the little pencil and the computer thing?
it was posted here a while ago)
have you heard of that new software that some guys at disney( and i'm sure other places will have it soon) ..where you draw you're stuff , and the conmputer makes it three d for you??
What i am trying to say is that , allthough the outside of it willchange, animationin itself will, in my opinion, pretty much stay the same ..
saquash, stretch, laugh, emotions, stories well told or not, great characters, and exquisite villains....
Are you afraid of not finding a place in the cg world or that animation is actually growing??
that's a real question...
when you think about it..
a lot of " traditional" looking animation is CG .. since it's pretty much all computer generated..
wether it is a flash show, or even something drawn on paper that is scanned and comped in after effects,final cut or anything..
i'm really not trying to break your thread or anything..
i'm just trying to understand wheter we are afraid of not finding a place for ourselves, or if it is really something else!
that's all..
It's early in the morning ( for me).. so.. if this is off subject.. shoot me.. i can take it.. i'm a big boy !
P.
All film making evolves including animation. As technology changes so does the film makers desire to create images in a different manner. Sometimes the film maker drives the change sometimes the other way around.
The one constant is good story telling. There will always be a place for good old 2D. I for one don't believe it is dead. It's just evolving to encompass the tools that are out there. Of course in the buisness of animation it is often the hotest new thing that everyone wants to do.Don't get me wrong I love 3D. Especialy when it is done well but from a buisness standpoint it is also what sells.
Audiences can be fickle and studios are afraid to go against the market reasearch that they conduct. If they are going to invest 50 million into a film they want to make sure that it's going to return a profit.
Market drives content as much as technology does. I for one can't wait to see what will be new in 10 years!
The only thing to do with good advice is to pass it on. It is never of any use to oneself. My Blog: Strange Thoughts
I can wait for it...about 10 years =)
Some smart person has a quote in their signature here that says, implied and paraphrased, that photography didn't kill painting, so why should 2D feel threatened by 3D? I think actual hand drawn work that stays a drawing, and gets painted as cels, is going to face a lot of uphill battles because of technology, but as for supplanting all 2D goodness with 3D? Not only do you generally have to roughly 2D animate to be any good at 3D animation (speaking of the planning stages) but they -are- in fact two separate mediums!
Animation is a concept applicable to a medium, not one specific medium in itself. Why do you think 3D folks get knocked all the time for being "puppeteers of marionettes?" It's a whole different way of working. So long as people want the most direct experience of what it's all about, 2D will be as strong as it ever was. Draftsmanship is the basic building block for almost any fine art, and building blocks by definition are the hardest to budge.
This happens every so many decades. A new trend comes in and scares the bageebers out of us traditional animators.
The truth of the matter is, regardless of Spielberg's or Lucas's renditions of our future, one thing that we'll always want, and moreso...need, is good old human touch.
of course 3D is flooding through the gates at top speeds, wiping out everything in its path, including us die-hard, lifelong bred traditional animators, but that's exactly what's supposed to happen. This is how something sticks into our past, and continues on into the future. This means that we've found something worthwhile, beautiful. If it wasn't, then noone would bother with it.
But if anyone gave a crap about my opinion, I'd suggest two things...
1-Shape up or ship out. If there aren't any jobs for traditional animators, then "do as the romans do". Learn 3D. Sure, it's complicated, but it's learnable. It's also a very artistic medium...TO ARTISTS!! hehe...you see, this is where us traditional animators, with a lifelong background of hand-drawn artistry comes in. Anyone can download a software, and learn how to use the tools...but being an artist is a gift that you either have or don't. So any of us out there that bother to take the plunge, will very quickly be well ahead of the game once you grow comfortable with the technical side of 3D animation.
2- Don't worry, what goes around, comes around. Remember that 3D is the latest "trend". Sure, it'll most likely be around forever, but as all trends go, they get milked to death, then eventually, people start looking for something more. One thing that a CG image will never be able to replicate, is the human flaw. That's the most appealing thing about art in the first place. Did you know that after the modellers, the riggers, the texture artists, the lighters, the FX animators and the character animators have their way with a character, hundreds of hours are then spent "dirtying" up the characters and environments, to make them more flawed, natural, and ultimately appealing. This is because CG animators face the obstacle of things looking "too robotic" and "cold", and know that in order to capture realism and feeling, they need to make it flawed. This is something that a traditional artist achieves with a single stroke of their pencil.
So, once 3D animation reaches the point where 3D animation will be produced with a 3D stylus in natural space, we'll all be back on the payroll. Until then, start studying Maya or 3DS Max, or Softimage XSI.
Remember, a software is updatable and expendable, but an artistic mind is priceless. Those aren't just words of encouragement, their a reality. Just don't lose touch with that fact.
Adam
So erudite, so articulate. You're like the Adam Duff I never had.
"Erudite"
adj : having or showing profound knowledge; "a learned jurist"; "an erudite professor"
I loved the sound of that word so much, I looked it up in the dictionary. I thought to myself..."Damn, wit a woyd like dat, I'll be able to get me all kinds of womyms!".
It's a priceless word my friend...wow, not to mention flattering....tell you what, if you one day find yourself venturing into the world of PR, look me up...I'll let you represent me anyday.
10-Q
Adam
Ya know, the funniest thing is, with all my intelligence and with as broad a spectrum as my vocabulary weaves, I'd only ever heard that word and made guesses as to its meaning. But it IS really sexy, so I too looked it up, to find out what it is I was (professor called me out). She also used the word "pejorative" which excited me, because I'd heard it out of maybe 4 real people since I've been born.
Glad you like it, it DOES fit.
Unfortunately for your press career, while I do retain an incredible side interest in the world of marketing and public relations, my focus on animation is pretty singular...In another world, though, I'd take your offer any day of the week =)
Isn't 10-Q a form? First time I've seen that closing, forgive my analytical nature :)
Ahhh...
Senor Scattered....you have your "Erudite", I have my 10-Q.
A friend of mine wrote "10-Q" to me on MSN one day...At first, it didn't click...and I asked him the same question you just asked me...
Then of course...it clicked..
The next time someone writes you "10-Q", the polite response would be..."You're welcome".
Good one eh?
Adam
every new medium demands its own sacrificial casualty.
even inside animation.
fred moore was one of the 'old school' greats, along with norm ferguson.
he was disney, as marc davis observed. but the thing that made him great--
simplicity and charm-- was the thing that held him back when disney moved forward to sophistication.
fred moore and norm ferguson, as ben sharpsteen says, were tragic victims of development in animation, simply because they were not able to cope with change.
i don't see too many people feeling guilty over that. why?
we only see ourselves as victims of change,
not as benefactors of change that once claimed casualties along the road.
Don't worry. All shall be well.
Thanks you guys for all your responses, i'll still worry but your comments made me feel a lot more comfortable.:)
What would scooby do?
Kukit,
How Erudite! hehe...
Samson, you're supposed to worry and panic...that's what makes life exciting. If you weren't panicking, you'd be complaining that you hated your boring old job.
You're never gonna win, cause you ain't supposed to win!
Adam
PS...But every now and then, you'll kick ass for a while.
I belive 2d will thrive for a long wile, it may not be as snazzy as 3d but it has a nicer, less plasticky feal to it.
now that's smart, adam. that's the life i know.
as long as you find traditional animation your personal expression,
the art will live.
let the producer worry about the audiences. that's their job.
now y'all be erudite now, ya hear.
Don't worry. All shall be well.