why?i mean...why be like this? the same arguement was on another forum,i think it was cgtalk,a guy said telling someone they can't post a repeat question is like telling people on a bus they can't have their conversation because someone already had that one last week.
anyway i don't want to start any debates,i just don't see why people can't be like ape above and try to be helpful.And if the question has been asked why not post a link to the other thread,oh whats that? cant be bothered?..exactly.heh thats how others feel too ,then we are back to square one.
;)
If u like why not make a thread to be stickied,if not,i'll start one right now.
DSB i'm not talking directly to you by the way.i mean everyone.
I've posted so many links in the past and the same old things crop up all the time. Ape just got his mod stripes so he's being especially kind right now, but you know new folks should take some time getting acquainted with the board and seeing what posts have been ask in the past and already answered in nausieum. It's like some school teacher gives the link to AWN and we get swamped with the same old stuff, once the assignments are over we never hear from these guys again. Want to be a viable part of AWN, do like Gabe, put examples of your work out there and let the sh*t fly and keep coming back for more.
on the one hand, i remember reading somewhere else that john lasseter, set to become the new honcho of animation at disney/pixar, was prepared to give the producers and animators at the two companies free reign to embark on traditional 2D projects, and was even encouraging it, as the animation community seems to be clamoring for a return to that type of animation. on the other hand, the amount of money that's been put into converting disney into a force in the CG community would suddenly look like a total waste if lasseter decided to return to 2D animation.
the other side of it is that, as the article i read at jimhillmedia.com points out, pixar has been successful because they take their time with each project as opposed to churning out a new movie every six months, as disney did after the success of "the little mermaid" and "alladdin." as the head of disney, lassetter won't have the luxury of taking the same time with his projects, and as such, the quality of future pixar releases can realistically be expected to decline.
in the end, who knows? maybe some new technology will emerge that makes current CG technology obsolete and changes the face of the industry again. just some thoughts.
I wasn't just talking about feature films, or major studios, for that matter.
You don't see how taking risks on a 7-minute cartoon is wholly different than taking risks on a 70-minute feature? I doubt that.
Maybe you weren't talking just about feature films or major studios; if that's the case, then your comparison has no merit, because the films you're holding up as examples were created under a well-funded studio system.
The reason it's apples and oranges is that there is no comparable system today to that which Jones, Avery, et al, created under. These guys were salaried employees, showing up and doing their job year in and year out. Compare that to today, where each and every short produced must find a source of financing and a staff to work on it (even if the financing and the staff is all one person). It's not only not surprising that we don't have similar films being released today, but it's a freakin' miracle that any shorts ever get made at all. If you like, we can extend this discussion into distribution, and how the Termite Terrace gang had guaranteed screen time when they were finished, as compared to today. Again, apples and oranges.
While we're at it, let's keep in mind that the legends you mentioned didn't always take risks, especially once one that they'd taken paid off. Roadrunner cartoons are wholly formulaic. There's a reason we now have what's known as a "Tex Avery-style."
Also, keep in mind that animated shorts were never huge moneymakers for studios, even in their heyday. They broke even or provided a small profit at best. Warners shuttered their shorts unit when it began costing the studio money. Disney was never consistently in the black as a studio until Disneyland opened, nearly 30 years after the birth of Mickey.
I'm not surprised you disagree with my interpretation of the former studio system. We also differ in our opinions on whether one can earn a living in the animation industry. To each his own...
on the one hand, i remember reading somewhere else that john lasseter, set to become the new honcho of animation at disney/pixar, was prepared to give the producers and animators at the two companies free reign to embark on traditional 2D projects, and was even encouraging it, as the animation community seems to be clamoring for a return to that type of animation. on the other hand, the amount of money that's been put into converting disney into a force in the CG community would suddenly look like a total waste if lasseter decided to return to 2D animation.
Disney Feature doing 2D again doesn't exclude it from doing 3D projects as well. There's no reason they can't do both, and in fact they have in the past. "Dinosaur," anyone?
Anyway, if they decided to chuck all 3D at Disney, that also would not be unprecedented. They dumped the Secret Lab, after all...
the other side of it is that, as the article i read at jimhillmedia.com points out, pixar has been successful because they take their time with each project as opposed to churning out a new movie every six months, as disney did after the success of "the little mermaid" and "alladdin." as the head of disney, lassetter won't have the luxury of taking the same time with his projects, and as such, the quality of future pixar releases can realistically be expected to decline.
First off, take everything you read at JimHillMedia with an extra-large grain of salt. For example, Jim also said after the merger was annouced that Circle 7 would figure large in Disney's future plans...
That said, I don't think that Pixar's quality declining is an inevitability (there have, after all, been three Pixar hits without Lasseter at the helm), and Lasseter has enough of a track record at this point that he'll be able to do things his way, at least for the forseeable future. And if he churns out a handful of hits as the top guy at Disney animation, he'll have even more clout.
why?i mean...why be like this? the same arguement was on another forum,i think it was cgtalk,a guy said telling someone they can't post a repeat question is like telling people on a bus they can't have their conversation because someone already had that one last week.
It's nothing at all like that. It's more like walking into a Godiva shop and asking if they sell chocolate.
Or more like a bus with all sorts of information posted along the walls and in magazines in the back of the seat of the person in front of you. It's not that it's against the law to ask the question...it's...why ask it? The information's there, along the wall, or in that magazine...
I just call 'em as I see 'em. I've got plenty of sunshine in my heart with respect to the _art_ of animation. The problem is the business of it. A lot of people, especially young people, have unrealistic ideas about it. Maybe my sunny personality would come across better if I didn't disillusion them, but I don't think I'd be doing them a favor that way.
I was just teasing back there. The harshness comes from the fact that it's painted as an impossibility. Beat them and scare them, but the fact is that a .1% exception is still an exception, no?
This is what ScatteredLogical wrote:
"But for all the 'evils' of the business and businessmen, you have to admit it's pretty remarkable what creativity is still able to eek through, no?"
This was my response:
"No, I don't. Not nowadays, anyway. I think it was remarkable what Harman and Ising, Tex Avery, Chuck Jones, and some others were able to do under unfavorable circumstances. When I think about what could be produced with the wealth and technology we have today, and see what's actually being produced, it breaks my heart."
You just proved my point. You're comparing short films made under a studio system with... what? Shorts made independently? Feature films that employ animation?
The first step in making any kind of comparison is finding common ground upon which to judge. All you've suggested is that films (shorts? features?) today don't measure up to classics. Fine - based upon what? I've suggested (repeatedly) that there are concrete reasons why. You continue to disagree without offering any additional clarification on how you're coming to your conclusion.
No one's arguing you're not right in feeling the way you do. All I'm suggesting is that you need to find some common ground for comparison. Your Jones vs. current work (whatever that is) argument falls short in that regard.
I've posted so many links in the past and the same old things crop up all the time. Ape just got his mod stripes so he's being especially kind right now, but you know new folks should take some time getting acquainted with the board and seeing what posts have been ask in the past and already answered in nausieum. It's like some school teacher gives the link to AWN and we get swamped with the same old stuff, once the assignments are over we never hear from these guys again. Want to be a viable part of AWN, do like Gabe, put examples of your work out there and let the sh*t fly and keep coming back for more.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
well dsb made a sticky thread now,but its the horror of finding the threads that will put us in the newbies shoes heh.
speaking of ape being friendly,phacker,you don't seem like an angry person anymore? what happened:D ?
ANIMATION FORUM
Production Blog
With the new board Swade and I made up...kissy, kissy:p
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
on the one hand, i remember reading somewhere else that john lasseter, set to become the new honcho of animation at disney/pixar, was prepared to give the producers and animators at the two companies free reign to embark on traditional 2D projects, and was even encouraging it, as the animation community seems to be clamoring for a return to that type of animation. on the other hand, the amount of money that's been put into converting disney into a force in the CG community would suddenly look like a total waste if lasseter decided to return to 2D animation.
the other side of it is that, as the article i read at jimhillmedia.com points out, pixar has been successful because they take their time with each project as opposed to churning out a new movie every six months, as disney did after the success of "the little mermaid" and "alladdin." as the head of disney, lassetter won't have the luxury of taking the same time with his projects, and as such, the quality of future pixar releases can realistically be expected to decline.
in the end, who knows? maybe some new technology will emerge that makes current CG technology obsolete and changes the face of the industry again. just some thoughts.
You don't see how taking risks on a 7-minute cartoon is wholly different than taking risks on a 70-minute feature? I doubt that.
Maybe you weren't talking just about feature films or major studios; if that's the case, then your comparison has no merit, because the films you're holding up as examples were created under a well-funded studio system.
The reason it's apples and oranges is that there is no comparable system today to that which Jones, Avery, et al, created under. These guys were salaried employees, showing up and doing their job year in and year out. Compare that to today, where each and every short produced must find a source of financing and a staff to work on it (even if the financing and the staff is all one person). It's not only not surprising that we don't have similar films being released today, but it's a freakin' miracle that any shorts ever get made at all. If you like, we can extend this discussion into distribution, and how the Termite Terrace gang had guaranteed screen time when they were finished, as compared to today. Again, apples and oranges.
While we're at it, let's keep in mind that the legends you mentioned didn't always take risks, especially once one that they'd taken paid off. Roadrunner cartoons are wholly formulaic. There's a reason we now have what's known as a "Tex Avery-style."
Also, keep in mind that animated shorts were never huge moneymakers for studios, even in their heyday. They broke even or provided a small profit at best. Warners shuttered their shorts unit when it began costing the studio money. Disney was never consistently in the black as a studio until Disneyland opened, nearly 30 years after the birth of Mickey.
I'm not surprised you disagree with my interpretation of the former studio system. We also differ in our opinions on whether one can earn a living in the animation industry. To each his own...
That's him. Thanks DSB. :D
Mahalo,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
Disney Feature doing 2D again doesn't exclude it from doing 3D projects as well. There's no reason they can't do both, and in fact they have in the past. "Dinosaur," anyone?
Anyway, if they decided to chuck all 3D at Disney, that also would not be unprecedented. They dumped the Secret Lab, after all...
First off, take everything you read at JimHillMedia with an extra-large grain of salt. For example, Jim also said after the merger was annouced that Circle 7 would figure large in Disney's future plans...
That said, I don't think that Pixar's quality declining is an inevitability (there have, after all, been three Pixar hits without Lasseter at the helm), and Lasseter has enough of a track record at this point that he'll be able to do things his way, at least for the forseeable future. And if he churns out a handful of hits as the top guy at Disney animation, he'll have even more clout.
It's nothing at all like that. It's more like walking into a Godiva shop and asking if they sell chocolate.
No it's more like walking in asking if they give it away for free, and will they do your homework on chocolate making for you for free too.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Or more like a bus with all sorts of information posted along the walls and in magazines in the back of the seat of the person in front of you. It's not that it's against the law to ask the question...it's...why ask it? The information's there, along the wall, or in that magazine...
I was just teasing back there. The harshness comes from the fact that it's painted as an impossibility. Beat them and scare them, but the fact is that a .1% exception is still an exception, no?
You just proved my point. You're comparing short films made under a studio system with... what? Shorts made independently? Feature films that employ animation?
The first step in making any kind of comparison is finding common ground upon which to judge. All you've suggested is that films (shorts? features?) today don't measure up to classics. Fine - based upon what? I've suggested (repeatedly) that there are concrete reasons why. You continue to disagree without offering any additional clarification on how you're coming to your conclusion.
No one's arguing you're not right in feeling the way you do. All I'm suggesting is that you need to find some common ground for comparison. Your Jones vs. current work (whatever that is) argument falls short in that regard.
No one ever worries about the futures of Stop Motion animators :(
I thought all Stop Motion animators were eccentric millionaires only in it for the love of animation.
Pages