No, Leon Schlesinger wasn't an animator but this is the closest picture I could find on the net to an animator wearing a crown. Anyway, to get back to the title question....What is the proper role of an animator in an animated cartoon? That's easy. I can answer in one word..."king!" In animation the animator is king. Everybody else's job exists to make the animator look good. The rest of us, even the director, are like the hairdressers and make-up people on a live-action set. We exist to make the actor, i.e., the animator, look good. We exist to maximize his chance of achieving glory on the screen.
In a saner world the animator would be a star. His name would be known to the public and the public would argue over who the best animators are. Animators would have groupies, artistic pique, scandalous divorces, punch-outs with paparazzi, would get fat for parts and write tell-all biographies. The best of them would also break their backs to make the performances that will be remembered forever.
It seems to me that the best way to achieve this is to bring the animation back under the roof of the parent studio. Why we ever let it leave is beyond me. Animators are our performers. In their absence we've had decades of souless cartoons. We've been trying to tell stories without actors.
We need to start training animators now. The studios should help art schools to organize their animation programs more efficiently. Good animators should be rewarded with good salaries and stories should be written with the kind of scenes that animators like to work on. Most of all we need cheap and easy to use pencil test programs and internet tutorials on their use.
39 comments:
I agree Eddie. 2d will be back soon enough. With flash taking over, studios are doing more in house animation. I cant stand the fact that so many products are sent out of the country..Keep the jobs here man!
I agree, more pencil tests!!!
Why we ever let it leave is beyond me.
They can pay people in poorer countries in just pennies compared to what it would take to pay a skilled artist right in the studio. It all comes down to money after all, even if the product's quality is sacrificed.
Incidently, the first studio to incorporate this practice was the Jay Ward studio. They outsourced Rocky & Bullwinkle to Mexico. However, both Jay and Bill Scott weren't happy with the results and they hated travelling back and forth accross the Mexican border just to get things done.
You can, of all people, blame the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice for breaking the bonds between studios and animation studios.
Prior to ca. 1947-1948, there were the "Big Five" studios, i.e., MGM, Paramount, Warner Bros., RKO and 20th Century-Fox. These were given this rank because they owned production, distribution *and* exhibition (movie theatre) facilities. (Columbia and Universal were not considered majors at this time, though both were competitive; you also had the Republics and the like.)
Note that of the Big Five, three (MGM, Paramount and WB) owned cartoon studios outright, with RKO getting material from Disney and Fox from Terrytoons.
How is this relevant? Well, historically, short subjects were part of a rounded package of a programme, newsreel, short, feature, &c. Profit margins on cartoons were, for the most part, fairly slim, though as long as the package held together, the costs could be justified. The advent of radio did not, in and of itself, seriously dent moviegoing.
However, the Big Five to a certain extent abused their position through tactics like "block booking" (forcing theatres to take crap if they wanted good stuff, put bluntly), which got the DOJ involved. In the so-called "Paramount Decrees," the Big Five were forced to sell off their theatre chains. (Paramount's ended up merging with ABC in the early 50s, saving that network.)
Along with the rise of television, the loss of this revenue stream caused the studios to rethink their whole business strategy, and the short subject started to die out, though it lingered on until the early to mid-60s as part of studio strategy. (WB, Paramount and Universal were still making shorts into the late 60s, for example.)
Studios, in my view, could revive the in-house animation studio. So could television networks. But it would require something beyond a strict bottom-line mentality, which in the absence of folks like William Paley or David Selznick, simply doesn't exist.
With flash taking over, studios are doing more in house animation.
And in my opinion that phenomenon is also leading to the destruction of the industry. Flash only keeps jobs in North America because it enables shows to be done as cheaply and quickly as is humanly possible, thereby satisfying the penny-pinching desires of the purchasers/broadcasters.
I have a very talented friend working in the industry who is getting very frustrated with only finding work on Flash shows where he is not able to use the skills he spent several years in school learning. He loves to draw but finds that Flash generally only allows him to shift pre-existing character pieces around on screen, not really letting him draw at all. In fact, he claims that many of the "animators" employed in the studios aren't even skilled in drawing to begin with and are largely technicians more than artists.
Before the advent of computer animation and Flash in particular, this idea of animators who don't draw would have been inconceivable. Yet here we have that situation rampant today and it seems to be an accepted reality. It's only a matter of time before the animator is removed from the equation altogether, let alone being elevated to the level of a "star" as Uncle Eddie suggests he should be, and to which I heartily agree. What has happened to the art and craft of the animated cartoon which was what led most of us to this industry in the first place? Just sad really...
The only thing I don't like is the way Wacoms feel when I try and draw on them. All slippery like a skate on ice. The surface tooth is completely different. I think we have a LONG ways off before paper starts disappearing, but I do understand the implementation of Cintiqs and whatever else to simplify the process. Which is scary. I like using a digital pen once the work is actually IN the computer... but I hope that animation paper doesn't go the way of the Gertie. See, because Gertie is a dinosaur.
Trevour, you should try the Felt Nibs. It's not quite pencil on paper but it's a lot better than the writing on glass feel of the original nibs.
Pete E - Where is your friend working? I was trained traditionally, but I still adore working in Flash, and find plenty of freedom within the program.
As for the "cheaply" bit: A team at our studio animated a 7-minute short in roughly 2 weeks --something that would have taken 3 months had it been sent overseas-- but the costs, if I'm not mistaken, were comprable, since animators in the states are paid much more than their counterparts overseas.
Right now, I'm working on a second short for Nickelodeon, and with the help of some really talented artists, animating it in Flash. People assume all Flash animation is amounts to is the cheap stuff you see on the web, which is entirely untrue. Just like with any medium, it can be made to look like amateurish crap, or one can use their artistic talents and the program to their full potential and come up with something really spectacular.
Animation is about storytelling, captivating your audience and creating expression and emotion in a character. I don't see what difference it makes whether you accomplish that with Flash, or 3D, or paper, or mud on a large, flat rock, as long as you accomplish it! ;)
If the whole public cried for inhouse animators, they'd come back.
Charles - I was unaware of these felt nibs. I'll have to check them out.
"It all comes down to money after all, even if the product's quality is sacrificed."
Well, no it doesn't. There is plenty of money. It's just spent in all the wrong places.
Eddie is absolutely right. If they spent it on animators, they would then in turn make a lot more back because cartoons would be fun again and the audience likes to have fun.
Popeye, Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse and the like are the most popular stars in history and made billions of dollars for the greedy folks that left the artists alone to create their craft and stars.
I wish people gave a shit about animators. Unfortunately they don't. they only care about hip character designers or concept artists who probably don't even know how to animate in the first place.
oh well!
The animator is indeed the key talent in making animation, but animation as practiced in the old style traditional animation studios needs the whole support staff of assistants, ink & paint, and camera work to make the animator's work presentable. (otherwise, it's just a series of drawings with numbers on them) Flash and other digital tools help to fill this gap, but I really think an animator needs an animation studio to bring his (or her) work to finish. It was generally assumed that to learn to animate, you had to do it every day for a year - in this time a junior animator would get every kind of scene, and have to figure out how to pull it off - after that, you would be a "journeyman" animator, knowing the basics, and you could start to develop a style. I would like to see Cartoon Network or Nick invest in training animators - but I agree with John - They are spending a lot of their budget "above the line". Creative animation can transcend content, as we can see in Jim Tyer's work for Terrytoons - It's fun to look at - The "story arc" and other elements that eat up such a big part of the budget really become irrelevant in the face of the "entertainment value" of funny animation. I watch a lot of cartoons with my 4-8 year old neice & nephew, and they have yet to complain about any "unresolved character arcs" - but they will laugh out loud at a funny piece of business when Popeye eats his spinach and beats up Bluto!
Kent B
Well, no it doesn't. There is "plenty of money. It's just spent in all the wrong places."
I agree 100%.I found out that it costs 1.2 million dollars to make an episode of The Simpsons. By comparison,look at Chuck Jones' "The Dover Boys" short,that cartoon was made in 1942 and it had better animation then any episode of The Simpsons.
By the way, that Dover Boys short had LIMITED animation and cost not even fraction of a episode of The Simpsons.
Animation left the studios because of the free market. Outside houses could do it cheaper because they had less overhead. Offshore houses did it even cheaper because they has lower labor costs. You could say the salaries of animators and corporate greed are to blame for animation going where it's cheapest.
I found the proper attire for a proper animator to inspire the proper respect!
See ya
Steve
Expanding on John K's point:
"Popeye, Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse and the like are the most popular stars in history and made billions of dollars for the greedy folks that left the artists alone to create their craft and stars."
The secret to Leon S.'s genius is that he'd drop in to see a screening & say: "Thath's thwell, fellas, I'm off to the track!" (He was the inspiration for the voice of Daffy. As far as I know, History is silent about whether he ever realised it.) The best thing a producer can bring to the job is benign neglect where creative matters are concerned. Making art is an learning process where the better you get, the more you realise how far you have to go. The average producer nowadays lacks the education to tell artists what to do. All ideas are equal to him. He likes his own ideas best because they're his. If it weren't for their awesome & mysterious ability to make paychecks happen, I'd piss on them from a great height.
There is always plenty of money for development executives, whether it's feast or famine for the rest of the industry.
I think cartoons and computers should be seperate. Computerized inking and painting sucks, and doesn't look nearly as good as hand painted.
Maybe you should hope to merely
see more ways of easily scanning a stack of animation drawings automatically into a computer, if you want to see the pencil and paper reappear. I mean, you might feel more confortable taking a pad of pegged paper on a drawing board to the park with you, than a tablet computer.
The main problem I have had with Wacom style tablets is, although I can generally get a fairly lush line with a lot less trouble than a brush, is that, I have to draw larger than habit engrained through years doodling in margins through a boring education, to get that line to work properly.
I can't imagine the situation being too much more natural even on those touch screen solutions, there still seems to be that drawing on glass to see it appear on the other side aspect.
As an animation producer, I would have to say that the best thing a producer can do is to handle the day to day duties so the artists can focus on creating. When all the practical details are being coordinated, a creative atmosphere can be sustained. The best animation producers are the ones the artists don't have reason to even notice.
See ya
Steve
I read the posts about Wacom and Cintique tablets with great interest. I don't own one so my skeptical opinion about them has to be taken with a grain of salt. I'll try to post on it soon.
Steve: Good for you Steve! I Steve was great to work with because he did exactly what he described in his note.
I think an animation revolution is on the rise. I have a good set of teeth so I'd be good for the battle. I would love to be trained, so please feel free to paint the red, blue, and yellow stripes on me and send me in. We will armor up in half suits and clench the best crafted Ebony pencils in our fists!
I think the future is bright for animators who can create funny short films by themselves, ala Bill Plympton and the like.
I see a future where the director and storyman just hand scenes to the animators who then have at it with minimal restrictions.
But those animators need to kick ass and be able to make movies independently.
If you saw FLCL, you noticed many different styles within the same episode.
Factory style division of labor is history.
Two points:
1. Seasoned animation professionals, such as myself, should be allowed to drink on the job.
2. Actually, animation sheet timers should be the kings.
Otherwise, a great post, edward.
Hey Eddie, have you ever heard of a man by the name of Bruce Blitz?
Maybe you should hope to merely
see more ways of easily scanning a stack of animation drawings automatically into a computer, if you want to see the pencil and paper reappear.
Back in animation school, we had a scanner that could do just that. It could scan in 50 at a time. But, you had to plug the numbers into the exposure sheet portion of ToonBoom first. That's what I used to make my Hansel und Gretel film.
>>But those animators need to kick ass and be able to make movies independently.
If you saw FLCL, you noticed many different styles within the same episode.
Factory style division of labor is history. <<
If that were true, we would never have great cartoons again. The sensible factory division of labor under great directors is what made animated cartoons such a great art form and superior to comic books and strips.
From Pappy D.
'The best thing a producer can bring to the job is benign neglect where creative matters are concerned.'
From Stephen Worth
'When all the practical details are being coordinated, a creative atmosphere can be sustained. The best animation producers are the ones the artists don't have reason to even notice.'
Most great cultural innovations (art, religion, sciences, music, literature) were initiated by a single person (or a very small group of people) whose motives were not strictly monetary. This is why our government (under Supreme Court ruling) protects inidividuals with tenure positions...we want our cultural vanguards to reinvigorate society and not worry about money. Let the creative people be creative and let the managers deal with daily functionary duties.
The best animation producers are the ones the artists don't have reason to even notice.
-Stephen Worth
What about Walt Disney
Walt hated cartooniness
>>If that were true, we would never have great cartoons again. The sensible factory division of labor under great directors is what made animated cartoons such a great art form and superior to comic books and strips.<<
Interesting. Care to expand? What about my suggested model makes you say "we would never have great cartoons again."
"Too many cooks in the kitchen" would not be an issue with the right restrictions in place.
mr. alarm, you just say that because John K. says it. Even if it is true, his animated films speak for themselves. They make Clampett's films look silly.
>>They make Clampett's films look silly<<
The seriousness of hundreds of naked baby butts caresseing the camera lens and animals wiping plates clean with their asses definitely does make Clampett's cartoons seem silly.
Let's never make silly cartoons.How irresponsible.
I just said that as bait, and you fell for it.
I'm prety sure Bruce Blitz style was flat and generic, using pre-established physical emotions
Not the King. Dukes, Duchesses, Lords, Ladies, Archbishops, High Priests, Knights, Generals and such high command certainly, but not King or Queen. King is the Director, ultimately you’re telling a story, and the story will be better if it’s coming from one solid vision, sure pepper it with many more ideas, but one Ruler to keep it going from every which direction.
Definitely you need to be in a spot to tell the King they’re being an idiot and will lose the throne if they don’t see some sense from those acting on the decree.
Producer and production in general, the best you don’t notice, and when you do notice it’s because they’re doing something wrong. So the general opinion of producers will be that they do nothing, or are doing something bad. With the notion of king and such analogy, I’d say production ranges from Foreign Affairs Minister, Minister of Finance through to scullery.
Post a Comment