The Animation Options Blog

In yesterday’s Yahoo! Finance section, Anne Altman concluded her article “Tips From A Bitter Temp” with a passage that could have been written by any animator or TD:

Settle in. Master the language. Sip the Kool-Aid. But remember: you could be out on a moment’s notice. I was once denied a dollar-an-hour raise. At first I was insulted. But the next week two execs were canned with no notice, led down the hall like criminals, and spirited out with a “We’ll mail you the contents of your desk.” Young guys right out of college were speechless. Me? I poured myself a bowl of Corn Pops and sat back down in my Aeron chair.

There was a period of time during the 90’s when animation was booming, major studios were warring for talent, and each round of year-end bonuses turned parking lots into “new car dealerships”, with SUVs and BMWs sprouting up like daisies. The salad days, we called them. At the time, it seemed conceivable (particularly to the young ‘uns) that you could spend the majority of your career at a single studio, doing rewarding work with an ever-increasing standard of living, just like our grandparents planned to do with General Motors. Sounds quaint in retrospect, doesn’t it?

Well, the salad days are clearly over, yet many employees still find themselves caught like deer in the headlights when they are suddenly handed those cardboard boxes - especially those who labor under the pretense that they are working for a “family”. Sure, buying into the “family” line gives you a big warm fuzzy during the good times, but it’s all the more devastating when you are abruptly shown the door. Where the studio “family” is concerned, you’re better off regarding yourself as a foster child rather than a blood relative. Or else remembering that it’s the Corleone family.

Even more shocking to many so-called “staff” is when they find themselves caught in the undertow of exiting “project hires”. I spoke to one such individual recently who was stunned to receive his exit packet along with the “temporary” employees. He thought he was “staff”, but learned the hard way that in an “at-will” world, we’re ALL temp. When push comes to shove, you will be pushed and shoved.

Which isn’t to say that you can’t remain gainfully employed (whether at one studio or a series of them), make a good living and create a satisfying career for yourself. Just don’t get lulled into the “security” of the Velvet Coffin (as one Burbank studio has been wryly referred to). As long as you’re mindful of the words of Charles De Gaulle, that “The graveyards are full of indispensible men,” you’ll at least see it coming.

In the meantime, have a bowl of Corn Pops and get back to work!

“Human beings are troubled with the opinions (dogmata) they have of things, and not by the things themselves (pragmata).” - Epictetus

Cartoon Brew has posted the above comparison of a storyboard drawing from Walt Disney Animation Studios’ forthcoming feature “Bolt” with a rendered still frame from the movie, under the heading: “Storyboard vs. CG”. No matter that the drawing was probably created in CG as well. The blog entry proceeds to lambaste Disney’s CG production crew (including, I would presume, John Lasseter - who now oversees everything) for failing to adhere to the “character design”.

With all due respect, the good folks at CB seem to have confused storyboarding with character design. Storyboards are NOT character designs. If they were, you’d see the character “mutate” from sequence to sequence according to the varying styles and sensibilities of the board artists. And nevermind that the much-lauded storyboard panel reads like a freakish D-cup amputee. We can all be thankful that it’s not a character design.

A more informed title for this comparison would have been “Storyboard vs. Production”. For, contrary to the stance of the Cartoon Brew blog entry, the discrepancies between the images above are not the product of some inherent deficiency in the CG medium or in CG artists, but rather a consequence - for better and for worse - of the production process. You can present just as many examples of 2D films that have lost their charm along the way when the boards are compared to the cels. And any loss of appeal from storyboard to final output is ultimately the responsibility of the director, who approves everything - by affirmation or by deference.

Let’s review some of the reasons that final frames evolve from the storyboards, in both 2D and 3D animated features:

1. The storyboard is not a character design. It is a drawing that illustrates a story point.
2. The storyboard is a springboard for the scene, not a cage.
3. The storyboard is a single drawing meant to encapsulate an idea, while the rendered still frame is a discrete slice of the interpretation of that idea.
4. The character designer is free to design for the medium, according to the director’s wishes.
5. The director is free to design the character based upon the medium, the appearance and/or performance of the voice actor, or any other reason they like (for example, I can see Mark Walton’s expression very clearly in the design of the CG character).
6. The layout artist is empowered to compose the scene according to the director’s wishes.
7. The animator has license to interpret the scene in service of the director’s evolving vision.
8. The 2D ink & paint artists or 3D lighting artists are not limited to the storyboard artists’ toolset.

Now let’s review some of the reasons that final frames sometimes do indeed “de-volve” from the storyboards, in both 2D and 3D animated features:

1. The scene is noodled to death (by artists, directors, executives or some combination thereof).
2. The production artists are under enormous time constraints.

Is “Bolt” the pinnacle of CG animation? From what I’ve seen of it - no. The unique style of Chris Sanders’ characters and revolutionary painterly backgrounds displayed in the “American Dog” boxcar test at SIGGRAPH 2006 are sorely missed. But the scene pictured above was pretty funny, as I recall from the trailer. Animation is meant to be enjoyed at speed, not picked apart frame-by-frame by fanboys in an agenda-driven navel gazing exercise. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

There will always be those who prefer the boards to the renders, who prefer 2D to 3D, etc. God bless America, we’re all entitled to our opinions. But are directors not permitted to let their films evolve organically and make aesthetic decisions that deviate from the boards, lest they incur online sniping? The very qualities that are often touted as “superior” in the drawings (and are quite enjoyable in measured amounts) can alienate audiences in large doses. I’m reminded of the prologue to “Kung Fu Panda”, which I loved (both the opening sequence and the movie). Many of my friends and colleagues remarked, “That was great! They should have done the entire movie that way.” Well, sure - if you want the audience to (try to) focus upon a “cool style” for 91 minutes as opposed to really identifying with the characters. Aggressive stylization tends to distance the audience from the performance: you find yourself “looking at” as opposed to “being with”. (Tim Burton’s films have this problem - beautiful as they are.) A little of that goes a long way, and I think Dreamworks called it just right in the transition. Of course, this is only my opinion. There’s more than one person out there who will use this very point to explain why 3D is “inferior” to 2D.

Which brings us to the tired ol’ CG bashing at the heart of the Cartoon Brew blog entry. CG artists and animators are used to it, of course. We’ve put up with the sneers for years, often while being asked to help train the same folks who regarded our medium with such disdain. I still recall the 2D animators (some good friends) who hung a computer in effigy from a tree behind Disney’s Southside building during a company party as “Home On The Range” was wrapping, and then bashed it to pieces with sticks while we 3D folks watched from a safe distance. I’m sure it sounds funny now, but it was less so at the time. You can imagine how awkward the punchbowl conversation became.

Over at The Animation Guild Blog, a thread on Disney Animation Studios quickly turned into a referendum on the (de)merits of the CG medium, with one anonymous poster (of the many “anonymi” at TAG) emphatically declaring both that “there isn’t even such a thing as an independent CGI animator”, and also that “There will never be a Glen Keane of CGI.” I must admit that I love absolutist statements that include the word “never”. In fact, I now have “There will never be a Glen Keane of CGI” taped to my monitor. Glen’s animation shines through as Glen’s despite the army of in-betweeners, cleanup artists, painters and scanners who work over his drawings. And there’s no reason why an animator cannot reach the same heights in CGI. Perhaps even Glen himself.

As anyone who has worked with one knows, the computer doesn’t provide you with anything that you don’t input yourself. The computer follows instructions, and its output is only as good as the quality of those instructions - provided by human beings. Great 2D/3D animators, such as Nik Ranieri and Dick Zondag, don’t just take “what the computer provides them” (as the TAG commenter maintained). They are active partners in the creation of their CG characters. They work directly with the modelers and TDs to define rigging capabilities, facial controls and the like which push the boundaries of the art and truly personalize it. When you look at the scene of Buck Cluck talking to Chicken Little in the car, you can “see” Nik the animator. It is every bit a personal performance, evocative of his other great work in 2D. Animator authorship IS possible in CGI. I’ve seen it, and I’ve worked to facilitate it.

Some people like to talk about the “limits” of CGI. Well, let’s explore these “limits” for a moment:

1. The computer allows you to place points (and hence construct & deform surfaces) wherever and however you like in 3D space.
2. The computer allows you to create pixels of whatever color you like.
3. You can have as many points and pixels as you care to, and are supplied with a powerful array of high-level tools to assist your creative brain, your perceptive eyes, and your skillful hands.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I see COMPLETE FREEDOM. The only limitations you face are your own as an artist… or those of your schedule/budget.

So, I look forward to the day when the mediocre work produced by some is not used as justification to slag an entire medium out of fear and ignorance. I look forward to the day when we no longer speak of “2D animators” and “3D animators”, but simply of “animators”. I look forward to the day when the members of the animation community truly come together as one, instead of wasting valuable time, energy and goodwill lobbing stink bombs at each other.

And I look forward to the day when “The Glen Keane Of CG” indeed shows up, and no one even takes note of her as such - for the digital medium she works in is like water: transparent, and in fluid service of her performance and her story.

—

P.S. - The day after I posted this, I was informed that the artist who drew the storyboard image above is the very same individual who approved the model, look and fur groom of the CG character and also the same person who directed the animator assigned to the shot that the rendered frame is taken from. Chew on that, Cartoon Brew!

The Daily Star reports today:

BATMAN actor MICHAEL KEATON will star in the forthcoming TOY STORY movie. Keaton will voice Barbie’s boyfriend Ken in the animated Disney film, which is slated for release in 2010.

A source tells Britain’s Daily Star newspaper, “There’s an embrace (between Barbie and Ken) but not kissing. Toy executives want to keep Barbie’s squeaky clean image.”

However, according to unconfirmed reports, Ken does a tongue tango with Woody in Act III… much to Buzz’s chagrin.

“If being anatomically correct is wrong, then I don’t want to be right!”

Karen Raugust has an article at Animation World Network (AWN) on the challenges facing the Chinese animation industry entitled, appropriately enough, “Challenges Ahead For China”. The article features some observations from moi, and makes mention of “Road To Home”, the Chinese animated feature that I am consulting on in Beijing.

At the SIGGRAPH 2008 conference in Los Angeles this past week, I saw one of the the most depressing student films ever made. It was shown during a panel I participated in entitled, “Teaching Computer Animation For Results”, hosted by my old friend Craig Caldwell of the Griffith University Film School in Brisbane. Each of the four presenters focused upon an educational segment (I drew the “graduate” straw). The short film in question was screened during the undergraduate level portion. In it, a flabby animator pulls an all-nighter in his cubicle. He stares at the cavorting cartoon character on his monitor and wearily laments, “I use to like bears.” Noticing that his coffee pot is empty, he gets up to leave his cube in search of more java. But his ergonomic chair blocks his exit - subtly at first, and then with mounting confrontation. The animator’s desperate attempts to escape this nightmare prove futile as he is forced back into the chair - which “soothingly” rubs his shoulders as he sobs uncontrollably before his unsympathetic monitor: slave to the mis en scene.

The beat outline for this film was described as follows:

• An animator pulls an all-nighter during crunch time
• He notices that he is out of coffee
• The animator tries to leave his cubicle to get more
• He is prevented from doing so by his chair
• The animator learns that there is no time for coffee during crunch time
• He learns that he should do his work without complaint

Somebody slit my wrists now… please. Frankly, I’d expect this sort of “story” from an animation school in North Korea - not from one located in the Southeastern United States. Needless to say, the student filmmaker has probably already been gobbled up by a major studio who is happy to see that someone “gets it”. Who wouldn’t want an employee who “understands” that they can’t leave their cubicle for a cuppa?

Now, I’m no pollyanna. As an animation industry vet, I’ve seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I’ve put in my share of overtime - burning the midnight oil on studio assignments and independent projects alike. I’ve dealt with work-induced RSI, back pain, stress and exhaustion. I know the realities of our business, and it’s not all kittens and unicorns (even when we may be animating kittens and unicorns). So, I wasn’t bothered by the fact that the film’s hapless protagonist didn’t get to take his prescribed union coffee break, or was probably working unpaid OT, or had clearly let his health and personal life go to pot in the service of a menial “effects wizard” position. What bothered me was the loss of fire in the belly, underscored by the opening gag line: “I used to like bears.” Here was a self-portrait (or soon-to-be self-portrait) of an artist whose spark was extinguished, who was forced to sit at his desk and feed the machine without pause like one of those human Duracells in “The Matrix”. There’s nothing wrong with “paying your dues”, but NOT at the cost of your soul.

Ironically, this was a perfect segue into my own segment on the graduate level. The three hallmarks of a graduate education in computer graphics & animation as I see them (based upon my tripod of experience as a graduate student, professor, and recruiting animation supervisor) are as follows:

• Building a bridge: to the industry, academia and/or private practice
• Learning how to learn
• Finding your voice

In addressing these points, the seminal question that I posed to the SIGGRAPH audience was this: “What are you preparing your students for?”

• …a job?
• …a career?
• …or a vocation?

While these three are not mutually exclusive, they are hierarchical. There’s certainly nothing wrong with a job. We all need one - coming in handy as they do for little things like clothes on your back, food in your belly and a roof over your head. But one can easily shlep along from job to job without any sense of a career arc, which is the next level up. Preparing a student for a job involves training, while preparing a student for a career requires education: if job preparation addresses the buttons and menus, then career preparation addresses the concepts and principles underlying those buttons and menus. And vocation preparation addresses the vision that these functional aspects serve. The distinction between career and vocation is that between artisan and artist: the distinction between the hand and the heart. And even the major studios need more of the latter, whether they know it or not.

Which brings me to the subject of the animation industry’s relationship to academia - a dissertation in itself, but something that I will touch upon briefly here. On my flight to Taipei a couple days ago, I was flipping through the latest issue of 3D World magazine, and came across an article in which industry “pressure group” Games Up? was bemoaning the skills crisis in UK games development, and laying blame squarely at the feet of UK schools and universities. In the first place, let me observe that the stance of “pressure group” is very telling, and significantly different than that of “support group”. A “pressure group” is a pointed finger, while a “support group” is a helping hand. And guess which one is superior in terms of intention, commitment and results? My suspicions regarding the attitude of the companies in question were confirmed by a subsequent comment in which an art director spoke ruefully of CG candidates with “salary issues”. Note to companies: like it or not, when demand exceeds supply - as it clearly does in the landscape addressed by the CG World article - any “salary issues” belong to YOU, not your prospective employees. That sword cuts both ways.

The article posed the question: “Are graduates up to the job?” I’d like to turn that right around and ask: “Are companies up to the job?” Are companies willing to partner with schools to create mutually-enriching programs? Are companies willing to democratically support the percentage that is “irrelevant” to them, in order to more effectively seed and leverage upon the percentage that is “relevant”? Are companies brave enough to pleasantly surprise themselves by looking for talent outside of their cookie cutter preconceptions (anyone remember the days before “digital content departments”, when CG artists came from the ranks of biology, architecture and dance programs)? Are companies forward-thinking enough to realize that what they want today is not necessarily what they need tomorrow? And are companies committed enough that if they can’t find what they need today, they don’t just stand there pointing fingers from the self-satisfied ring of their “pressure group”? Rather, they invite schools into their circle: they get involved. It’s a symbiotic relationship, and the more prescient studios - such as Sony Imageworks with their IPAX program - are already wise to this.

That said, I’ll advance the “radical” liberal arts notion that there’s more to an education than turning out “a good little worker bee”. As a student, you should ask yourself: “Do I want to be a drone, or a trailblazer?” And as an institution of higher learning, you should examine yourself: “Do we want to turn out graduates who slot neatly into the job opening of existing production companies, or do we want to turn out graduates who revolutionize the industry, and knock those companies on their @sses?” What is the more inspiring goal? Which philosophy best serves our students (and ultimately our industry) in the long run?

And to the kid and his instructors responsible for the short film about the animator trapped at his desk, take it from a seasoned pro: there’s ALWAYS time for coffee!

Today was the first full day of the SIGGRAPH 2008 conference in Los Angeles. One of the unexpected pleasures is this year’s Art & Design Gallery. My old friend Yoichiro Kawaguchi (pictured above) had an impressive display of new work including colorful, sea-creature-inspired resin sculptures done up in his inimitable surrealistic style. It was interesting to see how these have evolved from some crayon sketches that Kawaguchi showed at his talk in Taipei during the fall of 2005.

My favorite portion of the gallery was the “Design & Computation” area - examining analytical & generative methods for design, and exploring design & fabrication technologies. Rapid prototyping was in pervasive use, featuring structures that could only be expressed with the aid of digital technology. The curation was suitably low-key, letting the work speak for itself (very profoundly at that). Of particular note is the conceptual and aesthetic intersection between textiles and architecture (”woven buildings”), which was very evident in this show. While the work may strike some as impersonal, it is to me the purest expression of a thought possible. And given our daily interaction with textiles and architecture, very “personal” indeed.

After lunch, I joined most everyone else at the conference over in Hall B for Ed Catmull’s keynote address. Ed touched on a number of topics in his reflective, erudite address on “managing the creative environment”. One of the first things he brought up is the widespread lip service that everyone in our industry pays to the “Story is king.” mantra - whether they are creating good stories or not. (In fact, it was funny during a later talk to hear a speaker rattle off, “Of course, we all know story is king.” as though he just had to get that obligatory observation out of the way.)

Ed discussed many aspects of animation production that I cover with my consulting clients, including: how successes mask problems, how complexity is best addressed with rigorous organization but free communication, the importance of community, and the primacy of people over ideas. However, one thing I’d like a bit more information on is the creation of a “safe” creative environment for artists and directors. Ed made the point (which I’ve heard many times before) about how directors are not required to act on notes from their colleagues and/or executives - that directors are trusted to make the best decision for their films based upon a consideration of critical notes weighed against their vision for the project. So, what then brings about the removal of a Jan Pinkava or a Chris Sanders? Who makes this call, and based on what criteria? And if the precedent of the axe is looming, how “safe” can any creative ever truly feel? (I posed these questions directly to Ed and John at a meeting once upon a time, but never really got an answer.)

Inquiring minds want to know!

Recently, a young animator posted the following question on the Animation Nation bulletin board:

I am wondering, if there is a really famous artist coming into your studio to give a talk on animation - when I say famous, I mean really famous - is it really a good idea to show them your portfolio and try to make contacts, especially when you just came out from school and started all new and fresh in the studio? I have been trying hard to learn “networking” like everyone tells me to. But I find it sometimes embarassing to try to show your portfolio to these great artists. They are all nice people, but there are zillions of people like me who want to show them their work, and I don’t want to make them uncomfortable since they are all so busy. And I also feel doing so kind of makes them feel I want to get a job from them, when I actually just want to show my work and like to know what they think, and yeah, probably get some contacts? And plus, they are so famous, who would pay attention to me who just came out?

My advice was rather pointed:

Just walk up at the end of the talk, introduce yourself, and pay them a compliment. Make it short and sweet, and then get the hell out of the way so the next person has a moment. Nothing is worse (for everyone, including the invited artist) than someone trying to glom on with their portfolio at a public event. It’s desperate and pathetic. And if you were pulling that at a studio under my employ, your @ss would be out the door so fast, your head would spin!

The poor kid said that I “scared” him… which was exactly my intention - not to be cruel, but to hopefully dissuade him from making the common mistake that so many do when it comes to networking.

Networking is about RELATIONSHIPS, not about glomming on to big names. It’s about creating and maintaining personal connections, and it’s ironically most meaningful and effective when you don’t want anything. Nevertheless, so many people embarrass themselves and exhaust the goodwill of others by swarming at public events: “gnatworking”, I call it.

The animator who asked the question above actually has the answers already. He knows that the artist is extremely busy, he knows that he’s one of many people who want a piece of the artist’s time, and he’s aware of the uncomfortable “grasping” impression that his portfolio flapping could give. Yet he can’t help himself.

Now most individuals approached in these situations will be extremely nice and accommodating. (I always am - spending a great amount of time after speaking engagements looking at portfolios and laptops.) But I can tell you from experience that nothing is more appreciated than when someone introduces themself, says a few words, hands over a business card or a DVD, and then moves along. You don’t want to get on someone’s “life-is-too-short” list, especially when they’re coming off a long presentation, trying to make sure that they don’t leave anything behind at the podium, and hoping to find the nearest bathroom.

Beyond introducing yourself and offering a leave-behind, there’s nothing you have to show in that moment that can’t wait until later. It’s not as though the artist in question is going to see your work, have their mind blown, and helicopter you off to their secret volcano studio. If it’s feedback you’re after, you can get it via email if the artist is so inclined. And if it’s a job you’re after, handing over a demo reel or providing the URL of an online portfolio will do just fine. In fact, you may be barking up the wrong tree altogether - especially with the “famous” artists who often aren’t the ones who can (or will) help you. And in a workplace situation, you certainly run the risk of making a treasonous impression on your current boss by showing your portfolio to an invited guest - especially if they are trying to scrape you off of their leg so they can get to your employer’s catered lunch.

So, back to our animator’s question. Permit me to embellish on my blunt forum response with these additional suggestions:

1.) During the Q&A segment of an artist’s presentation, ask the following question: “I’m sure that there will be many questions about this great presentation that you won’t have time to answer here. Could we please have your email address so that we may correspond with you at your convenience?” This will accomplish two (potentially three) things: one - your fellow attendees will love you for asking, two - whether or not the artist provides their email will tell you something about the type of person they are, and three - if they consent, you’ll have their contact information. And once you have it, don’t abuse it! Keep your inquiries short and sweet, and don’t pester if replies are not forthcoming. People are busy. (For what it’s worth, I always include my email address at the end of every seminar, lecture or presentation. It’s a good habit for speakers to acquire.)

2.) If you REALLY must show the artist in question a sample of your work in the moment, then you might try the following (rather cheesy) idea: do a great drawing of the artist, sign it with your email address, and write something along the lines of “To _______________, thank you for being such an inspiration to me!” Keep it small, frame it, and hand it to the artist at the end of their presentation. In short, make it easy for them NOT to throw it away. I once gave Ray Harryhausen a signed & dedicated copy of my independent animated short “Henry’s Garden” as he was signing a copy of his compilation DVD for me. I’m sure he probably tossed the disc, but it doesn’t matter. He truly is an inspiration to me, and I wanted him to have it. And of course, Ray was very nice about it.

3.) The “gold standard” of networking: LUNCH. You may not get that “famous artist” to meet with you (due either to limited time or limited inclination), but you never know unless you ask. Email an invitation, ask them to name a time and place at THEIR convenience, and be sure to tell them that it’s on you. I make it a point to lunch with one or two people a week, on every link of the animation food chain - from production assistants to CEOs (NOTE: not only “famous artists”, but also current and future movers and shakers). The information, connections and opportunities that I’ve acquired in exchange for plates of pasta has been invaluable.

4.) Get on a professional networking site. I prefer LinkedIn, and have received many productive leads from my active utilization of it. Relevant niche sites include vfxConnection, but I find LinkedIn to be the most comprehensive. It’s all too easy to get sucked into maintaining redundant profiles on multiple sites, so choose carefully. And keep in mind what the point is. You don’t want to abuse the service by connecting with strangers in a desperate (or arrogant) bid to hoard connections for connections sake - like Scrat stroking his nuts in “Ice Age”. You see this from time to time online, with some individuals proudly wearing their obsession like a mantle: “Johnny Blowhard, The LinkedIn Lizard King: 6000+ Connections!” Whatever, dude.

5.) Be helpful. Do things for others, for no apparent reason other than to be colleagial. The good karma will come back around to you from unexpected directions, in ways that you cannot anticipate but you will definitely appreciate.

In short, remember that networking is not about making contacts, it’s about building relationships. So, go ahead and drop me a line! I’ll be happy to hear from you.

Kevin Geiger
Animation Options LLC
kevingeiger@animationoptions.com

A swift kick in the @ss from the legendary Ralph Bakshi, at ComicCon 2008.

Just DO it!!!

(Thanks to Stephen Worth at ASIFA-Hollywood for the question and the video.)