The Animation Options Blog

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!