Animators/MGM

[paulcmartens]

This might cause a small uproar, but I think its an issue worth debating:

Animators at MGM. Why didn't they 'upgrade' their skill set into the 21st Century and instead just stay 'old tech'?

This is a sad tale, but if I were a traditional animator, after Toy Story came out, I would have thought (or soon thereafter all the money was made) if I want to continue working for Disney, who's history is littered with advances in technology and adopting them, shouldn't I too advance my tech and learn 3D animation to save my rear in a job situation that might potentially come down the road?

Curious if anyone else thought the same.

Discuss.

 

[xfkirsten]

Well, if I were one of their animators, I don't think I would have gone computer. I love to draw all the time, and even wanted to be a Disney animator for a long time. But I really don't have much interest in doinig computer animation. If I had to choose between having to find another job somewhere else and working in computer animation I would have gone looking elsewhere. I imagine a lot of their animators felt the same way.

-Kirsten

 

[wdwmagic]

Originally posted by paulcmartens
This might cause a small uproar, but I think its an issue worth debating:

Animators at MGM. Why didn't they 'upgrade' their skill set into the 21st Century and instead just stay 'old tech'?

They did! The "traditional" animators were using CGI imagery way before the new wave of CGI movies. The ballroom scene in Beast, the stampede in Lion King, opening scene of Tarzan, Dinosaur and much more.

The loss of Florida animation isnt to do with the people there not adapting to new techniques, its to do with bad management from up above.

 

[TrickyMickey]

Why should the animators have to sell their souls to CGI if they don't wish to? It is not the animation technique that makes a good movie but the quality of the story and character development. Disney animation might not be in such a mess if they concentrated on these areas first. The noveltyof CGIwould have worn thin after Toy Story if Pixar had not developed such strong story lines...:drevil:

 

[Disney2002]

The failure of paper animation has nothing to do with the style of the art or the fact that it's 'low tech'. It's failed because no one has writting good stories. Nemo would have done well, I'm certain, as a paper animated film too!

 

[paulcmartens]

Let's make an analogy (they are never perfect, but here goes...)

Years ago, AutoCAD came along for architects. As a student, I saw this, and jumped on the bandwagon.

Ironically, I had better sketching/rendering skills than even some of my teachers who just did line drawings by hand on mylar or what not. I still stuck to my guns and insisted we do CAD in class.

I was not popular.

Then in my final year of studies I had a real 'artiste' architect (star-chitect) teacher and I made the extra effort to do artistic 3D work in Black/White. The teacher liked some of the stuff I did, he made what I did as assignments for everyone to do...mini animations and 3D renderings.

My point is this: the future was approaching, I sensed it, and I complied with new technologies. Is designing Architecture any different now? Sure. But a lot of us that haven't kicked and screamed our way into the the new millennium are grateful for the changes...because it makes things easier (copy and paste is a miracle).

Anyway rebuttals:

Steve: When I mean upgrade, I mean learn 3DS Max or something and abandon hand rendering characters. Isn't Andreas Deja fighting all of this?

TrickeyMickey: You are right: novelty will wear off...if bad story lines are the par. But novelty is important in new stories...Why did Walt become so famous? Because of the novelty of Animation and a Theme Park....novelty isn't 'evil'. CGI isn't something you sell your soul to.

Disney2002: Same theme: novelty is important. Novelty sells. New things sell. Old models of cars don't sell, new ones do: tech plays a part in this...you can't ignore it.

I noticed at school the more artistic architects had a real problem with the transition, while the more practical yet inventive architects thought it was a godsend.

Let's not moralize here about 'bad' management or 'bad' tech. A good chunk of these animators at MGM unfortunately have to abandon their old skill set if they want to stay current.

Tech is important. Just as important as a good drawing skill set which animators with Pixar have (if you've seen behind the scenes). You still animate, you are just using different tools.

 

[Disnycrazy]

Ok....this subject make me mad, because my husband is a Graphic Designer/Animator. But there is really one thing that bothers me becuase even with the new technology of CGI you have to start on paper before it goes to computer. Even Pixar uses traditional animation before they start the CGI process on the computers. So I really don't understand why you would get rid of all of those Animators because you still need some traditional Animation. My husband has always wanted to work for Disney and when we heard this it was like all his dreams came crashing, and I am sure that he is not the only one. I is really depressing that a company such as Disney would get rid of all that great talent that made some great movies like Lilo and Stich and Brother Bear. I just hope that Disney's CGI projects are as good as Pixars, but I doubt it....:fork: