USATODAY:Big Names and Big Salaries for Animated Movies

[Gentle Fury]

oh boo hoo, lets shed a tear for these poor overworked actors that made FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS for 3 hours a day 3 days a week for a year................................cry me a damn river.......actors that bitch about how much money they make make me sick!!! everyone else busts their asses working upwards of 60 hours a week to barely pay the bills and these primadonnas get paid millions to sit on their asses, drink bottled water and PLAY all day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish i had such woes.

[Per-Anders]

you mean that isn't the future held in store for me in cg? :eek:

[Atwooki]

Career change....
brown-nose my way to the top doing ONLY voice-overs, then casually drink bottled water and do CG in my spare time... ;)

PLUS!!!! CREDITS and prestige at the end of the films!!!

Atwooki

[BillB]

Originally posted by mdme_sadie
you mean that isn't the future held in store for me in cg? :eek:

How long until top animators get billing on animated flicks?? I go to a Pixar movie because I know the animation and visuals will kick butt, as will the story. Joe Average does too, he's just not as aware of it as we are.
Are we doomed (blessed?) to anonimity? Does it matter? Who here does it for the money? Who was the DOP on Crouching Tiger?

"Says studio co-chief Jeffrey Katzenberg: "Just like Steven Spielberg wants the best for his movies, we want the best talent in the world, too. "

How much is he paying the lead animators on those lead characters to slave for 18 months, 50 hours a week?
$750,000/hr vs $50/hr. Real nice.

[My Fault]

Supposedly bonus checks for animators on Shrek were very high. Did they get as much as the voice actors? Probably not, but if the voice actors are doing there part and spreading the word and really helping the marketing machine, then in many cases they are worth the dinero. What sucks is when the studios pay those high salaries and the stars don't go out and spread the word on the film.

And Gentle Fury, who was bitching about how much they made? Robin Williams had a simple business grievance. Just because he's already rich doesn't mean he should let the studio try to screw him. It ain't cool when they do it to the little guy and it isn't when it's done to a big one.

[Hookflash]

These outrageously high salaries (sports players, actors, etc.) are unethical and immoral. They result in a very uneven distribution of wealth. Why can't anyone see that? How is it acceptable for Mike Myers to make $500,000/hr while children are starving in third world countries (and, to a lesser extent, in North America)?

[vorlon]

Originally posted by Hookflash
These outrageously high salaries (sports players, actors, etc.) are unethical and immoral. They result in a very uneven distribution of wealth. Why can't anyone see that? How is it acceptable for Mike Myers to make $500,000/hr while children are starving in third world countries (and, to a lesser extent, in North America)?

Mike Meyer seems like a nice guy, I am sure he donate some of his money to help out.

But I agree our society is screwed up. Basically, basketball player get paid to put a ball in a basket, and makes million. Or Tiger Wood makes tons of dough for hitting a ball with a stick, and we are supposed to worship him, instead of teachers teaching children how to read.

Our western culture criticize middle eastern culture for certain things, yet, we dont' look at ourselves and see how some of our own value system is screwed up.

The rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer. For those of you in France, you know what happened during French Revolution...not pretty.

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by Hookflash
These outrageously high salaries (sports players, actors, etc.) are unethical and immoral. They result in a very uneven distribution of wealth. Why can't anyone see that? How is it acceptable for Mike Myers to make $500,000/hr while children are starving in third world countries (and, to a lesser extent, in North America)?

because thats what the market will bare... how is a salary unethical? If you can generate it, you are welcome to it. We all price ourselves as we do as a group and if we want to make more as a group you have to stop those that are willing to do it for nothing, from undervalueing thier own work.

If baseball players can pack a stadium at whatever the seats cost nowadays, then they are worth whatever they can negotiate... Thats the way it works. It makes more sence to make the rules work for you instead of calling them unethical... Thats just being smart.

Children starving in other countries are mostly thier parents responsability. unless you want to take over the entire world, your going to have to live with that fact.

The best we can do is teach the worlf through propper examples. actually Much of the world would do well to follow our example, but most of thier governments are too busy blaming those who are more prosperouse, so that they can control thier people... Free markets could turn thier lives around.

AND some of those children working in sweat shops is the only way they can keep from starving in those countries... Its strange how busybodies here would like to deprive those families who are nearly starving of thier extra income...

We had Sweat Shops and Child labor in the US. That helped fuel the eventual prosperity that allowed us to oulaw such things here. Call it sweatshop equity.

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by vorlon
Mike Meyer seems like a nice guy, I am sure he donate some of his money to help out.

But I agree our society is screwed up. Basically, basketball player get paid to put a ball in a basket, and makes million. Or Tiger Wood makes tons of dough for hitting a ball with a stick, and we are supposed to worship him, instead of teachers teaching children how to read.

Our western culture criticize middle eastern culture for certain things, yet, we dont' look at ourselves and see how some of our own value system is screwed up.



Yep, thats where the blame belongs... with the people who pay for those ball games. Not the ball players. Finally someone talking sense.

The truth is that Americans are paying for and getting what they want. I see no problem with that. people are free to value what they want to value, whether I agree with them or not.


The rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer. For those of you in France, you know what happened during French Revolution...not pretty.

Heres where I part company...

At least in the US, the poor can emulate the sucessful if they can stop playing the blame game and take responsability for thier own lives. And those that emulate success usually achieve it... I see it often that too many people think they deserve things... when really you must earn them. It's a silly conceit when someone thinks that they deserve something that someone else has, claiming to be smarter than that other guy, or more capable... I find that those who have aquired and can keep wealth, do so becuase they know more about how to do it than I do. More power to them!

[danteort]

Originally posted by Hookflash
These outrageously high salaries (sports players, actors, etc.) are unethical and immoral. They result in a very uneven distribution of wealth. Why can't anyone see that? How is it acceptable for Mike Myers to make $500,000/hr while children are starving in third world countries (and, to a lesser extent, in North America)?
You have to also understand that Mike Meyers is one of a kind. There is only one person who can play a role exactly like he can, so with that small a supply of people like him, he's allowed to price himself quite high. If there were 10 of him, then each one would be worth less.

[BillB]

Originally posted by Hookflash
These outrageously high salaries (sports players, actors, etc.) are unethical and immoral. They result in a very uneven distribution of wealth. Why can't anyone see that? How is it acceptable for Mike Myers to make $500,000/hr while children are starving in third world countries (and, to a lesser extent, in North America)?

To backtrack a little on what I said, Mike Myers get's that, as do sports stars, because they are uniquely talented. Same reason we all get pretty good money. We're better at this than Joe Average. Out of all the actors in Hollywood, are there more that bus tables, or more that pull 10 mil a film?

As to children in 3rd world countries, that's a political problem. Until their governments stop pouring money into military and start pouring it into food, no amount of help from us is going to change things. We can't really sit here with a straight face, all fat and smug, and say our system is broken, when they're either starving or blowing each other up.

But I digress...

[Hookflash]

Originally posted by Rich Suchy
because thats what the market will bare... how is a salary unethical? If you can generate it, you are welcome to it.

What do you mean "generate"? Is that sort of like growing money on the mythical Capitalist Money Tree? Our society seems to think there is an infinite amount of resources at it's disposal, so noone really cares when one person consumes more than their share. Socialism makes alot of sense to me (I'm not claiming to be an expert), especially in seemingly unfair situations like this.

[Hookflash]

Originally posted by Rich Suchy
Yep, thats where the blame belongs... with the people who pay for those ball games. Not the ball players. Finally someone talking sense.

The truth is that Americans are paying for and getting what they want. I see no problem with that. people are free to value what they want to value, whether I agree with them or not.



Heres where I part company...

At least in the US, the poor can emulate the sucessful if they can stop playing the blame game and take responsability for thier own lives. And those that emulate success usually achieve it... I see it often that too many people think they deserve things... when really you must earn them. It's a silly conceit when someone thinks that they deserve something that someone else has, claiming to be smarter than that other guy, or more capable... I find that those who have aquired and can keep wealth, do so becuase they know more about how to do it than I do. More power to them!

First of all, do you really think it's reasonable to expect all of America to boycott the NBA? Why should this even be necessary in the first place? Somebody obviously dropped the ball (no pun intended) a long time ago. As for your comment about the poor "emulating" the successful... Give me a break. You obviously don't know many truly poor people. How does a single mother with 3 kids "emulate" the successful? Also, what happens if we *all* emulate them? Do you assume there are enough resources in the world for everyone to achieve the same level of success as a professional basketball player?

[Hookflash]

How do you delete posts? :hmm:

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by Hookflash
What do you mean "generate"? Is that sort of like growing money on the mythical Capitalist Money Tree? Our society seems to think there is an infinite amount of resources at it's disposal, so noone really cares when one person consumes more than their share. Socialism makes alot of sense to me (I'm not claiming to be an expert), especially in seemingly unfair situations like this.

2 dimensional thinking... :)


Lets try looking a little deeper. If I take 50% of all cash and sit on it it makes the other cash more valuable by reducing how much there is in play... If I take it and spend it, the economy does well through because I increase the amount of need for workers. If I invest it, it does the same thing, but I get something back for my trouble.

Socialism has failure at its core because it rewards people for being lazy as much as for being industrious, but its on the backs of those that are industrious until they don't want to bother any longer... I personally donate money to people who need it and I know will not waste it. That being family, and friends. I find that more efficient than giving it to every bum that asks and says, hey man, treat me equal... Now in socialism you have the goverment taking what you have earned and then spending it in an indiscriminatory way, which is very wastful and doesnt allow me or you to decide where it goes... and as for socialism in a democracy... Thats just as bad because you lose your freedom of choice based on mob rule. Thats why the US was designed as a Republic and not a Democracy... ..."to the republic for which it stands..."

or as written in the constitution.

The laws that the forefathers of the US included in the founding of the United states were meant to save us from ourselves and the tendncy to make the world worse by trying to make a diference for the better.

Back to 3D... If there were no rewards for being among the best, very few would compete to reach the high levels of excelence that they do... And the high burn-out rate would probably be higher.

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by Hookflash
First of all, do you really think it's reasonable to expect all of America to boycott the NBA? Why should this even be necessary in the first place? Somebody obviously dropped the ball (no pun intended) a long time ago. As for your comment about the poor "emulating" the successful... Give me a break. You obviously don't know many truly poor people. How does a single mother with 3 kids "emulate" the successful? Also, what happens if we *all* emulate them? Do you assume there are enough resources in the world for everyone to achieve the same level of success as a professional basketball player?


First of all I didnt suggest boycotting the NBA, People like it... Thats fine with me.

Its not necessary to boycot it... Why do we need to make people fit our expectations... I certainly think people should make thier own choices and be responsible for the results... you learn faster that way, and maybe you can teach your kids what you learned.

My wife was a single mom, her husband abandoned them, they got a divorce, ...your point? With life and a library all you need is motivation. If you can't find motivation in the dificulty of life and a desire to improve your lot... well you might as well pack it in and give up.

Why do you think we should all achieve the same level of success. We may be treated as equals in the eyes of the law, but unequal abilities abound... If I had spent my time with diferent priorities I'd be an unhappy man with much more money. Now I',m a happy man, doing well enough. And most times its a struggle.

Whats fair is that we are free to do the best we can based on our understanding and our ability to be a value to others... That valuation is shown by the abstract dollar amount.

If we are no value to anyone else, it shows in the rewards we get... isnt that the point of a society... We all benefit from each others specialties... Why should you benefit if your value is only to yourself.

Whats not fair is others benefiting from society, yet giving nothing in return that others value. So basically what you end up with parasites dragging an economy down...

I know you will not find another country where as many people who start poor aquire wealth. Thats because it is possible.

Its funny how the socialists among us in the US both encourage single mothers and then keep them that way. They say vote for me and you will still get this crappy little handout. If you dont vote for me it will go away... the handout comes with strings about how you need to live, and also because it exists, there is not enough examples of tredgedy to scare people from living the lifestyle of a welfare dependant. So in the end those that appear to help only exacerbate the problem.

Tell me Cuba, France and Russia are doing well.

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by Atwooki
Career change....
brown-nose my way to the top doing ONLY voice-overs, then casually drink bottled water and do CG in my spare time... ;)

PLUS!!!! CREDITS and prestige at the end of the films!!!

Atwooki

I like that idea.

I just went to an open house of a guy who does that for a living... He made out pretty well and is moving up. IU guess he does cartoons or some such.

[Hookflash]

Rich Suchy: To be honest, I don't really know as much about the subject as I tend to let on. I'm sort of biased when it comes to social issues, so my objectivity goes out the window when people start talking about professional athletes, movie stars, poverty, Bill Gates, etc.

As for 3d artists, I would hope they would strive for excellence regardless of the potential reward. I don't work in the field, though, so maybe I'm just naive. Anyways, :beer:

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by Hookflash
Rich Suchy: To be honest, I don't really know as much about the subject as I tend to let on. I'm sort of biased when it comes to social issues, so my objectivity goes out the window when people start talking about professional athletes, movie stars, poverty, Bill Gates, etc.

As for 3d artists, I would hope they would strive for excellence regardless of the potential reward. I don't work in the field, though, so maybe I'm just naive. Anyways, :beer:

It's not about those that are driven by some inner demons to excell though, because there are so many more who like to not have to. A socialism in which every person strove to do the best for thier society would be nice but a large portion of human nature makes it an imposability unless of course you could kick out those who didnt give a damn. :)

About Bill Gates. Keep in mind how many people he employes, who buy houses that employ home builders and, anf buy cars and so on... Dispite what I may think of his personal ethics and about his microsofts longevity as the only option(which I doubt) He really is one of the most important person in America at this time... His company fuels a decent chunk of the economy. The service he makes available fuels all those employees lives and the lives they touch as consumers. He will cease to be important when and if he stops giving people what they want and another solution is adopted. You can judge how long he will last for yourself based on your estimate of this.

I used to think that if you gave people a chance, that they would make the most of it... Until my business partner illustrated that the opposite is true... Rather than use reason and make the best choices, he stole from the company, causing its demise, then he blamed the world saying its not fair... he desrved to succeed... The jails are filled with people blaming everyone esle for thier problems...

[Brian Decker]

I agree the dollar is an abstract symbol of a person's value or contribution to society. The more you, your product or what you represent is of value to others reasonably leads to a higher earning bracket. Many people get upset when they realize the trend of what the general populace values is not reflected in their own sensibilities. I for one, don't value the messages of most popular music or man's now well refined ability to put a round object in a hole. Even though I'm not paying Tiger Wood's salary, a whole lot of other people want to contribute from theirs!

The sad part of this whole issue is analyzing what people get out of what they are paying for, why and how it reflects upon the values of our society as whole.

Hmmmm...Ok, I better stop now. I won't get any sleep tonight if I think about this much further.

[en-gram]

Rich, I think you nailed every point in this thread...I really enjoy the logic behind your comments.

Back to the original post:

I do believe that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay. So I'm not offended that actors make $20 million a movie.

I do think it is a shame, however, that studio execs would rather pay the voice talent so much more than the artists. I can see paying that much to actors who are obvious box office draws for live action movies. But when it comes to animated features...I have a hard time believing that people went to see Finding Nemo to hear Ellen DeGenerate doing voice work. To be honest with you, I could care less who did the voice for her character. There are so many talented actors or comedians that could have played any of the roles in Shrek(including Shrek) or Finding Nemo...but that don't have the "name". There is one example I can think of that the voice talent truly made the difference in the movie...and that was Robin Williams in Aladdin.

But, again, that is what the studio execs want and are willing to pay for those actors. Therefore more power to those actors for getting as much as they can. But I don't have to agree with it all. :D

en-gram

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by en-gram
Rich, I think you nailed every point in this thread...I really enjoy the logic behind your comments.

Back to the original post:

I do believe that you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay. So I'm not offended that actors make $20 million a movie.

I do think it is a shame, however, that studio execs would rather pay the voice talent so much more than the artists. I can see paying that much to actors who are obvious box office draws for live action movies. But when it comes to animated features...I have a hard time believing that people went to see Finding Nemo to hear Ellen DeGenerate doing voice work. To be honest with you, I could care less who did the voice for her character. There are so many talented actors or comedians that could have played any of the roles in Shrek(including Shrek) or Finding Nemo...but that don't have the "name". There is one example I can think of that the voice talent truly made the difference in the movie...and that was Robin Williams in Aladdin.

But, again, that is what the studio execs want and are willing to pay for those actors. Therefore more power to those actors for getting as much as they can. But I don't have to agree with it all. :D

en-gram

The issue as I see it is this. If All american employees asked for what is possible considdering what a movie could make, then global competition is seen as moer viable... When you can pay people from india 20 bucks a week and allow them to live with servents for that price, you can certainly keep the prices down. (so much for global free trade eh) However the shortsighted see only this... there are other issues... diferences in body language and acting, speed of the quality checking process, redos, communication problems and the stability of the country are at issue. What if india and pakastan suddenly enter into a nuclear war... possable given the current tensions between them. WHat happens to your pipeline then. I think you may get away with tv production being done all over the place but you need control and oversight on a higher level when making a movie. But the employees arent going to make a million per hear (150 people working for two years on a movie...not to mention paying other talent and taking proffit for the next movie, etc... you just shot a 300 million dollar movie if you payed that much... The headliners get it becuase they are more than equal to the increase in viewers. (often) maybe not always... business is a gamble.

[Gentle Fury]

i think the whole point is, actors are crying that they are only making a small amount of money based on the profit margin of the movie.....$15,000,000 out of a $250,000,000 movie is only 6% of what was made on it.

BUT i think the real grievance is that while Mike Meyers gets that measly 6%....$15,000,000........the entire art dept that really made the movie possible probably didnt make that much combined. So, it comes down to......why does the meat puppet that does no more than speak into a mic for a few hours a day get a salary equal to all the people that actually made the movie?

Hell they could do it anime style and pay noone anything.........get some guy from accounting to do the voiceover and everyone gets screwed! yay!

I think that pay should be determined by what was done on the project.......and im sorry, in my opinion, the voice talent is NOT the most important part of the process.......im they could have scouted LA and found a bunch of no-names that would have done just as well, perhaps better than our big name publicity magnets......and would have done it for a LOT less......

So, once again it comes down to.......its all about selling a name.......very sad.

[kornkidpr]

i think the whole point is, actors are crying that they are only making a small amount of money based on the profit margin of the movie.....$15,000,000 out of a $250,000,000 movie is only 6% of what was made on it.

BUT i think the real grievance is that while Mike Meyers gets that measly 6%....$15,000,000........the entire art dept that really made the movie possible probably didnt make that much combined. So, it comes down to......why does the meat puppet that does no more than speak into a mic for a few hours a day get a salary equal to all the people that actually made the movie?

Hell they could do it anime style and pay noone anything.........get some guy from accounting to do the voiceover and everyone gets screwed! yay!

I think that pay should be determined by what was done on the project.......and im sorry, in my opinion, the voice talent is NOT the most important part of the process.......im they could have scouted LA and found a bunch of no-names that would have done just as well, perhaps better than our big name publicity magnets......and would have done it for a LOT less......

So, once again it comes down to.......its all about selling a name.......very sad.


AMEN.:thumbsup:

[RichSuchy]

[i]
So, once again it comes down to.......its all about selling a name.......very sad. [/B]

And when people stop paying for a name, that will stop.

[redfuzz]

Originally posted by vorlon
But I agree our society is screwed up. Basically, basketball player get paid to put a ball in a basket, and makes million. Or Tiger Wood makes tons of dough for hitting a ball with a stick, and we are supposed to worship him, instead of teachers teaching children how to read.

The only reason any of those mentioned make the money they do is becuase the ones holding their strings make even more money. The networks, the distributers, the nba owners, etc. It's not that we are supposed to worship them becaue they are rich. We do worship them, thus those that own them are rich and they pay them well, very well. Why do people watch sports and TV instead of volunteering at schools or hospitals? It's not their fault they make sick cash, it's societies for giving it to them.

I'll step off my soap box now.
g

[RichSuchy]

whats not to understand... these sports stars make huge amounts of people happy, Its a matter of a few people being good enough to make the masses happy... They get paid for thier value in pleasing people.

How many people have you all pleased today? It's not a matter of pleasing yourself... The sports stars please people because they are the best at what they do. Only a small number of people can be the best at what they do.

There is no point in railing against what makes people happy. They will value what the want dispite you. Would you like me to dictate what you value? I doubt it.

I'm not a sports fan, but I'd be damned if I would try to tell others not to be. We are all free to value what we want.

And more to topic, if you want to make money with CG, give the people what they want.

[Atwooki]

The difference here is that sportsmen/women and actors have throughout recent history been enjoying the possibility of being elevated to 'star' status....

This situation that may yet still happen to animators (as, in effect, they ARE the actors of CG), though of course, as the general public feel a need to have a 'recognisable' personality to aspire towards and laud (ie. a 'face') that might take quite some time coming into effect!

This would only really be possible if the execs. of certain 'well known' or high profile CG companies took the bull by the horns, and started to 'project' various animators'/modellers' etc. personalities onto the current media platform.....

Atwooki

[RichSuchy]

I am aware that some traditional animators have made somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 million US currency, however they were few and far between. They also did more than just animate.

It might be interesting to see a pipeline where one animator could handle a single character for the entire movie.

BUT THe situation is that you dont have just five animators on an all cg project. you may have 50 or even more, many of them sharing characters. So there really is no one name attached to a main character. It is not efficient enough to finish a movie that way. Perhapse a movie might come along that supports that little animation, but I would hate to see the story take a back seat to logistics issues like that.

I would like to see writers get more than actors personally... The story is the thing (apologies to Shakespear)

general :

As I recall the Anchient greeks also gave hero status to atheletes. I think respecting those who have attained exceptional prowess at physical activity is just fine. As far as worship goes. I think that once you grow out of being a teen, the hero worship subsides somewhat and becomes admiration and possibly some envy.... But who really worships sports stars. Paying for tickets to a game might be expensive but I dont think it defines worship.

[Gentle Fury]

i think i really understood how people dont realize what we do the other day.

I was sitting at home and i had rented The Animatrix with a couple friends (well one i dont really like.....but thats not the point). The Final Flight Of The Osirus is playing and im drooling over the opening fight/love scene....bad ass beautiful.

I said something complimentary about it, and one of them there (the one i dont really like) says "Yeah it looks cool, but thats not real animation, its all done in a computer, not hand drawn." (now a little back history, this guy will talk on end about anything on his mind without letting anyone else have a chance to speak, until you eventually just ignore him)..........i just turned to him and said "Ok, just stop talking now before you get hurt"

But the sad thing is......i think that is the general concensus of thought out there now.......well its just made on a computer, so its not real animation..............Anyone here will tell you (especially if they have experience with traditional animation), it takes a HELL of a lot more time to create a believable CG animation than traditional any day of the week!!!! Can't say ive ever heard of anyone having to deal with gimble lock on a cellophane plate...........or having to skin a drawn character........or having to patch model a sketch.

There is just so much that is involved and people STILL seem to think there is a make cool button that, you press it and down comes a window that says "Aliens - Dinosaurs - Humans - Hobbits - Cool Monsters".............it reminds me of everyone praising Andy Serkis for the wonderful job he did as gollum....so emotive.....cuz after all.....all they did was film his performance, feed it into a computer and out popped gollum. Ah the joys of computers.....they can do anything cant they.....they dont even need users anymore.....as a matter of fact im using a computer right now to emote my thoughts.....does that mean my thoughts are now "Computer Generated" and detatched from me?

[Atwooki]

Eloquently put, Gentle Fury....
Begs the question though; were the likes of Mike Myers words and phrases then also fed into a dictation machine and reconstructed/keyframed, I wonder?

Atwooki

[My Fault]

Originally posted by Gentle Fury
Anyone here will tell you (especially if they have experience with traditional animation), it takes a HELL of a lot more time to create a believable CG animation than traditional any day of the week!!!! Can't say ive ever heard of anyone having to deal with gimble lock on a cellophane plate...........or having to skin a drawn character........or having to patch model a sketch.

Anyone with a lot of traditional experience will say the exact opposite GF. Comparatively speaking, once the character is finished, animating is much easier in 3d then traditional (and remember, I said comparatively, neither is easy).

It is a shame that joe sixpack doesn't have a better understanding of how complex computer animation is, but then again they are only there to enjoy the film, not wonder how long it took to rig.

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by My Fault
Anyone with a lot of traditional experience will say the exact opposite GF. Comparatively speaking, once the character is finished, animating is much easier in 3d then traditional (and remember, I said comparatively, neither is easy).

It is a shame that joe sixpack doesn't have a better understanding of how complex computer animation is, but then again they are only there to enjoy the film, not wonder how long it took to rig.

Im a cg guy and I'll support that statement... Setting up... the building / design phase takes much longer than drawing some stills, building the models (characters props and sets), painting them, rigging them... takes a lot of up-front time... however, once you have those pieces animating them and lighting them takes less time than drawing frame by frame, gimbol lock is an issue for a good rigger not an issue for an animator, unless the animator is expected to build thier own models... not likely in a movie pipeline. (and a bad pipeline idea in a cg cartoon pipeline... It has killed many companies)

You save a lot of time in a tv series with cg in that you can use characters and sets from episode to episode.

THere are other considderations such as how many new characters can the pipeline handle per episode, how many new set locations and props... In traditional tv animation you can often just animate pieces of a character, but in 3d it becomes too obvious. But then there is Motion capture which can do alot for you speed-wise but the data almost always needs editing.

Im rambling. Lets just say they are diferent but comparable. You can find savings in many places in tv traditional or 3d, but for animated features, you can save money by going the 3d route.

[Stahlberg]

GentleFury, I think Mike Myers would feel the same about what you said about his work - 'lots of other people could have done it' - as you felt when you told your pal to shut up about CG... :) It's probably MUCH harder than any of us here has any inkling of, to do that kind of voice acting. (In fact I heard Mike was unhappy with his first pass and redid all the dialogue for Shrek, for free.)

Of course it's true his famous name probably doubled or tripled his salary there. But I agree with Rich, who's like the voice of my conscience - if he can get it, I shouldn't hate him for it. :)

About 2d and 3d, it depends - for realistic cg like the Last Flight, I think 3d is more difficult overall.

.

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by Stahlberg
Of course it's true his famous name probably doubled or tripled his salary there. But I agree with Rich, who's like the voice of my conscience - if he can get it, I shouldn't hate him for it. :)

About 2d and 3d, it depends - for realistic cg like the Last Flight, I think 3d is more difficult overall.

.

:)

I forgot to mention about the level of realism attempted in CG. The closer you get, the harder it is to pull it off. Motion is the key there. It just has to move "real". Lighting can hide a lot of sins but movement, its got to be dead on.

Then there is Shreck... The movement and timing felt off to me on many occasions but it didnt distract me so much. They didnt try to make it real as far as I could tell, and my mind went half way to meet them on thier own grounds.

[My Fault]

Originally posted by Stahlberg
About 2d and 3d, it depends - for realistic cg like the Last Flight, I think 3d is more difficult overall.

Could you imagine how long it would take to create the level of realism in Last Flight in 2d? Maybe if you cloned Richard Williams :p

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.