The industry has so many people complaining and talking about how bad the movies today are. If I don't particularly like something...I just don't post about it. We have enough of that going on. So, I try to keep this blog positive and don't comment on things I personally don't like or think aren't quite right.
However, sometimes points are provoking enough to generate quite a discussion. Since our book was about Bridging the Gap Between 2D and CG, I thought this was appropriate to post here about a recent point made on the blog - Cartoon Brew.
After Jamie saw the post this is what he had to say...
Cartoon Brew's bloggers set up an argument that has people talking. If you haven't seen the Bolt Image Post at Cartoon Brew that is stirring up such a fuss yet. Check it out...and be sure to read through the comments. Very entertaining.
"This has to be one of the silliest things I have read in a long time....one is a drawing, one of thousands for a storyboard no one will ever see. Never meant to be displayed in a gallery. The other is a single frame of film, one of thousands, a 24th of a second of screen time, never meant to be shown as a single piece of art in a gallery.
What a waste of time to argue over "which is better".
To quote the immortal words of Will Shatner....."get a life people"
Too give you a little head start...
One of most accurate comments to the post that covers what animators are really experiencing and talking about today, is by Mike Watt.
Mike Watt says:
It’s funny that folks are so critical about CG visually when the real issue is abuse of artists and the make it cheaper/faster mentality of studios. 2D had the advantage of the drawing barrier and thus artists could make valid claims for decent wages. The supposed ease at which 3D is learned and the current high level of animation specific instruction has created a flood of new world-wide talent chomping at the bit to work for any major US studio, at any price. Unfortunately, the level of animation has dropped, poses are all the same, timing is the same and characters have become more generic, except for Pixar character of course. But at Pixar, seasoned pros can mould the young talent, or simply fix the scenes, to ensure a certain level of excellence.
A large bulk of the “Bolt” animation staff was laid off before production even wrapped. Most of those lay-offs being the higher salaried animation veterans. Another large number of seasoned pros were put on “probation” which a of course is a thinly veiled threat of being laid off unless they don’t get their act together. I assume by “getting their act together” Lasseter and team expect them to work extra off clock hours like most of the staff at Pixar in order to reach that refined level of animation JL demands. This, my friends, is the big dirty secret about animation and especially Pixar, Pixar doesn’t pay a living wage. I know for certain that 10 year vets have been offered $1650 a week as an animator at Pixar. In addition, a few animators from Bolt are going up to work at Pixar for the whopping sum of $28 an hour. Pixar and JL also don’t like titles, like Senior animator or Lead or Supervising animator. Of course, this makes it easy to keep wages low since an artists has no claims to a place in the studio hierarchy or level of responsibility and thus can’t demand higher compensation for more work.
I can’t even go to a pixar film knowing how cheaply they pay their staff. I am certain it’s a wonderful place to work and I am sure “some” people make a living, but I think Pixar expects artists to take a massive pay decrease in order to have the privilege of working for JL and crew.
So all the hemming and hawing about 2D vs. 3D is silly considering the fact that studios, including Pixar, want more work for less money and a living wage be damned. That’s the issue in animation, not some fabricated medium war.
blog
facebook
myspace
twitter
flickr
3 comments:
hehe. funny how people can be bitter.
and funny how almost all of them miss one simple point:
storyboard is not meant to be translated into final frame. Character design is what you translates into boards and finals...
But that's what you get with internet that is so vaaaast and infinite :)
I have to say, $28 an hour is a living wage. Even my crummy $16 an hour is a living wage. You just can't get that new BMW SUV you've been drooling over. Unfortunately, I do see the off hour free work mentality and it's bullshit, but that's the industry and if you want a job you suffer for your art, right?
Doesn't make it right, just that's how it is. C'est la vie.
In the mid 1990's animators were making 3k and more a week.
The base salary in Los Angeles for an experienced animator is 100k a year (50$ an hour), some make more. It's a bitter pill to swallow to be asked to make 28$ an hour, when you thought you were building a career and when your mechanic makes more money than you do. Not to mention the standard of living in SF being much higher. I have a friend who works at ILM and manages his apartment building to make ends meet.
Suffering for your art? If you think it's YOUR art or even YOUR work, you are kidding yourself. You work for someone else to create their vision.
Personally, I don't want to be in my 40's clicking at a mouse in the dark for 28$ an hour. A bus driver, the manager of the dairy section at your local grocery store and the garbage man make 56k a year. Why did I get a degree and spend 15 years in an industry to have my salary go down?
In my world, that is unacceptable.
Post a Comment