Community Forums => General Chat => Topic started by: tendoboy1984 on April 25, 2012, 02:30:00 AM
Title: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 25, 2012, 02:30:00 AM
Is anyone here a fan of drawing and animation? I've loved studying animation and drawing since I first saw Looney Tunes as a young kid.
On a side note: Do comic book studios outsource their work to overseas artists the way animation studios outsource animation to Korea?
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: Dasmos on April 25, 2012, 10:57:19 AM
Yeah, there's a bit of outsourcing, but it's hardly commonplace. In comic books the artist is just as important as the writer and so I think it's mainly lesser known writers who are trying to get their stories out there who are looking overseas for cheaper artists.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: bustin98 on April 25, 2012, 02:55:35 PM
Comic book editors want talent, not cheap labor (though they prefer both when it comes along). There are many 'imports' in the creative field, Neil Gaiman, George Perez, John Byrne is Canadian, Ivan Reis, Jae Lee, Whilce Portacio, many many others. Comics tend to come from the heart, and a sweat shop isn't going to produce something like that. Animation on the other hand... I love some of the sweat shop stuff. M.A.S.K., Transformers, Inspector Gadget... My childhood is all about that stuff.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 25, 2012, 03:48:14 PM
Comic book editors want talent, not cheap labor (though they prefer both when it comes along). There are many 'imports' in the creative field, Neil Gaiman, George Perez, John Byrne is Canadian, Ivan Reis, Jae Lee, Whilce Portacio, many many others. Comics tend to come from the heart, and a sweat shop isn't going to produce something like that. Animation on the other hand... I love some of the sweat shop stuff. M.A.S.K., Transformers, Inspector Gadget... My childhood is all about that stuff.
I don't get that though. A cartoon is a bunch of drawings put together to create the illusion of movement. A comic is just a bunch of pages of drawings put together in a book. They both require talented artists to make.
Shouldn't talent be the number one priority of any animation studio? Pretty much every cartoon made throughout the 1930's - 1950's was done by American animators. Then all of a sudden, studios found out it was cheaper to outsource to foreign countries, because the labor is cheap.
It shouldn't be about cheap labor, it should be about talent. We have all these talented animators right here in America that can't get work because all the animation is done in Korea now.
It's a good thing the comic industry still does a majority of stuff locally.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: Lithium on April 25, 2012, 04:07:22 PM
well I guess it depends, i don't much about the production side of animation but i do know that places like Production I.G (ghost in the shell, Sky crawlers) like to pump tons of money into the animation budget. Almost any anime worked on by them looks superb.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 25, 2012, 05:35:49 PM
well I guess it depends, i don't much about the production side of animation but i do know that places like Production I.G (ghost in the shell, Sky crawlers) like to pump tons of money into the animation budget. Almost any anime worked on by them looks superb.
Well that's because the Japanese take great pride in their animation, unlike a majority of American studios.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: TJ Spyke on April 25, 2012, 05:43:41 PM
With animation, they usually do the storyboards and stuff here (which basically look like comics), all the overseas studios do is do the in-between stuff (i.e. they draw Point A and Point C here, then send it overseas for them to do Point B). All of the actual creative work is done here, it's just the menial stuff done elsewhere. So don't worry, the animators here design everything and do all the important stuff. It makes sense too because the costs are like 80% lower. If you were to compare, a typical animated show still uses more American artists than a average comic book (and they do more work than most comic book artists), so it's not like there is a lack of work for animators here.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 25, 2012, 06:14:24 PM
With animation, they usually do the storyboards and stuff here (which basically look like comics), all the overseas studios do is do the in-between stuff (i.e. they draw Point A and Point C here, then send it overseas for them to do Point B). All of the actual creative work is done here, it's just the menial stuff done elsewhere. So don't worry, the animators here design everything and do all the important stuff. It makes sense too because the costs are like 80% lower. If you were to compare, a typical animated show still uses more American artists than a average comic book (and they do more work than most comic book artists), so it's not like there is a lack of work for animators here.
Well what about back in the old days when everything was done in America. You had the storyboarders, the ink-and-paint department (which copied the drawings onto "cels"), the background painters, etc. All of that was done in-house, with no need for overseas cheap labor.
If they could do it back in the 1940's and 1950's, then they can do it now.
And what about CG animation? Pixar and Dreamworks do everything in-house, right? Not sure about Dreamworks, but I know Pixar does everything themselves. How can CG studios keep everything in-house, but hand-drawn animation has to be sent overseas?
Regarding hand-drawn animation, it seems the Japanese are the only ones who do everything in-house. I've never heard of a Japanese studio outsourcing to Korea.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 25, 2012, 06:18:39 PM
With animation, they usually do the storyboards and stuff here (which basically look like comics), all the overseas studios do is do the in-between stuff (i.e. they draw Point A and Point C here, then send it overseas for them to do Point B). All of the actual creative work is done here, it's just the menial stuff done elsewhere. So don't worry, the animators here design everything and do all the important stuff. It makes sense too because the costs are like 80% lower. If you were to compare, a typical animated show still uses more American artists than a average comic book (and they do more work than most comic book artists), so it's not like there is a lack of work for animators here.
The costs may be 80% lower, but that results in poor quality work. Good thing Disney keeps their theatrical animation completely in-house.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: TJ Spyke on April 25, 2012, 06:22:43 PM
It's expensive, that is why. A movie animated 100% in the US could be $100 million, while outsourcing the non-creative part to India or South Korea could bring that number down to $20 million and the quality of the movie would be the same. Why WOULDN'T you do it? Yes, the quality is GOOD. Also, Disney does outsource their animation too. I could list dozens of outsourced animated shows (not even counting movies) that look great. Just like their is in-house animation that sucks.
CGI requires more attention to detail (while hand-drawn work done overseas requires little to no creative effort). I am not sure about Pixar and DreamWorks (I haven't checked), but some CG studios do outsource some work as well.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 25, 2012, 10:54:11 PM
It's expensive, that is why. A movie animated 100% in the US could be $100 million, while outsourcing the non-creative part to India or South Korea could bring that number down to $20 million and the quality of the movie would be the same. Why WOULDN'T you do it? Yes, the quality is GOOD. Also, Disney does outsource their animation too. I could list dozens of outsourced animated shows (not even counting movies) that look great. Just like their is in-house animation that sucks.
CGI requires more attention to detail (while hand-drawn work done overseas requires little to no creative effort). I am not sure about Pixar and DreamWorks (I haven't checked), but some CG studios do outsource some work as well.
If it has to do with cutting costs, then why didn't they outsource animation in the 1940's and 1950's? Everything was done in-house, and some of the world's best animators worked for Disney and Warner Bros. during that time. We will never give the same praise to Indian or Korean animators because all they do is grunt work (in-betweening).
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: TJ Spyke on April 25, 2012, 11:12:06 PM
Same reason outsourcing in general happens, salaries here go up while they stay low in other countries. For example, a Korean animator can make as little as USD$1,000 a year. Who here would be willing to work as a animator for $19 a week?
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: Oblivion on April 25, 2012, 11:12:56 PM
Tendo, outsourcing the animation does not mean lower quality animation. Just look at Avatar: the Last Airbender and Avatar: The Legend of Korra; not animated in the US whatsoever. 100% of the animation is done in Korea.
Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it true. If you want to state "facts" to support your viewpoint you should probably back it up with some sources.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 25, 2012, 11:19:54 PM
Same reason outsourcing in general happens, salaries here go up while they stay low in other countries. For example, a Korean animator can make as little as USD$1,000 a year. Who here would be willing to work as a animator for $19 a week?
That's the problem I'm talking about. The bigwigs running our corporations are taking advantage of these people because those people don't know any better. What a waste of human dignity and rights.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 25, 2012, 11:22:46 PM
Same reason outsourcing in general happens, salaries here go up while they stay low in other countries. For example, a Korean animator can make as little as USD$1,000 a year. Who here would be willing to work as a animator for $19 a week?
You missed my point. In the old days of animation, there was a sense of pride being an animator for Disney or Warner Bros. There was very little outsourcing done in those days, and it was never sent overseas.
What prompted this sudden obsession with sending animation overseas?
Another thing I'd like to point out, the Japanese very rarely outsource their animation. They do a majority of the work in their own studios. I guess the Japanese have a bigger sense of pride for their work than American studios.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: TJ Spyke on April 25, 2012, 11:29:14 PM
Same reason outsourcing in general happens, salaries here go up while they stay low in other countries. For example, a Korean animator can make as little as USD$1,000 a year. Who here would be willing to work as a animator for $19 a week?
That's the problem I'm talking about. The bigwigs running our corporations are taking advantage of these people because those people don't know any better. What a waste of human dignity and rights.
You are blaming the corporations here because the South Korean government has such a low minimum wage? Those people are not really making any more or less money at other jobs there.
Well, the rising costs of animation was likely a big motivator.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: Oblivion on April 25, 2012, 11:30:43 PM
Another thing I'd like to point out, the Japanese very rarely outsource their animation. They do a majority of the work in their own studios. I guess the Japanese have a bigger sense of pride for their work than American studios.
The ****? What kind of argument is that?
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 25, 2012, 11:33:59 PM
Another thing I'd like to point out, the Japanese very rarely outsource their animation. They do a majority of the work in their own studios. I guess the Japanese have a bigger sense of pride for their work than American studios.
The ****? What kind of argument is that?
The point is, if the Japanese can be perfectly capable of doing their own animation in their own studios, then why can't American studios buck up and keep everything done in America?
Japan produces much more hand-drawn animation than American studios, but they don't complain about rising costs, nor do they have to rely on cheap overseas workers. What are the Japanese doing so right?
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: Oblivion on April 25, 2012, 11:38:23 PM
You answered your own question.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: TJ Spyke on April 25, 2012, 11:40:40 PM
Japan produces much more hand-drawn animation than American studios, but they don't complain about rising costs
Japanese movie tickets also average about $20. So....
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: bustin98 on April 26, 2012, 12:27:33 AM
Part of the quality of animation is the frames per second. Old Looney Tunes are about 24 frames, along with classic Disney movies. That number has decreased over time, and reference frames have increased. Scooby Doo, while awesome, has some of the highest of these frames where all that moves is the mouth. Having cartoons with 11 - 14 frames decreases the costs. Part of the issue is that until the early 90s, cartoons could basically be a commercial for toys and merchandising, subsidizing the toons. Factor in rising popularity of video games, general dislike of cartoons by the mainstream (forgetting about how popular Bugs Bunny, Fred Flintsone, Popeye, etc were with adults), and rising costs of material and labor, its little wonder cartoons have declined in the past 10 - 15 years. There used to be so many good cartoons, we took it for granted. Now it seems we wait for that one break out hit, only to see the network kill it in favor of infomercials.
Not to say all cartoons in the past were good. For every GI Joe there was at least 2 Turbo Teens or Giligan's Planets. Did you know there was a cartoon hawking Rubix Cube?? Mr T had his own show, as did Gary Coleman as an angel. Not only was Alf a live action sitcom, but he too had a cartoon. But I'd still watch those over Sonic and Yugioh.
Oh, and you kids.. GET OFF MY LAWN!!! In my day... we hand cranked our cartoons on movie reels... and WE LIKED IT! (This post really shows my age)
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 26, 2012, 12:40:34 AM
Part of the quality of animation is the frames per second. Old Looney Tunes are about 24 frames, along with classic Disney movies. That number has decreased over time, and reference frames have increased. Scooby Doo, while awesome, has some of the highest of these frames where all that moves is the mouth. Having cartoons with 11 - 14 frames decreases the costs. Part of the issue is that until the early 90s, cartoons could basically be a commercial for toys and merchandising, subsidizing the toons. Factor in rising popularity of video games, general dislike of cartoons by the mainstream (forgetting about how popular Bugs Bunny, Fred Flintsone, Popeye, etc were with adults), and rising costs of material and labor, its little wonder cartoons have declined in the past 10 - 15 years. There used to be so many good cartoons, we took it for granted. Now it seems we wait for that one break out hit, only to see the network kill it in favor of infomercials.
Not to say all cartoons in the past were good. For every GI Joe there was at least 2 Turbo Teens or Giligan's Planets. Did you know there was a cartoon hawking Rubix Cube?? Mr T had his own show, as did Gary Coleman as an angel. Not only was Alf a live action sitcom, but he too had a cartoon. But I'd still watch those over Sonic and Yugioh.
The animation industry was in complete disarray during the 1970's and 1980's. Disney pretty much kept the animation industry alive during the 1980's with hit movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast.
In my opinion, Who Framed Roger Rabbit may have single-handedly revived interest in the old style of cartooning, hearkening back to an era where cartoons were edgy and wacky, and cartoonists like Tex Avery, Chuck Jones, and Friz Freleng were the biggest guys in the industry.
After the success of Roger Rabbit, even the once mighty Warner Bros. had decided to reignite their animation studio in the late 1980's, producing hits like Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, and Batman: The Animated Series. And then there's John Kricfalusci, the creator of Ren and Stimpy and major cartoon critic. If any of you read his blog, he's constantly decrying modern cartoons, saying they lack a sense of uniqueness. Everything has become dumbed down for the kiddies, in his eyes. He may be a bit of an elitist, but at least he holds strong opinions.
Pixar did their part to bring CG animation to the mainstream, with their huge hit Toy Story. Ever since Pixar made their mark, there have been countless imitators and a huge oversaturation of CG movies. DreamWorks, Blue Sky, Sony Pictures Animation, and others are all trying to steal Pixar's thunder, inadvertently destroying whatever is left of hand-drawn animation.
I know I'm rambling now, but I just love talking about animation and cartoons. I'm a huge animation buff.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: Oblivion on April 26, 2012, 12:41:49 AM
No offense, but it doesn't seem like it.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 26, 2012, 12:46:37 AM
So that huge wall of text I posted about the decline and rebirth of animation during the 1980's was wrong? Do you think Who Framed Roger Rabbit single-handedly saved the animation industry from becoming an obscure realm of kids shows and licensed cartoons?
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: TJ Spyke on April 26, 2012, 12:56:14 AM
Part of the quality of animation is the frames per second. Old Looney Tunes are about 24 frames, along with classic Disney movies. That number has decreased over time, and reference frames have increased. Scooby Doo, while awesome, has some of the highest of these frames where all that moves is the mouth. Having cartoons with 11 - 14 frames decreases the costs. Part of the issue is that until the early 90s, cartoons could basically be a commercial for toys and merchandising, subsidizing the toons. Factor in rising popularity of video games, general dislike of cartoons by the mainstream (forgetting about how popular Bugs Bunny, Fred Flintsone, Popeye, etc were with adults), and rising costs of material and labor, its little wonder cartoons have declined in the past 10 - 15 years. There used to be so many good cartoons, we took it for granted. Now it seems we wait for that one break out hit, only to see the network kill it in favor of infomercials.
Not to say all cartoons in the past were good. For every GI Joe there was at least 2 Turbo Teens or Giligan's Planets. Did you know there was a cartoon hawking Rubix Cube?? Mr T had his own show, as did Gary Coleman as an angel. Not only was Alf a live action sitcom, but he too had a cartoon. But I'd still watch those over Sonic and Yugioh.
The animation industry was in complete disarray during the 1970's and 1980's. Dinsye pretty much kept the animation industry alive during the 1980's with hits like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast.
In my opinion, Who Framed Roger Rabbit may have single-handedly revived interest in the old style of cartooning, hearkening back to an era where cartoons were edgy and wacky, and cartoonists like Tex Avery, Chuck Jones, and Friz Freleng were the biggest guys in the industry.
After the success of Roger Rabbit, even the once mighty Warner Bros. had decided to reignite their animation studio in the late 1980's, producing hits like Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, and Batman: The Animated Series.
Beauty and the Beast was 1991, an The Little Mermaid barely counts as the 1980s as it came out November 14, 1989. Even counting Mermaid, Disney released a total of 5 animated movies in the 1980s, the other 4 being The Fox and the Hound (1981), The Black Cauldron (1985), The Great Mouse Detective (1986), and Oliver & Company (1988). Disney didn't really have their animate Renaissance until the 90s. The success of Who Framed Roger Rabbit though did spur Warner Bros. to re-start their animation division the next year and led to the Disney Renaissance
John Kricfalusci is funny, but not sure he should be allowed total control over stuff. When MTV revived Ren & Stimpy for him (as Ren and Stimpy Adult Party Cartoon), he gave us stuff like making Ren and Stimpy gay lovers.
Animation on TV was kinda lazy in the 70s and 80s, partially because many of these shows were merely produced as 22 minute long infomercials to help sell toys (like Jem, Transformers, and especially He-Man).
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: Oblivion on April 26, 2012, 01:01:05 AM
Nah. The years are a bit off, considering The Little Mermaid and Roger Rabbit were both made in the late 80's and Beauty and the Beast was made in the early 90's, but that sounds agreeable. It was mostly your complaining of outsourcing. You want American animation to be made in America for the sake of being in America. Your reasoning? "Japan does it, so so should we." Despite the fact that they have a completely different economy and culture than we do.
Japan produces much more hand-drawn animation than American studios, but they don't complain about rising costs, nor do they have to rely on cheap overseas workers. What are the Japanese doing so right?
Quote
That is it right there. As a society as a whole, we still feel cartoon's are made for children. The Japanese do not. Their animation industry is like our Hollywood.
...except the fact that Iron Man will be outsourced to China to help with the costs. xD
EDIT: AAAANDDD...TJ Spyke beats me to it. :P:
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 26, 2012, 01:05:40 AM
Beauty and the Beast was 1991, an The Little Mermaid barely counts as the 1980s as it came out November 14, 1989. Even counting Mermaid, Disney released a total of 5 animated movies in the 1980s, the other 4 being The Fox and the Hound (1981), The Black Cauldron (1985), The Great Mouse Detective (1986), and Oliver & Company (1988). Disney didn't really have their animate Renaissance until the 90s. The success of Who Framed Roger Rabbit though did spur Warner Bros. to re-start their animation division the next year and led to the Disney Renaissance
John Kricfalusci is funny, but not sure he should be allowed total control over stuff. When MTV revived Ren & Stimpy for him (as Ren and Stimpy Adult Party Cartoon), he gave us stuff like making Ren and Stimpy gay lovers.
Animation on TV was kinda lazy in the 70s and 80s, partially because many of these shows were merely produced as 22 minute long infomercials to help sell toys (like Jem, Transformers, and especially He-Man).
Well yeah, but after the success of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and the coming revolution that was Nickelodeon, the animation industry quickly moved away from producing licensed crap and focused more on "creator driven" cartoons. Nickelodeon pioneered the idea of giving creative freedom back to the cartoonists, which spawned cartoons like Rugrats, Doug, Ren and Stimpy, Roccos Modern Life, etc.
The only reason Adult Party Cartoon existed was because Spike TV approached John and told him to go all out on the new Ren and Stimpy cartoon. They let him make the show as risque as he wanted it. John claimed that many of his ideas for Adult Part Cartoon came from fans of the old cartoon, and he essentially kept them to himself all these years, since Nickelodeon would have never allowed them to be made.
I detested the Adult Party Cartoon series, because it was so vulgar and full of pointless crap that made absolutely no sense. The episodes were often full of gags that had no substance, they were just there for a gross-out factor. The one episode that I actually enjoyed was "Ren Seeks Help". That one was actually quite touching, and it had some genuinely beautiful animation sequences, and it somewhat recaptured part of what made the original series so great.
Title: Re: Drawing and animation
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 26, 2012, 01:18:48 AM
Nah. The years are a bit off, considering The Little Mermaid and Roger Rabbit were both made in the late 80's and Beauty and the Beast was made in the early 90's, but that sounds agreeable. It was mostly your complaining of outsourcing. You want American animation to be made in America for the sake of being in America. Your reasoning? "Japan does it, so so should we." Despite the fact that they have a completely different economy and culture than we do.
Japan produces much more hand-drawn animation than American studios, but they don't complain about rising costs, nor do they have to rely on cheap overseas workers. What are the Japanese doing so right?
Quote
That is it right there. As a society as a whole, we still feel cartoon's are made for children. The Japanese do not. Their animation industry is like our Hollywood.
...except the fact that Iron Man will be outsourced to China to help with the costs. xD
EDIT: AAAANDDD...TJ Spyke beats me to it. :P: :
"We still feel cartoons are made for children."
It didn't used to be that way. Cartoons made during the 1940's and 1950's were made for the general public (adults going to the movies). The jokes and humor was way beyond what would be considered appropriate for a children's cartoon.
I blame William Hanna and Joseph Barbera for the decline of the cartoon industry. The crap they made during the 1970's and 1980's basically turned the entire animation industry into a cheap form of children's entertainment. Advertising agencies took notice of this and began to use cartoons as overblown marketing tools (a 30-minute toy commercial, so to speak). As an end result of all this, parents groups wanted these new types of cartoons to be appropriate for children, so no more cartoon violence, TNT, cross-dressing rabbits, slapstick, racist caricatures, etc.
How ironic, considering that William Hanna and Joseph Barbera created Tom and Jerry, considered by many to be quite controversial due to it's violence and somewhat mature subject matter.
