DMO: You are making a good point. Do you think an animation package and production house can fail because of a poor movie, or even a great one?

Rowsby: It can. A bad movie can easily kill a studio, especially if their resources are tight. That's true of any business. People will often blame a tool instead of the person using it. It's not that different from racial stereotyping. People do it because it's a mental convenience, not an attempt to understand a situation.

Mark: I would hate to see the tool drive an artistic decision as you outlined. A project should go to the team that has the best grasp of the director's vision, and how to help them articulate that on the big screen. I think that Maya is a tool, that in the right hands, can do anything -- but that means a commitment to expand, customize and push the software to areas it has never been. This is the crux of why any given studio outperforms the others. Remember that Maya, and 3D in general, is not what the film is about -- these combined tools, including physical and practical effects, brilliant art direction, and a director with a vision will make a film a success, not the tool by itself.

Dave: I think these kinds of stories do drive people to make a choice about a product - after all, it is the end results that count. But the real tribute for the quality of the final project should go to the artists and designers involved. Some studios will tell the client that they use one package, and then do the job on another package all together…

Daryl: Maya has the best PR, definitely. It's mentioned in every sentence out of ILM.

Joe: It is no coincidence that R&H (Rhythm and Hues) does almost every talking animal movie and ILM does all the 'science goes horribly wrong/disaster ensues' movies.

Gregg: As far as I can tell, the software isn't really an issue.

DMO: Speaking of production house, do you think there are fewer companies doing more work or are smaller boutiques starting to spring up again?

Mark: Yes. We hear of startups all the time - even in a poor economy. The barrier to entry has gotten so low that it is feasible to create a studio that is under the radar of traditional Hollywood - and therein lies one of the secrets to their success - low overhead, reasonably paid animators, and a passion to deliver highend product, for low end prices. As more companies begin to specialize, it is not out of the realm of reason to see shops offering Cloth, Hair and Dynamics effects that cannot be completed anywhere else.

Joe: I'd say there are more boutiques than ever. They haven't gone anywhere, but they've all been going after visual effects work. This is not profitable work right now; there are just too many people after the same dollar. In coming years though, I expect that there will be a few select boutiques making their own movies.

Gregg: At my last count, I know of over 30 CG features either in development, production or release... that's a ton of work, and its equally distributed between the big players and the small crews with a bit of funding.

Daryl: I think small places are definitely popping up, the large places are just getting larger, but a lot of things are just badly managed.

DMO: Such as?

Daryl: People, resources, contacts. look at how FI has grown and collapsed.

DMO: But that seems to be a trend no matter what production house you are at... they get a few large jobs, hire all the animators they can find, and then as soon as the jobs are completed, the animators are let go.

Daryl: Right, but that's a pretty terrible way to run things

DMO: From who's point of view; the animator or the owner?

Daryl: The animator...being treated as disposable leads to bad attitudes on all sides

GO TO PAGE [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Home ]