More Questions about animation careers...
Sceadu
report on Computer Animation if that helps, although if you work with modeling, set
designing or lighting, etc. your answers would be very helpful!
1. Salaries: Basically every source I've checked hasn't had anything to say about
salaries. What kind of salaries do animators make? I am assuming that someone at a
celebrity company like Pixar would naturally make more, but what does the average person
make?
2. Work experience: Most companies want a demo reel of some sort. What kinds of things
do people most want to see in these... that is, what specifically should one try to
portray well. Is it personal creativity, or the ability to reproduce the kinds of effects
that are already common in CG...? Also, what kinds of "starter jobs" are common when are
working toward a job that requires professional experience? Do you just do client work
then, or would you try to get an internship?
3. Creativity in careers... Do you get to make many choices regarding what gets animated,
or is it always fulfulling the client/employers ideas? (I would rather work with a team
to develop something new than be handed projects)
Hmm, I had many more questions a minute ago, but I'm loosing my memory now. Maybe I'll
post again later with more.
One more question... about the state of animation projects. I'm definitely hoping to work
on entertainment projects if I can, as apposed to doing art for advertisements or that
sort of thing. Unfortunately, it seems like every animated TV show or movie in America is
strictly for kids. Should I give up on the idea now, or is there hope that animation that
is less insulting to one's intelligence would ever be successful? Say, if someone did a
project that was animated but not necessarily a "cartoon." I see the Final Fantasy movie
this summer bombed, but it was simply a poor movie in any case, so I'm hoping that doesn't
mean all PG-13 animation will fail. I'm thinking of something more along the lines of
what the Japanese do with animation. Could it work here?
Thank you very much.
Sceadu
Seattle Eric
> One more question... about the state of animation projects. I'm definitely hoping to work
> on entertainment projects if I can, as apposed to doing art for advertisements or that
> sort of thing. Unfortunately, it seems like every animated TV show or movie in America is
> strictly for kids. Should I give up on the idea now, or is there hope that animation that
> is less insulting to one's intelligence would ever be successful?
Bugs Bunny seemd to do ok.
Seems to me you might want to get a little experience before you worry about selling out
your artistic integrity.
--
***************************************************
** Look! There's ARAT in the middle of "separate"!
****************************************************
Martin Rowley
Martin
Sceadu wrote:
> I have a few questions that I'm hoping someone can answer. I am specifically writing a
> report on Computer Animation if that helps, although if you work with modeling, set
> designing or lighting, etc. your answers would be very helpful!
>
> 1. Salaries: Basically every source I've checked hasn't had anything to say about
> salaries. What kind of salaries do animators make? I am assuming that someone at a
> celebrity comp
Check out Pixar's site http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/jobs/index.html they have some info on
careers with them.
Also check out both:
Animation Magazine
http://www.animationmagazine.net/
and
Animation World Network
http://www.awn.com
they have some really good information on careers in this industry. You might even find a
salary index.
> 2. Work experience: Most companies want a demo reel of some sort. What kinds of things
> do people most want to see in these... that is, what specifically should one try to
> portray well. Is it personal creativity, or the ability to reproduce the kinds of effects
> that are already common in CG...? Also, what kinds of "starter jobs" are common when are
> working toward a job that requires professional experience? Do you just do client work
> then, or would you try to get an internship?
Take a look at some of the job listing in the above sites :Pixar, Animation Magazine,
Animation world Network. They should give you some ideal of what is typical, plus look at some
of the resumes posted on the AWN site.
> 3. Creativity in careers... Do you get to make many choices regarding what gets animated,
> or is it always fulfulling the client/employers ideas? (I would rather work with a team
> to develop something new than be handed projects)
>
> Hmm, I had many more questions a minute ago, but I'm loosing my memory now. Maybe I'll
> post again later with more.
>
> One more question... about the state of animation projects. I'm definitely hoping to work
> on entertainment projects if I can, as apposed to doing art for advertisements or that
> sort of thing. Unfortunately, it seems like every animated TV show or movie in America is
> strictly for kids. Should I give up on the idea now, or is there hope that animation that
> is less insulting to one's intelligence would ever be successful? Say, if someone did a
> project that was animated but not necessarily a "cartoon." I see the Final Fantasy movie
> this summer bombed, but it was simply a poor movie in any case, so I'm hoping that doesn't
> mean all PG-13 animation will fail. I'm thinking of something more along the lines of
> what the Japanese do with animation. Could it work here?
I didn't think that FF was that "poor" of movie, just that it's story line was a bit too
"Japanese" - even the bad guy was just trying to do the right thing. Shrek on the other hand
had a more familiar plot, not to mention lots of "grown-up" humor. Both movies show what the
technology can be made to do. This new film "Johnny Newtron", does the same. Keep in mind as
with most new technology that it takes a little while for everything to come together at the
same time. If the past history of "visual" entertainment is any type of yardstick, then there
is a pretty good bet that it eventually will.
Tom Avel
wrong career. I think most animator's are kid's at heart. Most animator's
have more toys around their workstations then my 5 year old. :)
Sceadu
news:a1b60v$roi$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> Hmmm, I think if you don't like "kids stuff", you might be going into the
> wrong career. I think most animator's are kid's at heart. Most animator's
> have more toys around their workstations then my 5 year old. :)
I think part of being kid at heart is liking imaginary things instead of just realistic
fiction, but does it have to be Butt-Ugly Aliens and Action Man? Every 3D animated show
is incredibly insipid so far. Can't they at least make it serious, say like Tolkien,
without sacrificing the imagination?
Seattle Eric
Hey, knock yourself out. It must be a wide-open field...........
Kevin F Stubbs
> is incredibly insipid so far. Can't they at least make it serious,
Foundation Imaging ? That was pretty serious stuff. Unfortunately, not
enough people watched it.
> say like Tolkien, without sacrificing the imagination?
>
Deep and meaningful doesn't sell. Everything is money oriented these
days, so we're largely stuck with slapstick comedy and mindless drivel
that doesn't require an attention span of more than 30 seconds. With so
many commercial breaks in programmes, it's virtually impossible to have
a real plot that people can follow. Not the case here in the UK (yet !)
but in America, forget it. And that is based on my observations on
American TV 18 months ago, I imagine it's worse now.
Cheers
Kevin F Stubbs
Kayef Select Limited
Martin Rowley
As I keep telling people - they are not "toys", they're "action figures" and
reference models - that's my story and I'm sticking with it.
Martin
Stephen H. Westin
> I have a few questions that I'm hoping someone can answer. I am
> specifically writing a report on Computer Animation if that helps,
> although if you work with modeling, set designing or lighting,
> etc. your answers would be very helpful!
>
> 1. Salaries: Basically every source I've checked hasn't had
> anything to say about salaries. What kind of salaries do animators
> make? I am assuming that someone at a celebrity company like Pixar
> would naturally make more, but what does the average person make?
I suspect that's a closely-held secret: production houses don't want
to help competitors by telling them exactly what offer they have to
beat. And, since some animators at a given company are paid more than
others, they don't want to provoke jealousy and ego games by
publishing salaries. Not to mention keeping potential recruits at a
disadvantage in negotiations :).
Bear in mind, however, that cost of living comes into it, as
well. Starting at, say, $40K would be pretty nice here in Ithaca, New
York, but would probably require sleeping in your car in Los Angeles,
the Bay area, or Honolulu.
> 2. Work experience: Most companies want a demo reel of some sort.
> What kinds of things do people most want to see in these... that is,
> what specifically should one try to portray well. Is it personal
> creativity, or the ability to reproduce the kinds of effects that
> are already common in CG...? Also, what kinds of "starter jobs" are
> common when are working toward a job that requires professional
> experience? Do you just do client work then, or would you try to
> get an internship?
I suspect that there is a wide range of things folks are looking for,
and what they see will determin what sort of job you will be
offered. I remember a couple of pieces in last summer's SIGGRAPH
Electronic Theater that illustrate this. One was a stylized scene from
the Old West. It was very intriguing visually in a non-photorealistic
way, but the pacing was awful. I just sat there praying for something,
anything, to happen. I didn't get the story, either. The student who
made that might be headed for a career as a TD, lighter, or production
designer. Another piece was visually minimal: glorified stick
figures. But it was an engaging piece about growing up in a family,
and told its story well without dialog. That person will probably be a
character animator.
> 3. Creativity in careers... Do you get to make many choices
> regarding what gets animated, or is it always fulfulling the
> client/employers ideas? (I would rather work with a team to develop
> something new than be handed projects)
That depends. Starting out with a large company, you will presumably
be executing well-defined tasks. One of our recent M.S. graduates, for
example, worked on the mud shower in Shrek, along with other technical
effects for that film. By showing initiative and creativity, he
presumably will have more responsibility and wider scope in the next
film.
A good production house will use good ideas from everyone. No one
reaches that ideal, I'm sure, but the ones who come closest will be
the ones that last.
> Hmm, I had many more questions a minute ago, but I'm loosing my
> memory now. Maybe I'll post again later with more.
>
> One more question... about the state of animation projects. I'm
> definitely hoping to work on entertainment projects if I can, as
> apposed to doing art for advertisements or that sort of thing.
> Unfortunately, it seems like every animated TV show or movie in
> America is strictly for kids.
Did you actually watch, say, the Toy Story films? While accessible for
children, they are movies of serious content, not to be dismissed as
"strictly for kids". I think of Toy Story, for example, as a much more
"adult" movie than anything with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
C. S. Lewis wrote that (paraphrasing) there are some ideas and stories
for which a children's story is the proper medium. Also that a story
that isn't worth rereading as an adult probably wasn't worth reading
the first time as a child.
As for television, I think you're indicting the state of children's TV
in the U.S., more than the state of computer animation. Animated TV is
almost always done for children (South Park and Simpsons
notwithstanding). Budgets are low, as are production values and,
frankly, creative standards. I don't know how to change that. I
suspect that there will someday be a breakthrough into mainstream
prime-time entertainment, but that will require a show that really
needs CGI to succeed. Just finding an ordinary concept that would be
possible to render with a computer will probably fail.
> Should I give up on the idea now, or
> is there hope that animation that is less insulting to one's
> intelligence would ever be successful?
Again, go back an watch Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and Shrek. If you
think of them as "insulting to one's intelligence", I think you're
really not getting it.
> Say, if someone did a
> project that was animated but not necessarily a "cartoon." I see
> the Final Fantasy movie this summer bombed, but it was simply a poor
> movie in any case, so I'm hoping that doesn't mean all PG-13
> animation will fail.
I don't think so. I hope there isn't a "Tron" effect that scares
studios away from the concept of a fully-animated film just because it
was done badly once.
But I think FF failed for two basic reasons:
1. Weak story
2. Doing it for no really good reason. The most effective way (both
creatively and in cost) to get real humans in a movie is to hire
real numans and point a camera at them. Despite the expense and
complication of lighting, costumes, makeup, etc., the rendering
speed is 24 frames a second...
> I'm thinking of something more along the lines
> of what the Japanese do with animation. Could it work here?
Don't know. There are those who think that FF is very Japanese, and
that's the basic reason it didn't work here.
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Frank Van De Warker
saw the posting about animation careers.
I'm posting for my son, who's working on a masters degree at UW,
specializing in computer animation. Among other questions that came
up were: his prof/advisor keeps telling him that he should go for a
MFI, which should reflect more money in an animation career. My son
has doubts about that and isn't sure if he wants to put in the extra
effort and time required.
How important are degrees, and which ones, in a career in computer
animation? What about other prerequisites?
He's also been told that being able to tell a story is more important
than the technical skills needed in computer animation.
Not to mention entrance salaries for newbies (but a previous post gave
some leads on that).
Any comments regarding the above will be appreciated.
Frank
Anim8life
>I'm posting for my son, who's working on a masters degree at UW,
>specializing in computer animation. Among other questions that came
>up were: his prof/advisor keeps telling him that he should go for a
>MFI, which should reflect more money in an animation career. My son
>has doubts about that and isn't sure if he wants to put in the extra
>effort and time required.
>
I regret to inform you, that his time in school is pretty much wasted, unless
he's coming out of it looking for a programming postion...Art school is another
matter all together and does'nt require any computer background at all.
>How important are degrees, and which ones, in a career in computer
>animation? What about other prerequisites?
Degrees are a joke, unless you plan to program for a living...in Computer
animation, only TALENT is required, not paper and at the highest levels even
computer knowledge is not required....
In some cases all that class time and "psuedo" education is seen as a
negative....ILM is one example.
Show me a demo reel, and I'll tell you where you stand....it is your "degree"
>He's also been told that being able to tell a story is more important
>than the technical skills needed in computer animation.
>
Now your getting warmer!
...and Salaries are commensurate and totally depend on where you live!
..I don't mean to be a spoil sport....but I won't suger coat it.
Matthew Maxwell
<aeona...@hotmail.com.removethis> wrote:
Disclaimer: I am not currently being paid to animate,
so that throws me back in the realm of wannabee. Heh.
Most of my experience is in the world of full-CG production,
which means you get to do a lot of shots/models/setups and
not a lot of time to do them in.
> 1. Salaries: Basically every source I've checked hasn't had
> anything to say about salaries. What kind of salaries do
> animators make? I am assuming that someone at a celebrity
> company like Pixar would naturally make more, but what does
> the average person make?
There is no average animator, sorry. Most of 'em that i ran
into while i was working in LA were making from 900-1400 a week.
Some made more (and some of those were being lavishly overpaid,
but that's another story.)
Working at a marquee company doesn't necessarily ensure a
great salary. I know of guys who left jobs in LA to go work
at a Big House in Marin County for half the salary they were
making previously. Now, whether or not that was a probationary
salary, i don't know.
As for why they don't list salaries, simple. Most of these
positions are negotiated contracts for single projects (there
are very few staff positions that i've come across, though
i held one for the time i was working.) The production house
is trying to get the most for their money, and wrangling with
the animator over salary is part of that.
> 2. Work experience: Most companies want a demo reel of some sort.
> What kinds of things do people most want to see in these... that
> is, what specifically should one try to portray well. Is it personal
> creativity, or the ability to reproduce the kinds of effects
> that are already common in CG...? Also, what kinds of "starter
> jobs" are common when are working toward a job that requires
> professional experience? Do you just do client work then,
> or would you try to get an internship?
Creativity is sought after, to a degree. I'd say that a lot of
these places would prefer that you have a solid grounding in
what makes a shot/model work well than being the next Leonardo
da Vinci. Unless you're in a design job, you're likely not
being asked to be really creative, but to execute someone else's
vision (or even just part of a shot). Technical ability is important,
obviously, but there are cases of folks being hired on the basis
of their raw talent, rather than the fact that they were (insert
package of your choice) gods.
> 3. Creativity in careers... Do you get to make many choices
> regarding what gets animated, or is it always fulfulling the
> client/employers ideas? (I would rather work with a team
> to develop something new than be handed projects)
If you want to be creative, you'll probably be asked to do
it on your time (unless it's "creatively" solving the giant
mess of problems that usually come up in the course of a
production). Again, most of what happens is the execution of
someone else's vision. You might have leeway, and some places
are a lot more likely to grant it than others, but don't take
too long about adding your flourishes, or you'll be looking for
work elsewhere.
> One more question... about the state of animation projects.
> I'm definitely hoping to work on entertainment projects if I can,
> as apposed to doing art for advertisements or that sort of thing.
Well, good, 'cause then you'd be working for a design firm as
a freelance artist, most likely. All my answers were predicated
on the world of entertainment media.
> Unfortunately, it seems like every animated TV show or movie in
> America is strictly for kids.
TV show? Maybe. There's still some adult animation, but it's
adult because of vulgarity and blood and sex, rather than being
adult because only adults could follow it. In film, you're
dead wrong. It's certainly true that most animated films are
marked squarely towards kids, but Pixar and PDI and Blue Sky
all put together movies that both adults and kids can enjoy.
> Should I give up on the idea now, or is there hope that animation
> that is less insulting to one's intelligence would ever be
> successful?
Well, to be perfectly frank, with that attitude, you're better
of making art in your home office than working in the entertainment
media. As other folks have said, most animators are kids at heart,
but that doesn't mean that we don't like foreign film as well...
No movie that Pixar or PDI has put out has been insulting. Square,
on the other hand... But that's a rant for another time (and i can
hear the flamethrowers being warmed up even as i type this.)
> Say, if someone did a project that was animated but not necessarily
> a "cartoon."
Well, that's not likely to change in my generation, so get used
to it. Especially in America. Most producers hear the word
"animation" and they think "Happy Meal tie-in toys." It isn't
fair, but it happens all the time.
> I see the Final Fantasy movie this summer bombed, but it was simply
> a poor movie in any case, so I'm hoping that doesn't mean all PG-13
> animation will fail. I'm thinking of something more along the lines of
> what the Japanese do with animation. Could it work here?
Unfortunately, _Final Fantasy_ is likely to set back thinking
about all-CG animated pictures for some time, in the minds of
the money men, anyways. _FF_ could have been a good movie,
but it seemed too much to be an exercise in "we're doing this
simply because we _can_ do this, not necessarily because it's
a good idea, and we're betting that Afleck won't sue us over
the unauthorized use of his face." Add to that the fact that they
didn't have a story and you've got trouble. Beautiful models
(for the most part) and sets that should have been done with
live action actors and set extensions.
The trick to doing mature animated pieces is a: getting them funded
and b: getting them shown. Neither of which is real easy these
days. ("Well, duh!" shouts the peanut gallery. "Next, you're
gonna tell us that the sky is blue when it isn't smoggy...")
-Matt
--
mmax...@san.rr.com.nospam
"Sea monkeys are NOT PRIMATES!" -- Max, of Sam and Max
remove 'nospam' to reply
Sceadu
> it on your time (unless it's "creatively" solving the giant
> mess of problems that usually come up in the course of a
> production). Again, most of what happens is the execution of
> someone else's vision. You might have leeway, and some places
> are a lot more likely to grant it than others, but don't take
> too long about adding your flourishes, or you'll be looking for
> work elsewhere.
This may seem like a dumb question, but as for the people who are having the "visions,"
who are they and how did they get to where they were? By just being animators for a long
time? Or did they focus more on traditional cinematography and directing?
> > Unfortunately, it seems like every animated TV show or movie in
> > America is strictly for kids.
>
> TV show? Maybe. There's still some adult animation, but it's
> adult because of vulgarity and blood and sex, rather than being
> adult because only adults could follow it. In film, you're
> dead wrong. It's certainly true that most animated films are
> marked squarely towards kids, but Pixar and PDI and Blue Sky
> all put together movies that both adults and kids can enjoy.
A number of people have replied with this, so let me say: I did not think Toy Story or
Shrek was stupid. I'm saying, that only covers the "family-comedy" genre, and that's
hardly the only thing you can animate.
> > Should I give up on the idea now, or is there hope that animation
> > that is less insulting to one's intelligence would ever be
> > successful?
>
> Well, to be perfectly frank, with that attitude, you're better
> of making art in your home office than working in the entertainment
> media. As other folks have said, most animators are kids at heart,
> but that doesn't mean that we don't like foreign film as well...
I'm talking about the mass of cruddy Saturday morning on television, which seem to be
shaping people's notion of what animation is all about.
> No movie that Pixar or PDI has put out has been insulting. Square,
> on the other hand... But that's a rant for another time (and i can
> hear the flamethrowers being warmed up even as i type this.)
Again, the movies aren't insulting, but they still only fill one niche. Square totally
amazed me with how bad their movie was. At the very least, they could have borrowed the
plot from Final Fantasy VIII, which was the worst in my opinion but still beat The Spirits
Within. Some of their stories are actually pretty good, like Xenogears (although it had a
bad script).
Thanks for your reply... I have new question but I think I'll pose it in a new thread...
Sceadu
G&L
Sceadu wrote:
>
>
> I think part of being kid at heart is liking imaginary things instead of just realistic
> fiction, but does it have to be Butt-Ugly Aliens and Action Man? Every 3D animated show
> is incredibly insipid so far. Can't they at least make it serious, say like Tolkien,
> without sacrificing the imagination?
I'm not presently a CG animator but I've "been around the block" in animation. Unless a
project offends ones deep, strong moral or philosophical convictions; If it's "just" a
crappy story,etc but it pays, you hold your breath, dive in, and worry about how good the
scene you are working on (out of context of the surrounding garbage you perceive) will look
on your next demo reel. .....Then again maybe crappy stories etc. are against your deep,
strong moral convictions:-) Do you plan to work?:-)
e.g:
I just rented Evolution. Stupid film but wow, what animator wouldn't want that Phil Tippet
studio animation on their reel?
Gerard
Matthew Maxwell
<aeona...@hotmail.com.removethis> wrote:
> This may seem like a dumb question, but as for the people who are
> having the "visions," who are they and how did they get to where
> they were? By just being animators for a long time? Or did they
> focus more on traditional cinematography and directing?
Well, "vision" usually comes from a combination of Director,
Art Director, Producer, various assistants, supervising
animators who receive their marching orders from any of
the above. Note that i use "vision" loosely, as i was
rarely presented with anything like a vision on any of
the projects i was on (primarily due to a willful ignorance
of concepts of pre-production.)
As for how do people get in the place of giving orders? If
i knew, i'd be there myself. Being able to deal with producers
who would envy the walnut-sized brain of a Stegosaurus
would probably help...
> A number of people have replied with this, so let me say:
> I did not think Toy Story or Shrek was stupid. I'm saying,
> that only covers the "family-comedy" genre, and that's
> hardly the only thing you can animate.
Thanks for the clarification. No, it's not the only
genre/audience target, but it sure is an easy one to
sell animation in. Remember, you have to get the money
to do these gigantic projects from somewhere. That's
where producers come in. And it goes to hell from there...
_Final Fantasy_ wasn't a family comedy, though. If anywhere,
full-cg will more likely than not end up being used in SF
(and please let's not get in an argument about how science
fiction film isn't really science fiction by and large...)
simply because CG is best used now to articulate a vision
(there's that word again) that doesn't already exist in
the real world (or would be too expensive to build and
bluescreen.)
> I'm talking about the mass of cruddy Saturday morning on television,
> which seem to be shaping people's notion of what animation is all about.
Let's face it. There's more jobs to be had in the cruddy
Saturday morning content market (if you're willing to go
overseas, that is, since a lot of that work is heading
that way, or to Canada). That or in the game market,
though notions of storytelling are often left by the
wayside there, as often as not.
> Again, the movies aren't insulting, but they still only fill one
> niche.
But do we need to bother with genre designations? I like
movies. Period. Animated, not. Funny, serious, absurd,
fantastic, realistic. Yes, i'm playing devil's advocate to
an extent here.
> Square totally amazed me with how bad their movie was.
I agree. Bad human actors could emote more effectively
than the characters they came up with (i wish i could say
this another way). Let me take that back, General Hein,
who was called the cartooniest of their characters, was
the most successful in putting anything like emotional
energy on the screen. This is not to make light of the
fact that an army of technical and creative artists worked
their fingers to tbe bone in the attempt. But again,
this is another conversation.
Oh yeah, it really needed a real script. Really really.
Ryan Greene
Now experience can light the spark that helps that talent to develop, but
this can be very tough to get from education. Work experience will get him
a lot farther, and look a lot more impressive on a resume. The term
"student demo reel" is very nearly a derogatory term now, as employers may
assume that the student will need to be completely trained and forced to
adapt to true production work. This process is frequently unsuccessful, and
so, most companies look for someone with talent AND production experience.
Production experience, even if it is only in a closely related field will go
farther than another degree.
Ryan Greene
metacom
Once again we see the catch 22 rear it's ugly head- you can't get work
experience because you don't have work experience... wonderful.
Please remove the diespammerdie to email me directly.
John Spain
> > This may seem like a dumb question, but as for the people who are
> > having the "visions," who are they and how did they get to where
> > they were? By just being animators for a long time? Or did they
> > focus more on traditional cinematography and directing?
This is the site of Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, scriptwriters for Shrek
(And Aladin, I think). Has tons of great info on scriptwriting and breaking
into the business thereof. Probably a good start.
Brad Bird and Don Bluth are examples of animators turned directors/producers
Miyazaki and Oshii are also good japanese equivalents...
--
John Spain
"Think of posterity they say, but what, I ask you, has posterity ever done
for us?"
http://www.dreamers.com/jspain
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rick++
> salaries. What kind of salaries do animators make? I am assuming that someone at a
> celebrity company like Pixar would naturally make more, but what does the average person
> make?
Animation is both art and computers, so the salaries vary between what
artists
make (generally lower) and what computer people make (higher until the
recent
tech crash). Artists were paid so badly during the early days of
Disney that
they formed a union and went on strike. Much traditional animation
artwork has
been outsourced abroad (most of the Simpsons done in Korea). The
animators
union used have their salary scale on the web, but I dont see it any
more.
Animation World magazine also had a salary survey on the web, but it
is gone
now. Monster.com say art animators average $45K in southern CA based
on their
job reqs. A first level software engineer in LA is $60K. But I've
heard of people working in the $20s. The LA Tiems reported in the
1990s raids a
lead character animator sometimes got $200K.
> 2. Work experience: Most companies want a demo reel of some sort. What kinds of things
> do people most want to see in these... that is, what specifically should one try to
> portray well. Is it personal creativity, or the ability to reproduce the kinds of effects
> that are already common in CG...? Also, what kinds of "starter jobs" are common when are
> working toward a job that requires professional experience? Do you just do client work
> then, or would you try to get an internship?
Both creativity and skill.
A few years back Disney said in its recruiting brochure what they did
NOT want
to see in a demo reel: Disney characters, science fiction and flying
logos.
Frank Van De Warker
>
>I regret to inform you, that his time in school is pretty much wasted, unless
>he's coming out of it looking for a programming postion...Art school is another
>matter all together and does'nt require any computer background at all.
>
>
>Degrees are a joke, unless you plan to program for a living...in Computer
>animation, only TALENT is required, not paper and at the highest levels even
>computer knowledge is not required....
>
>Show me a demo reel, and I'll tell you where you stand....it is your "degree"
>
>Now your getting warmer!
>
>...and Salaries are commensurate and totally depend on where you live!
>
>..I don't mean to be a spoil sport....but I won't suger coat it.
Thanks for your comments. I'll pass it on.
Frank
Cristin McKee
> A few years back Disney said in its recruiting brochure what they did
> NOT want
> to see in a demo reel: Disney characters, science fiction and flying
> logos.
Hey, would you guys consider dragons to be science fiction? I just
spent months and months modeling a dragon and I'd hate to think it's
taboo at a lot of places. :P
G&L
Cristin McKee wrote:
I think the Disney portfolio requirement reference refers to Fantasy/SciFi
illustration flat art. I seem to remeber reading it somewhere too. I'm
guessing as with drawings of their characters there are alot of bad ones
done by fans.
From a personal observation I notice many new students do fantasy work and
if I were the one reviewing it would be tough to have a point of reference.
In some ways it can be a cop-out. I mean how does one say an alien, robot
or ship shouldn't look like that? It's easier as a reviewer of the work to
have a point of reference to something common like a human body, an animal
even a household utensil...and a challenge to the artist.
But by all means DON'T chuck your dragon. We know reptiles and bats,etc
and how they should move. Jurrasic Park, Shrek, Evolution; there is alot of
good animation based on such fantasy.
Gerard
Cristin McKee
though I've been planning to do a human character as well in the near
future. I'll have to remember not to focus too much on the animation
of unfamiliar characters.
~cris
rick++
> spent months and months modeling a dragon and I'd hate to think it's
> taboo at a lot of places.
My information is what they handed out at Siggraph in 1997.
I don't recall them recruiting on the floor in 2001. (Very few studios were.)
Things could change in five years.
Also Disney stuck out in what they DIDN'T want. I dont recall
negativisms in other recruiting handouts.
G&L
rick++ wrote:
That's because as a household name they receive literally tons of stuff much of
it from nonexperienced people who can copy a wicked Pinnochio from a coloring
book. And many nonexperienced fans do poor-man Frazzettas and Boris Vajello
wannabes and include that in the portfolio. Nothing wrong with the subject matter
per se; just so much of it done badly sent to premiere name in animation..
Just to qualify (or disqulify myself) to the readers and esp Ms.Mckee, you have
more experience in modern 3D than I do; I've dabbled in it and intend to get back
on the self-taught route some time.
I did work at the big D when it was briefly here in Canada and many was the time
I would glance a cover letter on the receptionist's desk saying something
like,"...I have no experience but always loved cartoons...", Not to mention the
same from many telephone calls and people wandering off the streets.
Gerard
(would love to be one of them animators hired on a 3D module,anyone listening?
-Freelance "unemployed" 2d)
http://www3.telus.net/drard/