What is next for the community

[Ilidrake]

This is me doing a bit of fishing I guess.

 

I'd like feedback on weather the members of the community are interested in doing another feature film?

 

No need to be hostile just some simple feedback is all I'm looking for.

[robcat2075]

I still have to piece together the last short project.

[NancyGormezano]

No need to be hostile

 

hah ha ha hahh hahahahahah hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo lololololololol etc etc !!

 

...That comment was good enough to get me out of lurking mode....

 

But on a serious note...my guess is that some might be...and some mightn't...Deep. I know.

 

Since I participated in both full feature efforts so far: TWO (from almost start to bitter finish) and SO (from bitter start to almostly finished), ...As a hobbyist, I would say for me I'm only interested if the story, characters, art style is interesting to me, because I don't have any expectations about the result (ie making money, being distributed etc).

 

It is important to note that both TWO and SO got FINISHED only because there was someone obsessively devoted to seeing it all the way thru, regardless of who dropped out.

[robcat2075]

I'll note that TWO and SO are the only two animated features produced as internet forum projects to actually get finished. In the history of the Universe.

[Rodney]

My gauge is that another community-wide feature film is several years off.

Most folks in the community currently have too many irons in the fire.

Of course, much can be accomplished in that interim and that certainly doesn't mean ideas for features can't be pitched/offered.

The more ideas the better.

 

There are an amazing number of short films/projects in the works at this time.

To embark on another community feature film at this time would be to encourage everyone to place those aside and work on something else.

When you consider most feature film can take five years from start to finish that is a considerable sacrifice.

 

To place this timeframe into proper perspective, how willing would you be to set 'Woke Up Dead' aside for five years to fully commit yourself to such a long term community project?

 

Things I see coming up*:

- More general collaboration and more emphasis on the Special Topics (two or more people getting involved in shorter/less stressful projects

- One or more Animation:Master ads/demos

Ad work in general provides amazing opportunities to polish skills (and tell stories) within a limited scope and in a limited timeframe with a limited budget.

The subject matter can also be very broad without a lengthy personal commitment being tied to any given project. The ads could be for A:M but they could also be for local stores, charities, or even imaginary products. As long as the participants are gaining experience and having fun, that is what counts)

- Where there is interest... perhaps a few community shorts/contests (ala Rear View Window or the contest you initiated).

 

 

*Note: This is what I sense but it certainly is not going to be what happens.

The A:M community will dictate that.

[robcat2075]

My sense is that a lot of people who might still be active, participating and enjoying using A:M left because of the unmet expectations of the TWO project.

 

To do a feature that people not your relatives would want to endure is a gi-normous amount of work. To get people to contribute their time and talent to a project that is not their own personal dream is really tough. There are a fair number of solo-animated features like Bill Plympton's movies and Nina Paley's but outside of TWO and SO I can't think of any group-animated features that tried to do a traditional division-of-tasks workflow that got even close to completed.

 

It's like one is the magic number for independent animation.

[Bruce Del Porte]

My sense is that a lot of people who might still be active, participating and enjoying using A:M left because of the unmet expectations of the TWO project.

 

I am certainly one of those who bailed out during TWO however I would say it was much more than "unmet expectations". What I found was that I was turning a hobby into a job. It didnt take much soul searching to realize working on a story i didn't believe in using a work flow that I found dubious was an artistically numbing.

 

The two movies were very ambitious and I applaud those who stuck it out and finished. To keep it an enjoyable hobby for me and to keep the work interesting over the long iterative process of completing a sequence or whole piece, I needed to be able to find "the vision/joke" as fresh the hundredth or even the thousandth time I watched the WIP as it was at the onset. I learned I am content to complete a piece and be the only one on earth that gets the joke while living with my own technical flaws rather than dred every hour of work on something I don't find artistically interesting.

 

I started using AM with version 8.5, during the era of "the list". Back in those olden days, the "one man, one computer" ethos was perfect for a hobbiest. The animation and still contests had a general theme but gave a wide latitude to each entrant to set their own vision and use their own work flow. The two Oz movies, I guess somewhat out of practical necessity, recalibrated away from OMOC to having a lot of people doing work that was not their own vision. It seems to me that much of this new thinking has carried over to subsequent forum projects and many of the modern projects try to dictate both a narrow artistic vision and work flow. Even with much more powerful software and computers, these projects seem to be yielding fewer and fewer complete pieces.

 

So what is an old school OMOC person to do? For themes I find interesting, I define my own project. Rules I find artistically dubious or work flow elements I find to be productivity killers I descope. I would much rather finish my own vision than abandon a half finished attempt at someone else's. My hard drive has plenty half finished projects, abandoned out of losing my inspiration.

 

So what is my point here, I guess I'm suggesting we recapture some of the old OMOC ethos and define forum projects that allow the contributors to create work to their own vision, using their own work flow.

[Ilidrake]

I agree Bruce. I contributed to TWO as well. I did the bedroom for Scarecrow and after that just sort of lost interest. The Oz books are okay but I don't really find them that appealing. I prefer original works with quirky characters.

 

But from the posts here I can see that another feature will be a long way down the road, if ever.

 

I started the current contest in hopes of seeing more users, especially beginners, getting into AM and just producing something. With a 3 month window even uncomplete entrants are welcome.

 

I myself will not be stopping on Woke Up Dead Rodney. It's the first project that I have started that really keeps my juices flowing and I hope to see it finished.

 

As I stated...just fishing a little hehehehe...

[Rodney]

So what is my point here, I guess I'm suggesting we recapture some of the old OMOC ethos and define forum projects that allow the contributors to create work to their own vision, using their own work flow.

 

Bruce,

I'd like to think enough time has passed that everyone could share their experience in making TWO like you just did. And delve even deeper also.

Everyone struggled through the gamut of emotions during TWO as it came to fruition.

It was an impossible task... that still got done.

There is a considerable difference between working on an animation alone and collaborative works.

 

Lloyd,

I had to laugh at myself a little when I read your words about not being thrilled by the Oz books.

Initially the main thing that kept me going was the thought that, "at least it's not 'Alice in Wonderland'".

It didn't help that...animation-wise.... I really didn't know what I was doing.

That can be really reality check when you know others are relying on you.

Compound that with the inevitable frustrations that occur when we are confident something will work a particular way only to find out it won't.

 

recapture some of the old OMOC ethos and define forum projects that allow the contributors to create work to their own vision, using their own work flow.

 

I'll requote this line again by Bruce because this is points to the core of why we embark on community projects in the first place.

By sharing the process and end product of each other's workflow we learn.

 

If one looks at the cartoons of old it's fairly easy to see where one artist's hand left off and another one started. Sometimes the change can be startling.

For some reason, perhaps our more sophisticated tastes in these times, makes those subtle shifts in quality and approach a bit harder to swallow.

Quality is like that though. Quality is highly subjective and lies in the realm of the beholder.

This is still an obstacle however to making films collaboratively because a goal is to blend each disparate element into a cohesive whole.

In order to do this in a complex project individuality gets sacrificed so that one vision can shine through.

Artists struggle with this concept because we all want to put our personal stamp onto our work.

 

I'll tell you the number one reason why folks struggled with TWO... communication.

While an effort was made to use skype and every other means available the technology wasn't quite mature enough to keep the (mostly visual) information flowing. Where communication fails misinformation and guesswork flourish and so we have some folks zigging while others are zagging. But this alone isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem lies when we perceive that we have wasted our time due to some unfortunate communication. I believe I can illustrate this point via an experience I had on TWO.

 

In the scene just after departing Nimmie Aimee's cottage TW, Scarecrow and Woot have a dialogue exchange that I was assigned to work. I got my marching orders and began to storyboard out the scene and realized some of it wasn't flowing. As it was written it felt like a scene that needed to be cut. Rather than redraw the scene I used Bob Taylor's drawings from the initial storyboard and manipulated them to quicken the pace and motivate the three characters toward the next scene... arrival at Mrs. Yoop's castle. A motivating device I used was to enhance the elements of thunder and lightning that appeared in the already rendered test scenes from the arrival at Yoop's castle. The real challenge of the sequence was to incorporate a song, that of TW pining for his lost love, into the sequence. It was at this point that the new storyboard was green lit by Martin and Dhar Jabouri was signed on to principally animate the sequence. Here's where we went wrong. Now we had three visions that were very different all thinking of how the sequence would play out. The only one that should have been valid was Martin's (but he was reluctant to be directorial) and I thought the vision was captured in the storyboard. Dhar's was the vision that was important because he was doing the work. My failure... and Martin's if he's willing to join me... was to stop communicating. But some of this was inevitable because as I saw that parts of the sequence were deviating from what I thought was in the storyboard my attempts to communicate got worse. Poor Dhar! He was just trying to animate his scene and here he's got my deviation from the original script to contend with. So were those new storyboards green lit or not? In the end it no longer mattered and where it came to that scene my vision had to go. Because I had invested so much into developing that scene, this was a painful experience.

 

Herein lies a problem with collaborative work. Each individual has a unique perspective, approach and workflow.

The best way to get to the common vision is to have crystal clear direction to follow.

This is not as important in the case of 'One Man One Computer' wherein there is only one vision but it is considerably more important in collaborative projects. The folks who are working on the project need to know that their efforts won't be wasted or (unless absolutely necessary) cast onto the cutting room floor.

 

For what it's worth, I'm really glad I had that experience with that TWO sequence.

I learned a lot from it. Firstly and foremostly not to take any of those painful moments personally.

Just do your best, plus things up where you can, and be ready to move on.

 

It is important to note that both TWO and SO got FINISHED only because there was someone obsessively devoted to seeing it all the way thru, regardless of who dropped out.

 

Amen Nancy. All hats off to those folks!

[Ilidrake]

My experience with TWO was a good one. All I did was build one set and then fill it with props. Easy enough, at least I thought so when I started. Turned out to be a lot of work. But very rewarding. I'm enjoying my person project with Rodney. So much in fact I do believe directing is something I would really love.

Communication really was the biggest problem with TWO. I think because of everyone's different schedules. But I applaud everyone who made it happen and thank all for the ton of stuff I learned!!!

[robcat2075]

My observation is that deciding on a subject is where most volunteer collaborative projects run aground.

 

They would run aground on almost everything but since "subject" comes up first that's where it usually happens.

[robcat2075]

It is important to note that both TWO and SO got FINISHED only because there was someone obsessively devoted to seeing it all the way thru...

 

And then they disappeared and have not been seen since.

[zandoriastudios]

My observation is that deciding on a subject is where most volunteer collaborative projects run aground.

 

They would run aground on almost everything but since "subject" comes up first that's where it usually happens.

 

LOL, so true! About all we could expect agreement on is that we should use A:M

[Bruce Del Porte]

This is still an obstacle however to making films collaboratively because a goal is to blend each disparate element into a cohesive whole.

In order to do this in a complex project individuality gets sacrificed so that one vision can shine through.

Artists struggle with this concept because we all want to put our personal stamp onto our work.

 

A single vision collaboration is an oxymoron. Artists that sacrifice their individuality become technicians. On commercial feature films, the animators ( or really any of the CG crafts) are paid as technicians to execute the producer's/director's vision. This is fine as long as one is honest with one's self about their motivation.

[robcat2075]

To put a positive slant on this... A:M is great because it's one of the few ways a solo artist could actually manage the entire CG animation pipeline on his or her own.

 

You can get more features in other programs but you'll need to hire someone to run them for you.

[TheSpleen]

I'll note that TWO and SO are the only two animated features produced as internet forum projects to actually get finished. In the history of the Universe.

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

 

I ALWAYS have something rendering

[Bruce Del Porte]

  To put a positive slant on this... A:M is great because it's one of the few ways a solo artist could actually manage the entire CG animation pipeline on his or her own.

 

You can get more features in other programs but you'll need to hire someone to run them for you.

 

Hear hear!

 

Thank goodness for Martin's vision on that.

[Ilidrake]

I think I own every software packagae out there and I use AM 100%. It's just too easy and powerful to not use. Not too mention affordable.

[Rodney]

And then they disappeared and have not been seen since.

 

Perhaps they are off basking in the glory of their success?

 

Artists are sensitive creatures.

There seems to be two primary approaches to working with them:

 

1) Handle with care.

2) Bash them atop the head.

 

In this I'm finding that the use of both is appropriate but as in animation itself, timing is everything.

A little inbetweening also helps.

[Rodney]

A single vision collaboration is an oxymoron. Artists that sacrifice their individuality become technicians. On commercial feature films, the animators ( or really any of the CG crafts) are paid as technicians to execute the producer's/director's vision. This is fine as long as one is honest with one's self about their motivation.

 

Agreed, but (as you say) how else can a feature film be accomplished?

Collaboration really is the only way to get such a thing accomplished.

More collaboration means... or at least should equate to... getting more accomplished.

 

Here's the thing I focus on:

I love to be creative and do my own thing but I enjoy working with others just as much if not more (just not at the same time... sometimes I just wanna be left alone!).

 

I've found other artists/animators to be social creatures as well. That's why we have a forum here.

But while the vast majority of A:M users may be social that doesn't mean they move in the same circles that we do here.

There is only so far you can spread yourself before you find you've spread yourself too thin.

TWO was like that for me. On the one hand I was trying to learn to animate... on the other I was a bit distracted in the middle east.

Something had to give.

 

This is fine as long as one is honest with one's self about their motivation.

Sometimes our motivations change... what feels completely honest today may not ring as true some other day.

I hope no one went into TWO planning to fail. I think one area that we should have accounted for more carefully is where a task is considered finished. That's not always an easy thing to assess. Early in the process everything is full of energy and creativity. The ideas flow easily. Later on the tasks become more mundane.... "Why is that color shifting?!?" This is where it can help to have a finishing team already lined up that hasn't been involved in the earlier stages. But... there is danger here. Anyone that arrives on scene late in the game is not going to have the same attachment that did the earlier creatives. And yet this process of finishing is so absolutely necessary. It's not enough to take a project only 2/3rds of the way. Someone has to make the tough choices that will deliver this thing. So, either the old team has to make those tough decisions (which is hard to do when you are too close to them) or they have to let go and let others finish the game. This commitment beyond our own contribution must be deliberated. It's like letting our kids grow up, launch out on their own and pray they'be be successful and safe.

 

I would go so far as to say that every shot and sequence needs to play out the same way, even if only one person is producing the animation.

The hats that are being worn must change. When ideas aren't executable in the real world... something has to change.

Time is a factor as well. How long should a sequence be delayed because 'artist at work here'. The importance of meeting deadlines cannot be overstated because of how delays effect everyone and everything downstream. If time allows at the end perhaps additional improvements can be made. (This 'extra' time at the end should be budgeted in from the beginning)

 

In the end there is a lot of give and take and more often than not the artist working on the shot is going to feel they've given everything.

But this effort may not be enough if it doesn't fit in well with the rest of the film.

 

A single vision collaboration is an oxymoron.

We see this as true to a point but primarily from the perspective of the individual (i.e. the non-collaborator).

The vision that collaborations allow to come to fruition is that team effort where all involved agree to disagree so that a common vision may prevail.

This is what the Disney studio did/does so well. (and yet artists still continue to feel shorted on that 'ol give/take)

 

So whose vision is it anyway?

I submit to you that ultimately it is the audience's vision we are trying to fulfill as we endeavor to entertain them. In my estimation the best stories (also the most commercial?) engage everyone in the audience (no matter who they are) to the maximum degree. The audience must be the first and the last character in every story ever conveyed.

[Rodney]

Some folks have contacted me to let me know they can't respond to this topic.

I'm looking into it. If you can't post here, please bear with me as I run through all the settings.

 

Update: I tweaked a few settings and hopefully that'll fix the problem.

 

Update2: I've moved this topic to the Community Projects forum because I'm not smart enough to figure out why some couldn't post to it before.

I'll investigate more as I find time to dig deeper.

[higginsdj]

My view is...... a few of us (well at least me) do have have the ability to tell a story. We have the technical abilities to do various 3d type tasks (modelling, rigging, texturing, animating) to varying degrees of success and if we want to see a film, we need to tack onto a community project otherwise we just dabble and play and generally achieve very little.

 

Cheers

[itsjustme]

A single vision collaboration is an oxymoron. Artists that sacrifice their individuality become technicians. On commercial feature films, the animators ( or really any of the CG crafts) are paid as technicians to execute the producer's/director's vision. This is fine as long as one is honest with one's self about their motivation.

 

Agreed, but (as you say) how else can a feature film be accomplished?

 

Vignettes.

 

A couple of examples...Tales From The Crypt and The Twilight Zone

[Vertexspline]

Indeed , any group effort no matter the size , is just such a difficult task to achieve. Some people , and a lot of times the most talented, just want to do everything their way. It is hard for them to bend as it were for the benefit of the project. Others just never really get into the "story" and do wish to work on a team effort but if they do not feel like this is the greatest story ever ----they lose interest quickly and certainly do not want to put all their valuable free time on that kind of project that is not so compelling in their hearts.

 

It takes special and kind of unusual people actually to ever finish anything with a group ---so to all those who worked on those 2 AM films. Major Applause. You are indeed a special breed.

 

 

I think the whole AM mantra of OMOC does in fact lend itself to making it more possible with AM to work solo than many other 3d suites. And why many do and can.

 

That said ...there are always those out there who cannot do everything well enough and do have a yearning to at least pairing up or joining forces with some folks to fill in the items of their weakness. An the idea of a community project for them is an attractive idea in concept.

 

In the end, any group project to be successful needs to create the opportunity for the project to somehow feel like its the greatest thing ever for everyone involved and all the time - the whole time .....and that's nearly in the realm of a dream place. Smiles

[Darkwing]

On the topic of subject, my personal opinion would be in breaking the film into components. Did anyone see or hear of that ridiculously stupid film, Movie 42? The premise is that it's a series of short films strung together. I think in a community where you have people who would arguably be willing to work on some project, so long as it's the right project, but have differing interests and artistic styles, would be to in effect use that to advantage.

To explain further. A film that perhaps a character or theme that runs through everything, but is comprised of different style and genres. Sort of like stringing together a bunch of short films. This is basically an expansion of community projects like Rear Window or Bus Stop. People would in this case be part of teams (could be as many as they like) and work on the thing that interests them the most. Also, where the film is comprised of "sections," people wouldn't have to worry about taking the movie on as a whole (well obviously a few people will have to, those who are going to edit the whole thing together for instance).

But with the sectional approach, there can be multiple directors (a director for each section basically), multiple scriptwriters, animators etc. As Rodney was saying, communication would be key. We wouldn't want the script writers to be totally independent of each other, they should probably communicate to make sure that the overall script flows. Similarly, with the sectional approach, say I was intrigued in modelling flying saucers for one section, but wanna take a stab at animating horses. Well, I can model in the scifi one and animate in the western.

One other thought is that perhaps it would be an anthology, with no common theme running through it other than a guy in an armchair who introduces each short film. This way, people could pitch that short film they've always wanted to work on but was always afraid of asking for help.

Or, it's not even a movie, but is in fact a web series strung together by that guy in an armchair who introduces each short film. The requirement then might be like a limit of 5 minute short or something (or no limit, or different limit, I'm really just rambling now). Again, this gives the variety, creates short term projects that equal a long term project and also presents people with the opportunity to get others working together on that project they never could quite get off the ground.

[robcat2075]

We have done a few "common element" protects here, Two "pass the ball", the StereoAniJAM, "Bus Stop" and the still to be edited "Rear Widow".

 

 

"Heavy Metal" would be an example of a feature length animation that was shorts joined by a common story element, but they were all centrally scripted.

[Darkwing]

The more I think about it, the more I become inclined to the idea of a web-series. I see many benefits of that over a feature film such as how the community wouldn't have to wait years to see a final product. Plus there's free reign over the stories, styles and genres. It also presents people with the opportunity to try their hand at different tasks that they otherwise may not normally get to do. Similarly, it presents the opportunity for a person to not have to be that one man studio.

 

I mean if you scrutinize it, it's not that different from what the forum is in the first place. How I see it is a much more focused attempt at letting people produce something or be involved in something they want to make.

 

I have too many ideas scrambling around my head that I just wanna dump them all at once into this text box but what ends up happening is I very poorly explain even one of those ideas.

 

Like there wouldn't need to be a common theme in each of the shorts, just a transitional piece between them. We could even have categories instead of it just being a free for all. Almost like the animation contests, except as a group effort. Say the powers that be say "For the month of June, have produced for the web series a fantasy short, go!" Then anybody interested in producing the fantasy short gets together and does so. We obviously have structures in place to facilitate people's interactions instead of everyone just awkwardly looking at their keyboards waiting for someone else to post first.

 

Does any of this make sense, I feel like I'm really scatterbrained. It all comes together in my head but it probably isn't to you guys haha.

 

Also, we create a Youtube channel for said series and similarly, feature each episode on Am Films. Like the creators of the film don't have to worry about the distribution aspects, the people who decide they like dealing with such things as Youtube would.

 

Someone please say something or ask me a more direct question so I can impart this craziness on you better. Like I really think it's something that could work assuming I've written everything down the way they make sense in my brain!...

[itsjustme]

"Heavy Metal" would be an example of a feature length animation that was shorts joined by a common story element, but they were all centrally scripted.

 

I should have remembered "Heavy Metal"...that would probably be a better example since it's animated.

[Bruce Del Porte]

The vision that collaborations allow to come to fruition is that team effort where all involved agree to disagree so that a common vision may prevail.

This is what the Disney studio did/does so well. (and yet artists still continue to feel shorted on that 'ol give/take)

 

Disney pays very well. When the motivation for those that "agree to disagree" becomes just reaching the end, you create an unstable organizational problem. Resentment becomes accumulative. You've made my point.

 

I have a lot of admiration those that persevered and finished the two Oz movies. I think the results are remarkable. I am disappointed though at the number of people that moved to the sideline or left altogether. Cenrtainly Hash as a company and the forum as a community paid a heavy price of disillusionment.

 

Returning to my original point, I am proposing that more of the creative control be left to the individuals or groups that choose to contribute to a group project. I think we can have a coherent theme in a compilation piece while having a wide latitude in content and work flow.

[robcat2075]

A big problem i had with our most recent forum project is that we spent a lot of time creating special new assets for it and making them look good and testing them and created very clear directions on how to be part of this forum project and what to do for it...

 

...and then one person took the assets and ignored the directions and made something for himself that will never fit into the real project and it's obvious he never intended it to fit anyway and he put it out on the web before the real one could be done and now the newness and specialness of the assets that were made for our project is ruined.

 

It's gotta be the most thoughtless and selfish thing I've seen on this forum in a long time and it completely deflated my interest in collaborative projects. It's a lot of work to go through just to have someone take it all for their own show.

[Ilidrake]

Yes we can all agree that there are some major problems in doing a feature film. The fact of the matter is big companies are successful because of one thing...money. That's one of the reasons people animate for a living. To eat. To pay bills. When you are not being payed it's a bit of a hassle to give up free time for a project that isn't your own.

 

People want to be recognized for their efforts. Me, I was thrilled when I popped TWO into my DVD player. I went straight to the credits and rolled them just to see my name!!! It was awesome!!!

 

And that was enough satisfaction for me. Do I wish I had contributed more to TWO? Dang right. But personnal issues at the time made it impossible. So I did my little set model and moved on.

 

The question we need to ask is how to make community features possible? How do we fix what doesn't work? I'm sure there are some things that cannot be fixed. Some can be bypassed and others simply omitted because they are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the project is. Webisodes. Movie. Shorts. The problem is getting artist to agree on a vision and make it happen.

[Rodney]

I am proposing that more of the creative control be left to the individuals or groups that choose to contribute to a group project. I think we can have a coherent theme in a compilation piece while having a wide latitude in content and work flow.

 

An interesting thing about collaborative efforts is that individuals (and groups) already have full creative control so it's hard to have more than everything there is already. They can create anything they want. They don't have to adhere to the script. They don't have to stick to their assigned time/frame limit. They don't have to meet deadlines. They don't have to match up their shots with the preceding and subsequent sequences. They don't have to do any of these things. But when they do... wow... magic appears on the screen.

 

One of many reasons why Martin set out to make a community film was that there had already been a host of individual efforts both here and elsewhere that resulted in short films and animation tests. But none had that longer term cohesive vision such as one would find in a typical 90 minute film. Martin had to sacrifice his vision when folks began to design and create the characters, props and sets. Others had to set their's aside when those were refined, detailed and textured. And the voices... how likely was it that the voices were exactly what those creators had heard in their heads? Everyone involved sacrificed something to achieve completion of the final film.

 

I know of one talented artist that left TWO primarily because he was getting physically sick at the idea of working with newbies that he knew for a fact couldn't produce at the level of quality he envisioned... that he craved... that he needed to have in order to be associated with the film. He was right in many ways but his sense of community revolved entirely around him with very little room for deviation. Personally, I think it was inevitable that he would eventually leave. It was just a matter of where and when. I do hope he matures enough in his other collaborative efforts to be able to return some day and rejoin the community he helped create.

 

Denying the self is a tough thing.

Especially for highly creative people.

 

 

The question we need to ask is how to make community features possible? How do we fix what doesn't work?

 

This is a tough nut to crack and if it were easier we'd be seeing a lot more completed collaborative features both here and elsewhere on the internet.

Like most folks, I have a few theories.

[Ilidrake]

First is Story. If the story if good then the film will be good.

Communication is second. Without it things get off track quickly.

Compromise would be third. Projects of this nature have to have some bending by the people involved. If a director is chosen to guide the project then anyone getting involved needs to be comfortable being guided by ths individual. The director doesn't stifle artists but tunnels their natural abilities to the benefit of the movie.

Work Pipeline. AM is a good package but working over the net requires a nice streamlined pipeline that is easy and simple to use. I think one problem with people is we think the more complicated something is the better it is. I disagree. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

At any rate the biggest problem is ego. I for one have one when it comes to what I do. There is a lot of work I do that I do not post online because I do not want to hear the negative feedback. Heck, my wife only gets to see 5% of what I do, if that much. I think if we can just shove our pride to the side, like with TWO and SO, and create a film that promotes our collabrative artistic skills and promotes AM we all win!!!

[Vertexspline]

The idea that production is not good enough for some very talented folks is indeed one of the most difficult parameters to overcome with a community project/film. It often leads to two real problems. One as Rodney indicated the very talented artist will not accept to be connected to a project unless it is up to his or her standards. This is natural and understandable. They have an image of what something should look like and anything less is unacceptable.

 

The solution for that is another real problem---the director of the community project/film holds everyone tight to this high standard and it wears heavy of the lesser talented to be constantly rejected and rejected on submissions as the director attempts to keep the quality at the level required. Creating a drain on the relationship of the director and the other community members driving both groups into a frustrating circle.

 

Unfortunately. there is no easy solution for the immense different levels of talent for a community project /film. It's supposed to be a community thing right but ----the quality of the project needs to be near the top of the talent pool in order to attract and keep the most talented. So in reality , especially in a smaller community it becomes difficult to just get a critical mass large enough to get something done. It would also require a director(s) who can somehow harness the lesser talent without driving them away as they learn the harsh realities that this dream of making xyz is hard , hard work as submission after submission needs adjustments.

 

The only advantage a Community Project/film has is time. There are no real time constraints except the ability to keep the unit(s) in place over the long haul. No small feat either.

[Darkwing]

Something I'm wondering here, and this is purely just for the sake of argument so give it a little thought, is that are we critically discussing the situation or are we simply beating around the bush? The only reason I say this, is because we seem to have a very similar discussion every couple of months about having a larger community project. I know there's a point of critically assessing the situation and weighing in on the pros and cons, but I'm just beginning to wonder where we seem to do it relatively frequently and the results have arguably been the same, if we're really not into it? Or is it more a matter of someone has to take the plunge (seriously) and pitch their idea for a community project and see if people will come together on it or not?

There's a lot of lessons to be learned from the previous two films which I am by no means discrediting and I personally think it's good to have those who were involved to vocalize those opinions and experiences as they've been doing. But I'm positive we have pretty much the same discussion every few months and it always results in nothing. Like I'm trying to wonder if at this point we're learning anything new by having these discussions or are we simply chasing our metaphorical tale?

This isn't meant to appear impetuous or anything, I'm just trying to analyze whether or not these discussions are all that productive anymore and if someone should dive into that massive task of pitching and organizing and all of that fun stuff? Or should we just leave it alone? Because these discussions usually end in a sort of 50/50 split of uncertainty where there's some who would be willing to be involved and those who wouldn't be and so it just fizzles out. That kind of leads me to think it's not so much a question of solving the riddle of how to make another community feature, but rather, we lack somebody with a strong enough vision and passion to see it done.

Just food for thought.

[Darkwing]

Just an afterthought, I'm not suggesting that we stop talking about it or anything, just wondering if something will come of it is more like it.

[largento]

Some thoughts from my POV:

 

1) I think a feature, although an impressive accomplishment, is unwise for a small, indy production with no budget.

 

The only way to really make money on it is to sell it to a distributor, but it's most likely not going to have that appeal. It's going to lack celebrity and high-end production values. An indy, no-budget feature would be better suited to film festivals, where shorts are just (if not more) acceptable. Alternatively, if you wanted to show it online, internet users are less likely to invest the time in watching a feature-length film they stumbled across than a short.

 

2) When I was desperately looking for a project to latch onto, I threw out a ton of group project ideas and they were almost always ignored, dismissed out of hand, or suggested as great ...if I did them myself. :-)

 

I think, even with group projects in mind, people still have their own ideas about what they want to do and finding an idea that appeals to that many people equally is probably impossible.

 

3) Even a short needs a director

 

There has to be decisions made and somebody needs to be the final word. Sure, there's stuff like vision, intent, etc. but bottom line is somebody needs to be that go-to guy. It requires a benevolent dictator ...and those ain't easy to find.

 

4) Collaboration works best when the collaborators aren't competitive.

 

I've sought out help from people in the forums before and I've almost universally found that if the person helping is doing something I'm not particularly good at, it's easy and great. If they are doing something I can do, then I unconsciously start to become judgmental. If they are doing something I love to do, I become jealous and wonder why they are getting to do the fun stuff I want to do.

[Ilidrake]

So what can we agree on? That starting something as big as another feature would take a strong willed leader. A person everyone would have little to no problem taking direction from.

 

Do we agree on this?

[Darkwing]

2) When I was desperately looking for a project to latch onto, I threw out a ton of group project ideas and they were almost always ignored, dismissed out of hand, or suggested as great ...if I did them myself. :-)

 

 

When and where was this?

 

So what can we agree on? That starting something as big as another feature would take a strong willed leader. A person everyone would have little to no problem taking direction from.

 

Do we agree on this?

 

Absolutely. Maybe even if they're not necessarily the creative director, someone who's able/willing to put in the time communicating, organizing and all that fun stuff.

[Vertexspline]

I would agree to that statement and add actually that it would seem that it is too much for one person given rl constraints. I actually believe there needs to be director(s) acting as one unit but sharing the load. As we we know the Director's role is one of a Manager, Artist, Teacher, Coach and more. You need one driving force yes.....but you want to make any project less like a job and more like fun and creative --so 2 or three makes more sense to me.

[Rodney]

Keep in mind that one reason folks may be reluctant to get involved is that they've been around this track before.

 

I've lost count of the projects I've supported over the years.

In most cases (all cases?) the originator has left their own dream.

 

There is an unfortunate aspect of this that I hope we can avoid here in the forum (and I think the Special Topics help with ownership on this) and that is that after a project peters out the originator often has a hard time interacting with those that joined in the effort. They've ran into reality and thereafter had a hard time facing those who they had convinced to join their dream. In my estimation it would be better to just apologize and move on to the next project but in many cases that person has real and imagined pressures that cause them to leave completely. I shouldn't have to convince anyone that isn't the best way.

 

A story

I'm now thinking of two kids I worked with (on two different projects) that I still communicate with once in a while that were convinced that they could put together an animated series (or... maybe a movie). I said, 'Okay, let's do it' and off we went. At an inevitable point their interest faded and I was left with that old familiar feeling of "We've been here before, haven't we?". As such things are complicated, I won't attempt to capture what made them move on to other things.

 

But here is the point of what I am saying, NO ONE is going to believe in your idea more than you do.

If you lose interest in your own idea don't expect someone else to fulfill that dream.

If you can't convince others that your idea will work, why fault them for not having adequate vision?

 

I don't see those past efforts as failures... Everyone involved learned a lot from the experience.

But it does help if we have realistic expectations going in.

 

Periodically someone pops up in the forum with high hopes and dreams. What else can be said but, "Let's do it!"

Most folks are highly prepared for failure but few are ready for success.

This community can help them gain that experience.

Firstly and foremostly by failing faster. Then by failing spectacularly.

Finally, by setting achievable goals and succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.

[Darkwing]

Most folks are highly prepared for failure but few are ready for success.

 

And this pretty much describes me to perfection. All I expect out of myself now is failure. I honestly wouldn't know what to do with success if it walked up and slapped me in the face.

[Shelton]

I am going to throw my two cents. Rear window was a great opening to working with someone. Chris Dailey and I worked together for the first time and have to say it was one of the best things I have done in regards to animation. Not that my portion of the project was great, but the learning process, working together to create something, and making a new friend. I was nervous at first about working with someone else on a project. I worried that my skill sets were not up to par, but Chris was patient and pulled me along (encouraged me) and we were able to get the project done.

 

I did not work much on TWO or SO. I rendered and textured a lot. I went to the hash bash and learned how to animate but nothing I did animation wise made it to the final versions. So for a large project like that I can not comment on. Chris and I are working on a short right now. It is his story and he is the director and we are using some of my assets from Cupids Sick Day and I am happy to say this story line fits in perfect with what I want Cupid's Sick Day to show.

 

We meet weekly on Skype to discuss progress, work on story and eventual we will get to rendering. Sometimes we just talk about issues of life. But the collaboration can work as I feel it has for us.

 

I would love to see another community project. I will help in whatever way I can. We got to get "We Bought a Coffee Shop" done first

 

 

Steve

[higginsdj]

Success or failure of a community project is going to be based on 5 things;

1. A project that has a wide appeal in Subject and style

2. A project that has realistic objectives (aimed at the average community members ability and available time)

3. Has a single point of Direction

4. Has a single point of Organisation (can and should be different to the "Director")

5. KISS

(6. Director and Organiser who get along - somewhat of an issue in the early days of TWO)

 

If all these things are in place the project will get swamped with help at the start and interest WILL dwindle with time. At the end of 3 years on TWO there might have been 3-4 people still involved and a similar number at the end of 2+ years for SO (well really just 1 in the end). BUT note that it does not have to be the same people involved from start to finish. If the project is kept simple and straightforward then different people can step up as required when real life pulls people out of the project at different times. (I myself did no more than a few 2 month stints at a time on TWO and SO - in and out to keep myself from going bonkers)

 

The other lesson (from a project managers perspective) - make sure that there is stuff for people to do when there is most interest in the project. ie the project has to be up and running very fast - all artistic decisions made etc, script done and dusted otherwise you will lose at least 50% of your starters who just don't want to hang around OR have nothing better to do with their time than make 'suggested' improvements (then argue about those suggestions if/when rejected) because they have nothing else to do and their creative juices are flowing fast!

 

TWO and SO were eye openers for me and I saw a lot of the goings on that most were not privvy to.

 

Also, find out what 'other' skills people have - ie non artistic as you will want to utilise people 'real life' expertise as well.

 

Cheers

[Ilidrake]

Really good points. I had thought about opening Woke Up Dead to the community but I don't think the subject material would appeal to a lot of people. Although I can say I could use some help on it. Rodney has been invaluable but further along I will be needing a ton of extras modeled and rigged.

 

I'm getting off track though...what was the question again???

[Rodney]

I'm getting off track though...what was the question again???

 

What is the next community project and when is it going to happen?

(You're welcome. )

 

 

Steve,

You and Chris most definitely need to blog more about your experience whether here in the forum or elsewhere.

I know I'd love to hear more about it. You may think some of it is trivial but it all adds up to inspire the next generation of animation masters.

 

David,

It's rather unfortunate (I think) that we've not been able to do an adequate post mortem on TWO and SO.

I know it's easy for folks to nitpick but... people are entirely too sensitive about this stuff.

The folks that worked on TWO and SO have done good stuff and they know it.

A few words that suggest it could be better here or there shouldn't bother anyone a bit.

Feedback is how we learn and folks around here would learn a ton from the TWO and SO experiences.

(IMO we should start releasing some of the TWO and SO assets along with that post mortem as well)

 

As for community projects, my suggestion (other than short ads for A:M) would be to push those special topics for everything they are worth.

Don't have a special topic? Get one. Promote the heck out of it.

 

When the special topics get to the point where folks see them successfully moving into production with cool stuff flowing out and onto the screen, others will be comping at the bit to join in and be associated with the project. We can itemize and rationalize and speculate and theorize but the real secret to success is... (ahem) success. Hit 'em in the head with success before they even know what has hit 'em.

[Vertexspline]

I have to say ---this conversation covered a lot of issues . Did so in a succinct fashion and everyone got a few words in the mix which brought many good insights into a topic that many times ends up more in frustration and disappointment.

 

It does seem unlikely in the short term anyways that any large community project will be in the works .....but that certainly does not stop smaller ones from being started as Rodney outlines. And in reality- a continued focus on training, teaching, developing modeling concepts that new folks can catch on with and small projects might grow the talent pool. Which is needed for any possible larger project to have any chance.

 

Obviously if there were a 100 more active talented folks here ----this discussion might have swayed slightly differently. So growing the community talent pool is in effect the start of any possible larger project IMHO.

[itsjustme]

So growing the community talent pool is in effect the start of any possible larger project IMHO.

 

Absolutely.

[Bruce Del Porte]

A big problem i had with our most recent forum project is that we spent a lot of time creating special new assets for it and making them look good and testing them and created very clear directions on how to be part of this forum project and what to do for it...

 

...and then one person took the assets and ignored the directions and made something for himself that will never fit into the real project and it's obvious he never intended it to fit anyway and he put it out on the web before the real one could be done and now the newness and specialness of the assets that were made for our project is ruined.

 

It's gotta be the most thoughtless and selfish thing I've seen on this forum in a long time and it completely deflated my interest in collaborative projects. It's a lot of work to go through just to have someone take it all for their own show.

 

 

Boo Hoo!

 

Robert, you have nothing but your own poor leadership to blame for the 2011 project derailing. I suspect even Alfred Hitchcock would have been replaced had he allowed a 90 day schedule (Your rule 13) to slip to fourteen months, with no end in sight. In May, when you moved the end date to September, you were still soliciting new recruits rather that looking to wrap things up. Even at the end of November 2012, nearly eight months past the 90 day schedule, you were soliciting new participants.

 

In May it became clear to me that there was no plan to finish and so I stepped to finish off my own work myself. If you consider it thoughtless, let me assure you it was well thought out because you weren't making anything happen. You still aren't.

 

It is unfortunate that those folks that bought in to your leading this project to completion are now still in limbo while you have a pity party because of your "deflated interest". My sympathy is for them being duped, not your bruised ego.

 

I am proud I was able to recycle my own work from your failed project and make a complete piece. Hitchcock's movie was an interesting study. If at some point you decide to quit pouting and complete your compilation, I'm sure the two pieces will compliment each other.

[higginsdj]

So growing the community talent pool is in effect the start of any possible larger project IMHO.

 

Absolutely.

 

But there in lies Martins genius when he came up with TWO. Aside from those who have special projects, the rest of us have no real means of growing our talent without a project to cling to! The whole purpose of the TWO project was to grow talent - I believe SO was then an attempt to see what that grown talent could produce (I think we would all agree that SO was an order of magnitude better than TWO)

 

I think Martin only chose a feature because there was so much interest from the community that a feature sized film would be needed to give everyone a go and doing a reasonable amount of work on no matter what level of skill they had. In the end it took so long for TWO to get through it's pre-production that many people became disillusioned and disappeared, leaving the project to be completed by a handful of people who stuck it out.