"Storyartists: the meat and potatoes"- PART ONE

Well here we be...FINALLY! The post response to robo about story artists .
I had to go back and re-read all the previous posts because I had forgotten what I and robo were squawking about. (damn I write allot!-this post will be no exception).
BUT before I go down that lane of thought, I'd like to respond to robo about something he said:

robo:::
"""" My favorite bit was the ignorant swipe at San Francisco, one of the coolest cities in the world.
"Only piers and (too chickenshit to complete the dis) come from San Francisco. Which are you, be honest!"
Hmmm, I heard that joke waaaaaay back when I was in high school. Of course, the way I heard it, it went:
"Texas? Only steers and queers come from Texas! I don't see any horns on you so that pretty much narrows it down!"
Lee Ermy uses it in "Full Metal Jacket". Remember?""""

First, I love it when robo wants to make sure that YOU know that HE knows about a reference that someone uses. Robo, I wasn't trying to be sneaky! I KNOW you've probably seen the damn movie. EVERYONE has seen the movie.
"LEE ERMY USES IT IN FULL METAL JACKET!REMEMBER??HE DID! HE DID!!""
Ok robo...everyone knows your up on your war movies. Robo knows the reference, people!!
:)
Secondly, as far as the reference itself. I WAS just joshing with ya. I found it odd that someone who does a strip such as yours with foul mouthed squirrels and strippers with dildos and several poetic references to 'jiz' would be so easily offended. I mean it couldn't possibly be that robo has never uttered anything near what I said. Or could he? Has he? Has he ever? Or maybe its all part of his.......'growing up' or 'opening his mind'. Perhaps he listened to some 80's 'culture club'? Perhaps a smidge of George Michael?
And then....then I thought: "GASP! GASP AGAIN!!" Perhaps that's it! Perhaps that's the reason that he and countsy doth protesteth to mucheth!?"
Maybe they...maybe they're.....
reeeoow!(you go girls)
So! This is where my first apology comes in. IF my lil joshin offended you so...I DO humbly apologize to you and countsy for any pain and suffering that you might have taken upon your sweet selves. You are fragile,sweet beings, and I sincerely mean you and countsy- NO HARM.

Moving on.

"STORYBOARD ARTIST'S: The meat and potatoes"-part one

robo::
"""You have revealed time and again in that you believe that the drawing abilities of story guys (except the great Glen Keane! all bow!) are inferior to animators."""

First off robo. There are a few different lines of interest regarding our lil conversation on story artists. And I think that you are crossing them and getting a few things confused.
1) My 75.9% statement regarding storyboards -of which was my comment to Will (Finn) on his bloggy.
2)My posts on and about Bill Peet.In regards to animators and draughtmanship.
3) My view on the artistic abilities of story artists and about story artists in general.

So lets clarify. starting with your quote above.
I don't question the artistic ability of story artists. I think you are referencing what I posted about Bill Peet. What I said in that post had to do with Bill Peet saying that he re-drew entire scenes. I said that that was NOT possible. I've seen his dumbo and cruella. They are nowhere near the draughtsmanship of the animators that did those characters (Tytla, Davis).
BUT even if he did draw EXACTLY the same as those artists, animation is a different game than storyboarding. You know that. I also said, If ANY storyboard artist re-drew my animated scene....I don't care if he is the most gifted draughtsman in the history of animation. I'm a skinnin' that bastard. Because of the very fact that the smallest of changes in ANYTHING in animation can drastically change what the desired effect is. Why do you think animators go nuts when the key cleanups are screwed up? Well that's why pippy longstockins'. Unless you have an animation background, you have no right to get your lil paws in my scene. Stick to what you do, one board at a time. No matter WHO you are.
ALSO in regards to your comment that I think the drawing abilities are "INFERIOR to animators". If you go back...and again look at my post about Bill Peet. I said in that post, if you took ANY off the cuff sketch he (PEET)did, or any illustration that he had done, I would put that beside ANY animators off the cuff sketch. Why? because there is more than JUST Draughtsmanship that makes a successful drawing.
Go back. Look it up. I said if a few times. Although I don't think that you will even hear me say that in THIS post, so what point is there in doing so?

NEXT...

robo::
"""""It's a bias many animators have, just as many story guys think that animators are just a bunch of dummies that have no concept of the big picture can't see beyond the scene on their desk."""

You are correct. It is a bias many animators have. And you are ALSO correct about many animators not keeping the big picture in mind rather than just their precious scene.
Let me relay a little story to illustrate the point:
In my early days as an animator, I had been called in to re-animate a scene. It was just terribly done and they wanted a fresh take on it. My supervising animator gave me the lo-down and told me what he thought that I should shoot for. So I did it. It was nothing special, I mean it wasn't an all together 'important' scene. Just a fun one. I showed it to my directing animator. He liked it. But he had some thoughts on it. I went back and basically re-animated it. I ended up RE- ANIMATING IT FOUR TIMES. Finally we went up to talk to the director. There I was..a newbie animator, in the office of the director with the PM and the producer and directing animator. A big damn argument broke out. Swearing, and yelling. The director was saying its a 'fun scene and it works, lets get it in the pipeline!. The directing animator was saying "yeah but its not quite there yet!"
I'm thinkin "$%#$^$@! I'm gonna get fired for causing all of this $%$#@!"

It came down to the director saying "(so-and so) It's NOT ABOUT YOUR %$^$#!'ING SCENE!"

...and it wasn't.

So you are correct. The reason this gets so crazy is because of how we do things in animation. 'Piece meal'. YOU get a scene. YOU get a scene. AND YOU get a scene. Just make your footage.
One of the most refreshing things when I worked with Brad was that he wanted to do things a little more 'like they did in the old days'. He gave us CHUNKS of scenes. All strung together. We were more in charge of a sequence rather than the individual scene. And it was wonderful.
I know that you think I'm picking on story guys. I'm not 'anti story guy'.
I know that your lil BA-gina gets a lil rashy when I do. But believe me, You haven't even heard what I'm going to say about animators. I've got alot to say about them as well. Alot to say about the industry as a whole. Not just storyboard folks.

Moving on...

robo::
"""I know story people that draw incredibly well (Ronnie Del Carmen, Ted Mathot, Bill Presing) and I know animators that have a good eye for story (Angus McClane, Dean Wellins, Will finn).
When I was young, I believed story guys knew all and animators had no place giving notes. Then I grew up.
Did you?"""

You've named some great people there robo. Ronnie Dell Carmen---YUMMY. Ted Mathot...wow! But again, I think you are pickin on the very best of the best.
Robo.... I never said that there aren't extremely gifted and wonderful artists in the story dept. But lets tackle this more in your next quote below.

robo::
"""Strong words, son. Before I begin, let me remind you of what your "spot on" comment was:
(quoting me-Handel)
"Moral of the story? The boards are awful about 75.9% of the time. Stick to the boards and you will get a 75.9% bland crappy scene.
couldn't agree more with you...."

Well....dad. That is what I said. I appreciate you quoting me word for word.

robo:::
"""Now, not only did you completely miss the point of what Will was saying, but you made an overreaching, blanket statement that is simply not true......."""

Well here robo, is where we come to my second apology. No joke. And truthfully I should know better. I did overreach and also, when I get to the "pointage" areas, I know I'm getting myself in trouble. So let me restate a more accurate percentage with no "pointage". Just a flat number.
You are right. The number is not 75.9%.
More accurately 60%.
Here is how I come to that number.
I'll try and keep it sliced fairly even so I don't go getting myself in trouble again. Just keep it simple.
1) 20% are drawn terribly but at least are clear, and precise.
2) 20% are drawn terribly and are NOT clear or precise.
3) 20% might fall in line with what grand mastah Will -(funk in da trunk)-Finn had to deal with in his Aladdin post. No doubt drawn clear, and I'll even go out on a limb and say drawn beautifully, but just was a boring way to go about it. Wills own words were I believe :"a STATIC medium shot". HIS words, not mine.
And that would leave:
4) 40% of boards drawn nicely, staged wonderfully, and above all-CLEAR and PRECISE.

Now if you take #4 and #1, Your lookin at 60%! That is if CLARITY is your number one priority.
Which it should be.
But I stand by my 60% number for the boards being terrible in some way. And I absolutely stand by my statement that if you stick to the boards solely, you will get a bland, crappy scene.
Its an entirely different dynamic. To be honest with you robo, I don't look at the storyboard all that much. I don't take that much from it. I don't. I look at the reel to see what the broad stroke of the scene/sequence is. To get the jist of both.
For instance, If the character is crying in pain then gasps, then dies.
Then I rough out my thumbs for the scene. And chances are its going to be TOTALLY different from the boards. The boards are meant to translate the written word of the script and try to make it a bit more interesting for an animated movie. I get that and I take it in a different direction but within the framework of the scene/sequence. I do NOT rely a whole hell of alot on the board. That would be crutching myself. Seriously.
What I rely on is my sheets for timing, my layouts,the hookups, and most of all, THAT DAMN SOUNDTRACK. That's my candy. Not the boards. Not the broad strokes. The most important thing that the boards do is give you an idea, visually of how the film might translate. That's it. Not to minimize it, because that's pretty important to see how it flows. But after that...uh uh. No way am I hanging to those boards. Not when there are 5 zillion ways to animate something.

robo::
"""Now, not only did you completely miss the point of what Will was saying, but..."""

I didn't miss what Will -(funk daddy) was saying at all. You know, I think that what Will-(wheres my gerry curl)-finn was saying was spot on to what we are both talking about.
He was a young animator, just thinkin ONLY about his scene. Sticking entirely to a board that was a "STATIC (read boring) MEDIUM SHOT".
In comes a director and says: lets jazz it up some. And chuck the board, do it this way. And IT WORKS!
And they all live happily ever after.
Exactly what we're talking about, isn't it?

robo::
"""Let's be clear on this: You did not say "you must plus the board" or "you must bring the board to life" or "just use the story sketch as a springboard" you said "The boards are awful 75.9% of the time".""

ROBO! Jeesh! Have you always been an industry dork? "Plussing the board"."You must bring the board to life." "just use the story sketch as a springboard." These are just silly little, learned animation terms. "You must PLUS it..."
Man.. I think that I've always hated that term.
Tell me, When you are going over the scripts. And your reading over all of this dialogue. Do you ever say "ICK!" "YUCK!" "CRAP!"
Or do you say: " I...ROBOH! Maaaahst PLUSSSSS deessss screeept!" I mussst plaaaauuusss eeett!"
Comon...be honest.

END PART ONE.