00:00
00:00
Gerkinman
Driven, if nothing else.

Age 37, Male

Motion Artist and In

Northern Rivers NSW

Joined on 1/11/04

Level:
13
Exp Points:
1,678 / 1,880
Exp Rank:
37,243
Vote Power:
5.49 votes
Rank:
Portal Security
Global Rank:
24,023
Blams:
176
Saves:
239
B/P Bonus:
8%
Whistle:
Normal
Trophies:
45
Medals:
113
Gear:
1

What does it really mean to be an animator?

Posted by Gerkinman - September 17th, 2008


And so here i was, thinking, as i often do. What does it REALLY mean to be a good animator. Now before i get bombarded with replies about amazing frame by frame animation at a sleek 24fps with great construction and blah blah, let me explain.

First of all i want to break it down into the types of animators that seem to be floating these parts, atleast the way i see it. There are animators, and there are film makers. Animators main focus tends to be, well, obviously on the animation itself, story, sound, writing, whatever, it all takes second place to the animation. These people as far as i can see tend to be interested in working in working at Cartoon Network or wherever, some want to have there own series there, others just want to do the bits inbetween. Either way they are more then happy to work for the man.

Then there are the film makers, these are the people that use animation as a tool, its merely a means to an end. The animation isnt whats important, but rather the story and characters behind it. These people (David Firth and The Swain being a prime example) seem to be more interested in just making whatever the hell they want, using whatever medium or style they want, to make whatever story they want. They tend to have no interest in getting into commercial animation and are more interested in just doing whatever they have to do to support there film making.

Ofcourse, then there are the subgroups withing these, which once again have further sub groups within them, and it goes on and on. But in essence, this is how i would break things down into the simplest way possible. But the reason i bring it up is for other peoples opinions.

Naturally from here i spun off into thought about people that make flash based entirely around known quantities in order to attain internet and sometimes even offline "success". An obvious example being the Awesome series. Which, Egoraptor claims he didnt intend to get as big as it did, and maybe he didnt, but i couldnt help but wonder what would have happened if he released "Awesome Grocery Shopping" or "Awesome Tire Changing" instead of Metal Gear Awesome all those years ago. Would it have taken off? I highly doubt it, so then what really was the cause for his success? Egoraptor? The film itself? Mr Fulp? Or the game behind it? Had he released his "awesome" dig dug toon first would the series be the juggernaut it is today? Who can say.

The same could be said of any animator that rellies on a known quantity to be noticed.

These are just questions im putting out there, and im interested in hearing peoples thoughts.

Here is a cute baby as thank you.

What does it really mean to be an animator?


Comments

I am not qualified to respond to such a great rant. <3

It wasnt so much a rant as a bunch of questions, but sure, okay lol.

Well that is not very nice at all, it's claws aren't even tied up! The Chef might get clawed to death! D:

Why all the intro material just to lead up to asking hypothetical Egoraptor questions? Honestly, he's just generally a really funny passionate guy who happens to really love video games. The video game stuff might very well have something to do with the degree of his internet influence, but I'd say given his abilities, wittiness and personality, he's predisposed to being successful as an entertainer. I genuinely mean that and I don't come to Newgrounds to suck anyone's dick. If I wanted that I'd go to the Dickporium on South Street.

I only used Egoraptor because hes obviously the most popular and influential parody guy on the site.

Daveb0t Needs To hop off Tamamoto's cock.

PS Good thoughts, not really anything to add you said everything and explained it well.

Damn that TamaMoto.

Who ever he is.

Er, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

You say Swain is more of a film-maker than an animator, but he happens to be one of the best animators on newgrounds. You say animators want to work at Cartoon Network, which would be the most god awful boring places to animate ever (you have see the cartoons they make, right?).

As far as Egoraptor goes, the animation he's been putting out lately is superb, and he is incredibly good at comedic timing. I've never even heard of most of the games he parodies and I still think they're funny. I think he deserves all the praise he gets. I think he could make anything funny.

Im not saying Swain isnt a good animator, he has gotten quite fantastic over the years, as has David Firth as you can see in Crooked Rot. But there animation aids the storytelling.

I use animations as a means, quiet honestly, sure there are times that I get caught up in the look or feel of an animation, but in the long run, I really don't care as long as I get my point across. As long as the animation, film, or any other medium succeeds in delivering its message, then its a job well done.

In regards to Ego, I think some people are just able to find the humor in 'mundane' things... I find that Louis Black does that often, he'll present these very mundane relateable frusterations and he'll just deliver it in a humorous manner. Ego obviously is around video games quite a bit and it seems natural you become delirious and it spills on to your work.

Im not really big on video game parodies, nor am i fond that hes just redoing things and resubmitting em but i think that the whole awesome series is just a person expressing themselves. *shrug*

I just make stuff.

Now that was an interesting argument, or as you said, bunch of questions.

the only "intelligent" answer that I can come up with is that animation can be called art which, as same as all the other forms of art, is subjective.

So the question of "what is it to be a good animator?" May never be answered :/ Since there is no real objective answer.

D:

wall of text

Please, don't ever categorize anything. Ever.

OH YEH! WATCH THIS!

Lobster:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Crustacea
Class: Malacostraca
Order: Decapoda
Infraorder: Astacidea
Family: Nephropidae

TAKE THAT!

I'd like to see myself as a little of both. A lot of my story ideas are specifically thought of to be in an animation format. That's because I want to be a good one so badly.

I'd actually like to see "AWESOME tire changing" and "AWESOME grocery shopping", just to see how they'd turn out. But rather then have some guy spam an AWESOME parody while the rest of the world tries to convince him he's not Egorapter, they could be made easter eggs to quality animations or something. But why am I saying this?

For some reason I don't react to that baby at all.

Something is up, your last two news posts haven't ended in a picture you drew!

This freelance job is keeping me super occupied. :(

AS AN ANIMATOR AND FAN OF ANIMATION I AM APPALLED THAT YOUR RANT ON ANIMATION AND ANIMATORS IS IN TEXT FORM.

...at the very least i expect ascii art.

an animator is someone who makes animations that can play with our emotions

I reckon it's obvious you're in the latter category because of the (perhaps unknowing) negative bias towards the first group. Saying they're happy working for the man as a point of difference seems to me like that the other group, of "film-makers", isn't, and that credits their artistic expression over the first group which I think is a bit unfair.

I'd sooner say that animators can be broken into the two groups:

1. People who try to tell stories using animation.

2. People who try to use animation to tell stories.

Basically where one puts the emphasis: if you're relying on writing to tell the story then I'd say you're the first type, whereas the second type you could rely on the weight of a character to express his emotion or whatever I have no idea honestly

I wouldn't call that a rant. It was actually a pretty interesting read.

The best animations on this site--and best kinds of movies anyhwere--are movies where the story comes before the animation. Substance is what makes a movie. If a Flash isn't entertaining or engaging in some form or fashion, even if it has brilliant animation, why bother watching it?

Then of course there are movies with substance and great graphics, like Blockhead, Salad Fingers, littleFoot, or Castle III.

Graphics seem important to a majority of viewers for any movie. A lot of people love Egoraptor's movies for their funny game reference jokes and sometimes genius lines. Others hate Egoraptor because his movies have 'bad animation' and most likely haven't actually sat through two full Awesome cartoons. Unless a movie is simply straight-up hideous, I don't see why that would happen.

A lot of people hate sprite movies for the same reason. Sprite movies may mostly be images from games, but sprite animators put plenty of effort into editing sprites and making them do things that couldn't be done before. It does take less effort than most forms of animation, but it shouldn't matter as long as there are people out there that look past the graphics and critique/praise only what they see in the plot.

...Awesome Grocery Shopping ftw. XD

The first bits of that about Animators and Film Makers are good enough points, but yeah the rest of it felt...unecassary? If what you say at the beginning is true, then the "success" is irrelevant to those who continue to work. That's why I don't understand why people get so worked up over how many views something gets, especially considering it never has anything to do with the person in question. People should just make whatever the hell they feel like, that's what NG is for.

More Results