I'm almost reluctant to post today as I'm enjoying the science discussion from the post below. But I'm going to post anyway as this topic a constant source of frustration to me and is become more and more apparent all the time - some producers have no concept of the value of talent.If you need something done, you just hire someone. Who? It doesn't matter because you're going to be telling them what to do anyway. Only, what he's telling them to do is as broad as, write a story and make it good. Or, show me designs I'll like. Or, take this unworkable show concept and turn it into a hit.
The actual talent within the studio is often totally unappreciated because the view is, you can hire anyone to do any job. In fact, it seems that anyone outside the studio is of more value. Why is that? I don't know. Is it a grass is always greener thing? Whatever the reason, ignore the staff you have, if you need to make a show, just hire someone. A writer, or someone. Doesn't really matter.
That's how easy it is to get a creative product.
Posts
3 comments:
Isn't it more that the bosses don't think the animators etc. can make a good story?
They want some proof, like a book or a movie (don't care if it's a bad book or movie). Or someone who is famous is even better.
Dear Sir, Continuing the debate on the previous post:
I didn't mean to suggest that the scientists who are examining the probability of an extinction scenario result are quacks! In fact, I meant to imply the opposite, that the Daily Mail is misreporting the facts and turning it into quackery.
You bring up a good point, I haven't read every existing particle physics theory so I can't consider myself enough of an expert to show with physics that I am correct.
It also doesn't matter!
Let us say you have a coin and you are compelled to test it for fairness. The simplest thing to do is flip it a few dozen times and see if the results are close enough to the theoretical prediction for a fair coin.
The long way about it would be to model the coin in a physics simulator and see if that model predicts the fairness of your coin.
My example relies on the first method. I can come to a rough experimental conclusion without being aware of every single theoretical system.
Mitch, yes, that definitely plays a part in some places. Animators aren't trusted. And (even though this probably won't make me very popular with other animators) I can kind of understand it to a point.
There are exceptionally creative animators out there and in most studios, animators with incredible talent and abilities that blow me away. And I've seen some that have this dual ability - the ability to stay creative while working within the realities of production and having a level head.
But I've seen many more that have a really creative spark, incredible ability, but exist in chaos, or can't see bigger pictures, or blunder ahead blindly hoping that their great drawings will be enough.
The problem is that the latter group don't always know they aren't the former and producers often have a habit of not being able to tell good from bad and so just won't take the risk.
You'd have a hard time finding a producer who doesn't have stories of an animator going crazy and costing them lots of money.
But they don't see good from bad and I guess that's probably part of what I mean in my post. An animator is an animator. A writer is a writer. And, by thinking that, some producers often completely undervalue the talent they have, or could have.
Mr.T, are you still on this science thing? Man, you're living in the past! Your coin example is nice and simple, I'll grant you but science isn't usually that obvious. And, as I said before, scientists get things wrong, no matter how good they think they are.
I will always be skeptical of 'everything is perfectly safe, go back to sleep' messages. People who have died from radiation sickness don't back it up. People who took thalidomide for morning sickness don't back it up. Those scientists that electrocuted themselves, x-rayed their hands to burning point, poisoned themselves and so on don't back it up. Very little in scientific history backs it up.
Scientific history is full of people doing very stupid things that seemed smart at the time and to think that now, somehow, it's all different and we're so much more advanced is, as I said in the previous post, arrogance.
Shit has consequences. Always has. Probably always will. That should be scientific law.
Post a Comment