Basically you are split between a projects scope, its cost, and the time you have to work on it. You can pick one. If you pick scope, expect time to rise and cost to go up. If you pick low cost, expect a loss in scope (often tied to quality as well) and time needed. If you pick less time, you spend more if the scope is also high. Its essentially you sacrifice something, but if you have unlimited resources you can net all 3… we all know thats not the case with the BF.
I probably could have explained it better but there are many resources on the net that explain the holy trinity of project management.
You’re forgetting that it’s not really possible to tell a very complex story using the “short film” format. Big Buck Bunny is often quoted as the BF’s most successful movie because it’s just cartoon antics that fit well with the length and look of the finished product. They should consider getting Esther Wouda on board as a consultant again - she did a pretty good job on Sintel, considering all the constraints the team had to deal with.
Last but not least, what’s the point of making yet another short film? If Blender is to ever be used for serious stuff, then it needs to be put to the test. It may seem too ambitious, but so did Elephant’s Dream at the time.
I am forgetting nothing. What defines “compelling”? Obviously a narrative, short or large, which triggers an emotional response. I have a back ground in film, and a short film format does not prevent “compelling stories” and there are many short films that prove consistently what you can fit into a short film. That said… compelling story as the focal point overlooks the purpose… which many here have said is development. A longer film wont change that. How its created and the scope of the project will however. It is far more rational to focus on a shorter amount of content but of higher quality that act as a sort of tech demo.
If all you are interested in is something different, rather than the same little open project we keep seeing, then it kind of suggest the film is more important than the development, and if the BF cant master making a good short film, what makes you think a much longer one will be any different? I do think it shouldnt just be short films though, but interactive tech demos and other areas seen in the field, not just the BF’s desire to make movies which hasnt shown it can do.
I said complex, not compelling… Point is - there are plenty of good shorts out there. So many people are making their own nowadays that it’s nothing special. The BF has already proven that Blender is a viable option for making shorts, but not full length films. They are harder to make. If you are making a feature film the safest bet is to go for software that has already been used successfully in that sort of situation.
You mentioned “compelling” films, well… nobody said there had to be a tradeoff between story and fancy graphics. It’s obviously too much for a small team to handle so its going to be done collaboratively by multiple studios worldwide. Perhaps with a bigger team there’s a smaller chance of a boring story getting approved. I’d prefer it if development is focused around what the story demands, not over which feature would look coolest. It would be nice to see more good films made with Blender instead of fancy features, but you can’t please everybody…
You are correct, the word you used was complex, however I did interpret that to mean compelling and it might not be far off the mark in what complexity is meant to do. Film narratives are not really complex as much as they are a series of story archs which deliver tension and release, establishing a problem only to have a minor solution leading to a larger problem.
Point is - there are plenty of good shorts out there. So many people are making their own nowadays that it’s nothing special. The BF has already proven that Blender is a viable option for making shorts, but not full length films. They are harder to make. If you are making a feature film the safest bet is to go for software that has already been used successfully in that sort of situation.
I disagree, there are many good shorts out there. In the same way you an say there are many feature length films nowadays by small groups of people, and they are nothing special. Length doesnt = quality, quality matters most. This brings us back to the point of doing these, which is to aid in development. If the BF cannot master making good short films, it wont make good feature length films. This is just common sense. I honestly doubt many of you will be willing to sit through a badly done hour + film by the BF. You can get just as much development and pipeline feed back on short films and cinematics than you can with a feature, the difference that short films you can push more quality into it since it gives more time for polish, and it also allows for dynamic change of goals between projects, where as when you work on lengthier films you get locked into a much longer project with little to no room for deviation to match necessary changes.
Regarding good short films:
A good example is Ruin, showed off at the Modo booth during siggraph and its a project that took 2 years to complete. Its meant to be both a tech demo and learning experience. Now this is with experienced film people. Think about what that means for a BF attempt at a feature length film.
Another example is what Unity did to develop and show off their software. Its short, but a lot goes into it. All this is rendered in real time:
Realistically speaking what the BF is trying to do sounds like a very bad idea.
I really wouldn’t give “Ruin” as an example for a “good film” - the whole thing is just a sparkly action sequence. And so is “The butterfly Effect”. Big Buck Bunny characters had way more personality than those…
I disagree, there are many good shorts out there. In the same way you an say there are many feature length films nowadays by small groups of people, and they are nothing special. Length doesnt = quality, quality matters most. This brings us back to the point of doing these, which is to aid in development. If the BF cannot master making good short films, it wont make good feature length films. This is just common sense. I honestly doubt many of you will be willing to sit through a badly done hour + film by the BF. You can get just as much development and pipeline feed back on short films and cinematics than you can with a feature, the difference that short films you can push more quality into it since it gives more time for polish, and it also allows for dynamic change of goals between projects, where as when you work on lengthier films you get locked into a much longer project with little to no room for deviation to match necessary changes.
There seems to be a big clash going on between visual quality and narrative. It’s like we can’t afford both, so you’re either going to side in favor of one or the other… I’d be happy to sit through an hour of lowpoly game graphics or crude southpark-style cutout animation if it’s interesting. But not everybody here is going to agree, since as artists we tend to swoon over pretty and intricate imagery. I’m curious though, what would you say is so bad about the BF’s shorts? They’re no masterpieces sure, but it’s an adequate balance of story and visuals considering the available resources.
Recalling Pixar, they started out in shorts and built their software up for long form narrative. Also they’re successful stories were conceived over very long gestation periods. In fact it’s only now that the original team’s movie concepts have been exhausted. And it seems to show in quality.
As to the question of good ideas, have you people seen how many short stories are published in text form every year for decades!? There is no shortage of great content out there, it’s just a matter of realising it on the screen.
Pixar built the tools to tell the story. And that’s in my opinion the best approach. They’ve shown their respect for the audience, their respect for the story and their respect for the fictional characters they create. There is little ego in their work (except Anton) and that’s one foundation of a good movie (there are others). Understanding that film is a tool to effectively communicate something meaningful to people who are important to the communicators.
While that is just one way to view film, it’s my way.
My only try so far is a dirt cheap 1:13 short called ‘cycles’ that took 4 half days of work and still won a Suzanne Award. But I did it with the goal to entertain and I succeeded. I couldn’t believe when I got scene applause, but I did.
If I do other films, it will revolve about meaningful and entertaining communication with the most important people of the whole endeavor: the audience.
The first paragraph in the youtube description says “Directed by Wes Ball, a graphics designer who has been working on this project for the last two years at Oddball Animation.”
I will not try to dispute whether or not it was a great film, but clearly many people enjoyed it, and enjoyed it enough for it to be picked up by 20th Century Fox… however it was directed by a graphic designer… not some hollywood pro.
People need to stop with all of these assumptions, it is getting super frustrating to read. I have never run into a larger group of doomsayers outside of the accounts people at my previous agency. You can’t judge a piece of work that hasn’t even begun yet, and ambitious projects have no room for this kind of negativity. Talk about trying to take the wind out of the sails.
There are so many wild assumptions flying around the room. There are literally already disputes about what style of movie it will be, how the writing will be structured, what the content is, how visually stunning it will or won’t be. Just shut up.
People disputing timelines also aren’t aware of what the current state of production is. Whether it be a TV spot, a TV show, a short film, or even a feature length production, all of them are suffering the same fate - they are under constant time crunches. Time is money afterall. If gooseberry has super tight time restrictions… good. Then it is under a realistic, or soon to be realistic production timeline. Two years, which is what I think is allocated to Gooseberry, is not very far off of a typical production schedule these days.
Time is always of the essence, that will never change, but people are ignoring gems that come from tight deadlines and pressure, and uniquely for this project, one of those gems is the pressure on the developers to keep up. There are some really amazing pieces created for monthly film competitions, weekly film competitions, 48 hour film competitions, etc. Deadlines can be good sometimes.
If you are commenting on the directors ability, I think you need to go no further than his site to see that he definitely has a vision and the ability to tell interesting stories - especially in a visual way. The examples might not be of epic featurette proportions, but there is enough there to tell that he has the potential. His knowledge of Blender will only make him a greater asset and help coordinate workflows between the various parties. I also think some of the lesser experienced users are mistaking writing for directing. They are two very different things that end up being very tightly tied. There are also writing duds where directors have managed to turn turds into sparking nuggets of gold - so once again I would hold off from trying to predict the future.
As for the writing, you don’t even know who the writers are. This project is still shrouded in mystery. Don’t comment about how shitty the writing is until you know who the writers are and have seen manuscripts. Who knows what the process for this project is? Are they adapting a script? Did writers come to Ton and pitch their script to him, a script they have worked on for years? Are they turning a fairytale into a feature movie? Is it based on a book? Is it all improv? Maybe it is a 60 min progressive rock music video? Who knows.
It is easy to be a naysayer, it is easy to throw in the towel, it is a lot easier to give up, but nothing positive ever comes from those things. Why try to make things harder for someone who already has the hard job? No good will come from it, you are just throwing anchors over the side before jumping ship.
I also find it odd how people take this immediate stance that the open movies will be terrible, then follow that statement with the typical “crappy work won’t attract the big production companies”. Why does it matter so much to you? I agree, I would love to see Blender adapted more in big studios, but wouldn’t you rather see a serious production come out of the Blender Institute? Those studios have already proven that they can make masterpieces, we all know that Blender is capable of doing wonderful things, so what would you be proving by getting a large studio to create something with it? That they once again, have large staffing, big budgets, and are capable of doing what is expected? Where is the fun in that.
Those complaining about the Open Movie direction should back up from their keyboards and start producing the high calibre work that they are complaining the Open Movies aren’t producing. Instead they are just copping out and trying to stand on the shoulders of someone else instead of carving the paths themselves. We all know what Blender is capable of, you are all assuming the roles of “experts” well why don’t you put your money where your mouth is. If a graphic designer can produce “Ruin” in two years, why can’t you?
I would much prefer seeing Blender doing it’s own thing, an aspiring Director sharpening his teeth, a community and network of people coming together to collaborate, and people supporting a really positive initiative.
I am not saying this production will be epic, perfect, stunning and smart, nor awkward, cringe-worthy, bland, and an underachievement, I think we should all be open to any of the possibilities, but I think people should be positive, sit back, and enjoy the ride. Or better yet, see how you can participate and make things better - it is easy being the backseat driver, but the guy behind the steering wheel is the one who knows where he is going, and is probably having more fun getting there.
In a good movie VFX exist to tell a story and, on all practical purposes, “vanish” for anybody but us 3D enthusiasts/pratictioners. Even in shorts like Ruin after a while you are following more the story then analyzing every VFX detail, at least on the first view.
Doing a single 90 minutes movie with only the idea of showing off Blender capabilities is not going to create the next Gone with the wind/Ben Hur, it is going to create a unbareably long Blender “short”.
I think that a web series a-la Babioles would have been much more compelling.
I think people also forget that they are still doing shorts alongside with Gooseberry, specifically they are currently working on Caminandes two. It was mentioned at the Blender Conference that they plan on continuing to support shorts like this. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
You clearly didnt understand my post or what it contained. Those are mere examples which I put forth as having technical achievements for software that is not known for quality in that area. The point is to show that short films allow a greater push for development as far as films go, especially when again the focus is on the technical aspects.
That said, where did I ever say or suggest the person the BF picked was a bad director? I didnt. I did question whether or not whether someone who, from what I can perceive (which I made clear was a personal observation) showcases limited abstract music video like content is a good choice. Jumping into a feature length film is not wise, just as the guys behind ruin didnt rush off to do a feature length film right off the bat. If some claim its to perfect management tools, then its better to have a director that is familiar with multiple teams working on different aspects of the film and the entire pre to post production pipeline. This isnt a mere opinion, I have a bachelors in film production and worked in the film industry for a handful of films. Short tech demos are ideal, rushing off to make a feature length film when they cant make a good short film isnt smart nor is it set up for it, there is less to gain than a series of shorts and or tech demo focused projects. If perfecting the pipeline is key, then its better to have the most experienced feature length film director you can find since they know the exact pipeline required for both small and large teams, local and abroad.
People need to stop with all of these assumptions, it is getting super frustrating to read.
Right back at ya.
Two years, which is what I think is allocated to Gooseberry, is not very far off of a typical production schedule these days.
This depends on the scope and resources of a film. The less experience the longer it will take, and lots of problems WILL arise, they nearly always do. Some short films take about that long. The BF is not equipped with the resources, pipeline and studios to make a production work in that time.
You also have to ask yourself, whats the focus, the film or the development from trying to make the film?
s created for monthly film competitions, weekly film competitions, 48 hour film competitions, etc. Deadlines can be good sometimes.
As for the writing, you don’t even know who the writers are. This project is still shrouded in mystery. Don’t comment about how shitty the writing is until you know who the writers are and have seen manuscripts. Who knows what the process for this project is? Are they adapting a script? Did writers come to Ton and pitch their script to him, a script they have worked on for years? Are they turning a fairytale into a feature movie? Is it based on a book? Is it all improv? Maybe it is a 60 min progressive rock music video? Who knows.
Hey champ, where did I make a statement about the writers or the claim that their work would be “shitty”? I didnt, stop making crap up and putting words in my mouth please.
If you cannot read objectively, nor comprehend the post, then dont respond at all. Its common sense as well as common courtesy.
No good will come from it, you are just throwing anchors over the side before jumping ship.
Here here, censor all critical thought. Clearly you are turning this into some assumption based black or white issue while ignoring the whole point of the post and the content there in. Cut it out, “no good will come from it.”
And I yet I still referred to it as an opinion. Theres a difference between an uninformed opinion and an informed opinion, just as there is a difference between being wrong and very wrong (see “It’s a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it’s very wrong to say it’s a suspension bridge.”)
Is there one for making such posts as yours? I think facetious comes to mind. Its ok though, I am sure you just didnt realize my response was to a post twice that size, aka in your mind “pages”. God forbid anyone elaborate on anything right?
Anyways, assuming you want to stay on topic, based on Blender’s current track record for open projects, is it more likely it will turn out well or not so well in terms of quality?
Is there one for making such posts as yours? I think facetious comes to mind. Its ok though, I am sure you just didnt realize my response was to a post twice that size, aka in your mind “pages”. God forbid anyone elaborate on anything right?
Hey sainthaven I didn’t even read your post. Maybe that’s the reason why I didn’t refer to you. But you can feel attacked all the way you like. So, be sarcastic, be nasty, be ugly. I’m sure you just didn’t realize that I might have referred to the post twice as long as yours.
Nothing wrong about elaborating. If you want to ignore the ‘AND’ statement in my sentence, do so. Bash me some more. But I think proving to be unwilling or unable to process two statements in one sentence is something you better rethink.
Here, I emphasize it for you: Is there a trope name for people who write pages themselves while telling others to shut up?
Just to make sure I get attacked by the right guy:
There are literally already disputes about what style of movie it will be, how the writing will be structured, what the content is, how visually stunning it will or won’t be. Just shut up.
I just don’t like the last three words. That’s all. I’d actually agree if it was phrased a bit more friendly.
Gooseberry will be a big success for the software itself. And it will be pretty. That’s all I’m going to expect from it. If it exceeds my cautious expectations, great.
Relax, its why we use quotes so this doesnt happen. Considering your post comes right after my own, doesnt it seem logical to come to the conclusion you are referring to my own? If our roles were reversed, there is a big chance you would have read it that way as well.
As for the snarky replies, I do apologize. Getting them is one thing, giving them back 10 fold is another. I purchased X:Rebirth last night and spent hours “trying” to play it (blender was used in its production a bit). Right now a lot of customers are royally pissed off because its a broken game and there is no way to get refunds. Naturally, or maybe unnaturally, the overall mood of the community carried on over to my responses on this end a bit.
