the fanboy is a little butt hurt of the truth, you can also anwser the question I ask him!
@dscyther, please tone it down. matray simply asked this: if you don’t think the Gooseberry team plan is a way to revolutionize the industry, then what would you propose instead?
From the rest of your post and your use of Pixar as an example, I believe you’re saying that you think that focusing solely on development is the solution. However, there is a problem with that. Let’s assume for the moment that it is their tools and technology that’s been the major change-driver. A big part of the reason this has worked for them is because they have artists and developers working hand-in-hand at the same time… developing and refining tools as part of the production process. This is exactly what has happened in all of the Open Movie projects and what I expect will also happen in Gooseberry. The only difference is that unless you work at Pixar, there are only a few of their tools that you’ll ever be able to use. On the other hand, Blender’s tools will always be available to you. In the case of Blender, you’re much more likely to reap the benefit of the artist/developer interaction that happens during a production.
Regarding the proposals for and against…
I actually think that is perhaps one of the most beneficial topics one can have regarding this subject in this forum, and wouldnt mind seeing a separate thread on it. It would need people to explain, in as much detail as possible, the whys, hows, and most effective means based on some concrete reasoning. Naturally what you are asking dsyther goes both ways though, one shouldnt just have to offer an alternative proposal, but those who think its a good idea need to explain why there is a need to reinvent the wheel and whether its even feasible given the resources, experiences and nature of these projects.
I dont think approaching these projects as a “leap of faith” and as an “experiment” is something based on objective reasoning, but rather sentiment and wishful thinking. As such actual discussions with detail need to be had.
dcsyther: Just to clarify a couple of things for you…
matray is (amongst a bunch of other things) the director of Gooseberry.
I am an animator from Sintel (also amongst a bunch of other things).
ton is Ton,
Also, I have been quite critical of the project, I’ve just been more nuanced and specific with my criticism than some. I have outlined alternative plans several times, and have tried to provide specific criticism at times when it might hopefully change things for the better. To call me a fanboy is to depart into fantasy.
Please bare in mind that although it feels private, the internet is a public place. You never know who you will meet.
It’s really not a good idea to say anything to anyone that you wouldn’t say to their face while surrounded by strangers.
I’ve already given this too much energy. Back to my keyframes…
So the tools are more important than the art it creates ? I don’t see it that way. To me Blender is already fully capable of making a movie. I think no artist is good enough yet to master that. We’re all learning and trying to improve to achieve this, but other than the Cloud and the Asset Management development, I don’t see what Blender trully needs to make a feature film, other than great, passionate and talented artists…
Everything is already there. No development will create the “make great art” button.
Pixar knew it. I think Ton too.
I’m a director. I use blender as an artist to tell stories I couldn’t other wise. I’m no expert, nor a great technician. I’m curious, passionate but what is important to me is what I do with it, not how I do it.
If you think Toy Story isn’t a great movie that revolutionnize its industry, only the tools created were, again, I don’t agree. Even though that’s not my favorite cinema genra, it’s a movie that will last for decades. Their tools are obsolete now…
You might say their are the fundaments of new tools. The same goes for the movie that influenced animation movies like no others, and is still watched…
To go back to Gooseberry, I think it’s a new approach. A very intersting one, especially artistically, because it will gather cultures ! Indonesia, india, US, France, Italy, Costa Rica… All those cultures, all those sens of humor, of social behaviours, or cultural references will merge into the DNA of the script. I want to make a journey for a character that was willing for adventure (I know, it sounds cliché 
but a strong story always is and I don’t have the pretention to say we will re-invent movies too !) but will fall in love instead. What becomes interesting is that if you want to create a original journey, something surprising and different, now we have so many different references and culture that we can mix and collide or unite into separate pieces that will create a map of worlds that will be different, that will connect all the cultures and diversity such a story would requiere.
Now Michel can be lost and thrown into a vortex of various arts, codes, cultures and forms. Every artist will bring his own diversity to influence our story. Now Michel will be disoriented and amazed ! And it’s also a great support for a love story. Because he will fall in love with a girl that is also on the same journey that he is. And in every world they will both look different. It is a very exciting way to speak about love, to make two characters face love and discover each other since their appearances will change every 5 minutes ! Does it matter, how do you recognize someone ? Or can you even be in love ?
I’m very curious and stimulated by such an approach, which is, of course, an experiment. Artistic collaboration and great development are tight together and should be. That’s when writing and trying to make it that problems will occur. And new ideas to fix them will pop up. Even entire new tools ?!
And again, asset management through Cloud is desperately needed everywhere I’ve worked and from every artist I know. Handling files, naming them, properly keep track of everybody’s work without doing everything by hand but automatically will help us focusing on creating a good movie, not on how we will make it. Every studio and artist I know need this.
That’s how, I hope, the blender development will go.
you didn’t answer my simple question if you wanna know why tools are important in cg and studio vfx read my post history because if I state it again…mod chime in beating the dead horse again. and if you want realiable proof of why it is important scour the net.
when this movie is done I am more interested of what blender improvement is…we don’t have “simple” tools that extinct apps
already have while other have it since decade ago.
Well, good luck finding answers to your simple questions…
Except for the fact that there is a list of very real, tangible positive results (in terms of Blender development) of the previous open movie projects. If dscyther were to question the benefit of open movie projects back in 2005 when Project Orange was first proposed, then his argument might have more traction. To ask the question now is to ignore the evidence in-hand from previous projects.
The concept of developing software directly alongside those who are using it for a real product is a proven positive (and it was actually proven true well before the Open Movies came along). I’d argue that it’s even more important in open source software. The same conversations we see happening in the design and development of Blender is the exact same kinds of conversations that happen in proprietary software. It’s not a question of re-inventing the wheel. It’s a matter of developing features in a way that best suits the software’s overall design. The difference with open source software is that we have the ability to watch and even participate in these discussions. The sample size used in proprietary software is much smaller… arguably more targeted, but still much smaller.
Now, if the question relates to the specific benefits of a movie project rather than some other project (game, arch vis, etc.), that would be a much more interesting and relevant discussion.
don’t compare the short to a movie and you are forgetting the budget is different…and don’t start with blender 2005 you can do wonderful things in blender 2005 but I have better things to do before I meet my maker, that thing is tedious…regarding the open short movie, when the 2.5 series introduce I was happy sintel proceed because it was a new improved blender.
when tears for steel was made I was also ok with because it introduce the camera tracking and mocap with is essential for green screen.
and also don’t try spin that it need artist as devs proceed what’s the use of the community, blender artist forum and beta tester.
resources is wasted instead of improving blender in higher degree if all funds go to devs, with this movie the fund is scatter.
btw ROSA is not impress…
It’s not spin. There’s a world of difference between being in the same room as an experienced artist and seeing problems and issues first-hand versus reading anonymous feedback from people on the Internet.
Sure, BA feedback can be useful… and feedback from the few people who use nightly builds and RCs. But direct interaction is better. Far better.
Looking at this thread, the funny thing is that if the censorship at BA was truly draconian, you wouldn’t be allowed to talk about the alleged level of censorship as we’re seeing now.
I believe one of the ideas of the new rules anyway is to make the forum more inviting to developers and to encourage long time users to come back as well, it can’t possibly be a bad thing to foster better interaction with the devs. because that would mean a higher quality Blender.
From the ground the troll grows.
Feed the troll, the troll grows.
After all the, the mighty oak was once a nut.
Attachments
Even if BA was censoring posts, I don’t remember an announcement that BA was a democracy. It’s a free (no cost) service not a system of gov. and the BA mods are free to remove, edit and otherwise manipulate any posts that they see fit, or not as is the case in the vast majority of posts.
No guarantee of was given when signing up that your posts would never be removed or edited, and if that were the case all the forums would be filled with spam. There are plenty of unmoderated forums out there or you are ofc, free to pay the tens of thousands of dollars that it costs to run such a comprehensive network of training and social services yourselves and run that as unmoderated if you so desire.
People should be grateful that BA has moderators at all. It’s a thankless job where the huge majority of work either goes unseen or gets your flak from the end user.
Suck it up people, you don’t have it so bad.
Even in a democracy you can’t just do and say whatever you like. Try walking into any parliament building around the world and start calling people names and shouting a bunch of crazy stuff and see what they do to you.
Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to verbally abuse other people.
I want to address a point that a number of people have been raising recently. With open source software, funding to developers is not the sole driving force, or motivation to complete a task. Many parts of Blender were, and will continue to be implemented voluntarily, not because someone was paying for them. In addition to this, giving developers more money will not improve the quality of their code, nor the amount of work that they do, after an initial base line. It’s human behaviour, as well as the principles of development. As a developer, you write the best code you can manage, because it will hurt you to work with it later on, and because you have some pride in what you’re working on. After all, your code is in the public domain.
As a developer, I don’t need an editor to create 3D art. I could write it entirely in code. I don’t have the same pressing dependency on what Blender provides, because I can implement it myself. Hence, forcing artists to give feedback on what they need by developing in parallel with them as they work is the best way to ensure we make the most of the development funding, and actually do what needs to be done. Blender isn’t just a problem you throw money at.
People also like open movie projects because of the assets. The community is much wider than just people using software. We share assets, technical and artistic knowledge, and there are few resources available for a full-length feature film.
And that ends my response on the utility of Gooseberry.
Concerning censorship, the fact that this thread remains is good enough of an indication to contradict your point.
In many respects, the Gooseberry project was an indication that it is also important to deliver a good film, something that stands alone artistically and narratively, as well as technically.
Metalliandy, the way you defend and justify an antidemocratic and manipulative behaviour… it stunned me…
Am I missing something? Shouldn’t be people who receive the thanks?
I’m fine with that and I really don’t see what is so terribly hard to accept or understand
Once again BA not a democracy, it’s an amazing service offered to users for free; a gift to the community that costs tens of thousands of dollars to run each year. No one is being forced to use BA and actually it says in the TOS during sign up that ‘It is NOT a free speech forum’, which of course we all read and agreed to, right? As such the moderators are free to delete any posts that they wish for whatever reason they wish.
As Ace put so nicely
The very fact that this thread even exists contradicts its reason for existing. Can people not see that?
As I said before moderating a forum is a really crappy job to have and one that takes hours to perform each day, most of which goes unseen by regular users, so yea, they should get more gratitude and recognition for the work they do.