I don't care if they're stick men or scribbles, if your "storyboards" are animated on 2s or 1s - they're not boards anymore, it's rough animation. Making the language interchangeable is setting an expectation that boarders should be paid less for the same job 2d animators do.
-
-
But also calling rough anims 'boards' doesn't convey the process well to students and hopefuls and gives them the wrong impression. Boards don't need to be animated. Some productions might need it, but it won't be required of EVERY board position.
-
Storyboards are often seen as art as much as a technical process of movie making. But in this day and age doesn’t it make sense to look at what something ‘could be’ and not just what it’s ‘always been’?
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Good point, but I'm learning that film studios are doing this too, in that case, in that case it's a complete waste, because going to back to timing sheets and old fashioned storyboards in my eyes could save around $10-15 million, because you can sketch and change quickly.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
It sounds to me like the OP says animations are less than storyboards and shouldn’t be paid the same, at the same time not putting storyboarders in a position that would require them to extend to animations
-
This isn’t what I said at all. I’m saying that animation is a different skillset and has a higher pay rate because of what’s required to do it; its expensive to use and rightly so. My fear is that storyboarders are being pressured more to do the exact same work for a lower rate.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Make an entirely new position in the work chain...Boardimators. You can thank me later when the title becomes official.

Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.


She/her.