Random Thoughts Thread

[Limewater]

What I do not get is that pre-2000's there was all the money in the world to produce those animations. There were so many of them. Now its all budget constraints. If it used to make money then, it should be easier than ever to make money now. The distribution system is much easier.

The distribution system is easier, so a lot more people are distributing, diluting the pool of paying customers/advertising viewers.

In the pre-2000's, network television still dominated U.S. television. In the United States, television was dominated by the big three (or four, after Fox hit it big in the nineties) broadcast networks. 84.4 million people watched the "Cheers" series finale. In 2000, "The Simpsons" averaged over twelve million viewers. Today it's fewer than two million. Comments about show quality aside, a big part of that is that people today have a lot more viewing options on Sunday night.

[RCBH928]

But like it's been said, it's cheaper and easier to just film something, and sadly like the new head of Warner Discovery said, these companies seem to be prioritizing content over art. So basically the same formula for success that mockbuster maestros The Asylum use. Essentially make cheap shit and more often than not the average consumer won't think twice and by the time they realize it's crap, you've already got their money. Seriously, look it up. The Asylum has yet to lose money on their movies because they're so cheaply made and usually get bought by folks that don't know any better..

You are absolutely correct. All they care about is money and all the average consumer care about is "whats new?" . Its a match made in heaven. This is why the world around us is outputting tasteless products. The question is, when did they realise this? Because stuff made pre-2000 had a lot of character to it even if it was low budget.

What I do not get is that pre-2000's there was all the money in the world to produce those animations. There were so many of them. Now its all budget constraints. If it used to make money then, it should be easier than ever to make money now. The distribution system is much easier.

The distribution system is easier, so a lot more people are distributing, diluting the pool of paying customers/advertising viewers.

In the pre-2000's, network television still dominated U.S. television. In the United States, television was dominated by the big three (or four, after Fox hit it big in the nineties) broadcast networks. 84.4 million people watched the "Cheers" series finale. In 2000, "The Simpsons" averaged over twelve million viewers. Today it's fewer than two million. Comments about show quality aside, a big part of that is that people today have a lot more viewing options on Sunday night.

You make a good point about tv viewership but it still can be monetizied via digital stores, streaming service, global theaters, and the rest.

[marurun]

Individual shows just don’t have the same value, however, unless they are showpieces for a particular streaming service. Syndicated content is dying (if it isn’t already dead) and the mass viewership of old simply doesn’t exist for TV shows. Further, traditional animation requires a LOT of man-hours to make, and labor just ain’t cheap. Even in the early aughts companies like AIC were developing software to reduce the time in things like coloring and shading and in-betweens. That’s why a lot of anime from the early aughts got a lot flatter in coloration.

[PretentiousHipster]

Back when I did accounting I had a job interview for an animation studio. It seems like they do a lot of "higher quality" animation. But, I realized how bad their system was when seeing the employee reviews. Turns out they hire recent graduates, and they get paid by frame, not by hour, and because the frames have to be approved and it takes a lot of time to do both the drawing and the inspection by the supervisors they get paid next to nothing. Shame how the industry is sometimes.

[Limewater]

Back when I did accounting I had a job interview for an animation studio. It seems like they do a lot of "higher quality" animation. But, I realized how bad their system was when seeing the employee reviews. Turns out they hire recent graduates, and they get paid by frame, not by hour, and because the frames have to be approved and it takes a lot of time to do both the drawing and the inspection by the supervisors they get paid next to nothing. Shame how the industry is sometimes.

That's one of the big risks of getting a "dream job."

So many kids doodling in their notebooks all through school want to work in animation, so studios can work them to death and pay them peanuts because it's their "dream job."

It's similar with video game development. It's a job people would happily do for free, and plenty of people DO for free. Here's a quote from a person I know who graduated DigiPen and went into that field for a while: "Don't go into video games, the "psychic benefits" are so high that people get treated like shit knowing there are a fuckload of like Full Sail grads who they can just work (unpaid) overtime to make up for the lack of quality."

It's also similar for dance, music, and acting, unless really, really successful.

[marurun]

That's one of the big risks of getting a "dream job."

So many kids doodling in their notebooks all through school want to work in animation, so studios can work them to death and pay them peanuts because it's their "dream job."

One nugget of wisdom I've read is to do what you're good at. If you love it, great. If you don't, learn to at least be OK with it, because compounding your time and energy on what you're good at has the best chance to pay off. Besides, if you keep at that thing you're good at you'll develop an affinity for it. That doesn't mean DON'T do what you love, but maybe what you love is a better hobby than a career. So sure, learn to develop games, but if you don't have a particular talent for it, make sure you're also putting time and energy into something you DO have a particular talent for. Don't mistake loving something for being good at it, and don't ignore the stuff you're good at because it's not what you instinctively love.

[RCBH928]

Individual shows just don’t have the same value, however, unless they are showpieces for a particular streaming service. Syndicated content is dying (if it isn’t already dead) and the mass viewership of old simply doesn’t exist for TV shows.

Personally, i do not think any one watches TV any more besides news and live shows. I can watch whatever I want whenever I want for pretty cheap, why should I sit on a chair and be tied to an exact airing time of a specific show I want to see? I will watch it when I have time for it. None the less, I must admit, when shows were scarce and your only option was their airing time they really had a different "taste" to them.

It's similar with video game development. It's a job people would happily do for free, and plenty of people DO for free. Here's a quote from a person I know who graduated DigiPen and went into that field for a while: "Don't go into video games, the "psychic benefits" are so high that people get treated like shit knowing there are a fuckload of like Full Sail grads who they can just work (unpaid) overtime to make up for the lack of quality."

It's also similar for dance, music, and acting, unless really, really successful.

I do not want to sound "negative" but honestly, all these areas are tough to make money in. You can but probably some one else is already filled the position in.

Speaking of free videogame development, I have not seen many free games except simple ones, otherwise the others all have some sort of monetization to them like freemium or ads but I have a lot of free apps like VLC and GrapheneOS.

One nugget of wisdom I've read is to do what you're good at. If you love it, great. If you don't, learn to at least be OK with it, because compounding your time and energy on what you're good at has the best chance to pay off. Besides, if you keep at that thing you're good at you'll develop an affinity for it. That doesn't mean DON'T do what you love, but maybe what you love is a better hobby than a career. So sure, learn to develop games, but if you don't have a particular talent for it, make sure you're also putting time and energy into something you DO have a particular talent for. Don't mistake loving something for being good at it, and don't ignore the stuff you're good at because it's not what you instinctively love.

agreed , got to secure yourself. Its better to live comfortably as an accountant over being a homeless painter. You can always keep it as a hobby or side income.

[o.pwuaioc]

That's one of the big risks of getting a "dream job."

So many kids doodling in their notebooks all through school want to work in animation, so studios can work them to death and pay them peanuts because it's their "dream job."

One nugget of wisdom I've read is to do what you're good at. If you love it, great. If you don't, learn to at least be OK with it, because compounding your time and energy on what you're good at has the best chance to pay off. Besides, if you keep at that thing you're good at you'll develop an affinity for it. That doesn't mean DON'T do what you love, but maybe what you love is a better hobby than a career. So sure, learn to develop games, but if you don't have a particular talent for it, make sure you're also putting time and energy into something you DO have a particular talent for. Don't mistake loving something for being good at it, and don't ignore the stuff you're good at because it's not what you instinctively love.

This is basically my line of work. I recognize now though that some people have talents that are better spent outside work, some people have so many talents they couldn't possibly satisfy them all with a single job, and some people have so few talents that they're not "good at" anything.

It's not a good or bad thing, per se, but I agree it's certainly better to go with your strengths. All those people who say "It took me 7 years to pass the MCAT, but I finally got into med school" are seriously wasting their time and effort. Why fight nature when you're built for something else just because you let your brain talk you into a bad goal?

But then again, just because you're very talented musically doesn't guarantee success in your endeavor in being a rock star. Sometimes you have to translate those talents into something more practical. So I would narrow that game dev analogy even further: you can be awesome at developing games, but if the market doesn't support it, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be happy doing it professionally, never mind the income!

I see both types all the time, and sometimes there's just no good advice to give that they want to hear. It's all a balancing act, for sure, and the difficulty is compounded by the fact that so many teens don't really know themselves to any great degree when they sign up for college.

[marurun]

the difficulty is compounded by the fact that so many teens don't really know themselves to any great degree when they sign up for college.

I’m pretty sure I hadn’t figured myself out to any meaningful degree until I turned 40.

[PretentiousHipster]

There's also the fact that we are raised into thinking that going to university is a must, and we are dumbasses for going to 2 year colleges or the trades instead. Definitely have to fix the perspective of what makes a job "good"