I made a post a few weeks ago about an organizational model for projects I have been fascinated by for a long time. Two days later, I found that someone has given a name to a seemingly similar production method: Crowdsourcing. I would love to know how people could see crowdsourcing used extensively for open movie projects. I would like to know this, because I would like to see if it could significantly increase the number of (successful) open movie projects with Blender, both those initiated by The Blender Foundation, and independent ones.
Basically, crowdsourcing means some core entity has a fundamental idea (or, in many corporate explanations, a ‘problem’). The idea is presented to a community, and suggested takes on it are given by anyone interested. People seeing these suggestions can then try to work on them, posting results, which others can then work on, etc. With some regularity, the aforementioned ‘core entity’ says “we like [insert particular suggested solution], we will work in that direction”. If it is kept as crowdsourcing, this more specific direction is then what people suggest new ideas for. And so on, until usable results turn up.
Theoretically, someone could take an abandoned direction and continue it as a seperate project, though.
There are no real set guidelines on the role of the ‘core entity’ other than being the origin and coordinator. ASwarmOfAngels tried something similar, but seems to be stuck indefinitely. 3D movie production seems perfect for the method, though, and how crowdsourcing could be implemented in a Blender Open Movie project interests me.
Hello Pipeline,
Unfortunately, a good part of my work consists of finishing projects which the artists before me have given up on. The story is always the same … company X starts a project, the deadline approaches and the contractor (artist, designer) quits and leaves the files in a mess!
Then companies panic and search for someone to finish their project because it is “almost” finished (ha ha) …
In my experience, abandoned projects are a mess because no one organized the job at the beginning and hence, it went the way it did …
Making a movie, be it a 3D animation or short film is like building a house. You can have the most beautiful floor plan but without funding, it will not become reality! Then again, if you have funding but no workers or materials, the outcome is the same.
The good news is that blender is probably the only software available that enables a competent artist who possesses skill, patience and time to produce a great project. The reason I am saying this is that the other programs have such an high demand for hardware that the final project will not happen because of the lack of resources.
Most artists learn how to use the software but never learn how to organize the work they do which leads usually to “abandoned” projects that eventually get deleted.
If you have ever attended the morning meetings when the dailies (over night renders) get discussed you know what energy is in that room and I can not imagine to produce this driving force by writing an email …
Look how the Blender Institute is doing it! Gather the artists, put them in a room and give them the tools they need. In return, they produce the ideas, troubleshoot, encourage each other and most of all, take direction from the person in charge!
Does this make sense to you?
I think it is better to start off fresh than take on an abandoned project
Blender is the best example of involving the world in a project that is professional. What I mean by that is the production will make money to support the artists and the world will have a great video to watch.
You have to organize things a little or your life will turn into a mess.
If you want to learn the best way to do the crowdsourcing thing you are talking about, then just keep following the evolution of the Blender community.
The sprints have already peeked my attention, and they are part of the reason I even dare mention this. And it is definitely not meant for abandoned projects; it is meant to provide a way for far fewer projects to get abandoned. The heartbreaker projects (you know, the ones that start with a lot of steam and enthusiasm but inevitably die) I have seen in here all share the same detail: Someone wants to ‘do them’ and ‘just needs a team’. Crowdsourcing seems to be a way for projects to exist seperately from a fixed team. Yeah, Blender Institute can gather a dozen artists and give them a room full of computers, but I doubt anyone else on these boards can, or will (hey, if I had the independent finances…). And yes, Blender itself, as so much other Open Source software, shows the beautiful execution of crowdsourcing in their development.
It seems pretty clear that organization is at the core of this. Nobody in here really wants to organize a lot of stuff, logically; everyone wants to produce something, or explore Blender, which is actually what these boards are for. So if there was a way to manage a crowdsourced project, wouldn’t that mean people could collaborate on projects more freely, and projects would become less dependent on the “I need a team” approach? Like a community painting, people could contribute whatever skills and time they have, with no fixed ties. And as long as someone, anyone, cares about the project, it can progress.
I am not entirely sure on how to organize such a project, but it seems that organization is the missing piece. Do we have any skilled organizers out there to give us a tip or two?
There is a boatload of organisers/leaders out there, and a boatload of backroom type of nerds who can do the job. The trouble is, communication, and serving the needs of these two groups. When the organiser/leader starts getting influenced by one hit wonders with one hit idea, the backroom type of nerd get edgy. And this is just one factor, among many you need to consider.
Crowdsourcing is actually a general term, not just confined to production. Wikipedia, for example, is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. Crowd source chess involves teams of players voting on which move to take. The move that gets the most votes is the move that is played.
Producing a movie using crowdsourcing would definitely take some organisation, but as long as you have a producer committed to seeing the project through there’s no reason it couldn’t work - BlenderArtists is home to a fantastic community.
Brickfilms.com used to run community film projects that were basically crowd-sourced movies. They started with a concept, then broke it up into scenes that could be shot by different people - all main scenes were handled by a couple of experienced animators, while smaller side scenes could be produced by others working solo. They set some basic style guidelines - aspect ratios, lighting standards and so on, then set it loose.
Something like that could work here, and be enhanced by employing sprints similar to Durian’s if need be. (They weren’t an option for Brickfilms.com because they were animating Lego bricks, not 3D models).
So as long as there’s a strong concept and good leadership, a crowd-sourced Blender movie could work well.
Okay, so let’s try with an example. Note that I am not saying “now we do this particular crowdsourcing project”, I just want to see if the discussion can handle something specific; it’s still just talk, not an actual project, and probably never will be.
I’ll take an old thing of mine.
BASIC IDEA: It’s a short, perhaps 5 minutes long. A man is locked in an office-like room. With him is a young girl (age 7ish). Outside is a roaring crowd. The girl is asking him questions, calling him ‘Dad’. It’s clear from the questions and answers that he is being charged with a serious crime of some sort. They are interupted when he is escorted through a hallway to another room, in which he is to stand trial. The judges describe his crimes only as ‘creating an abomination’ (in various different versions of that phrase). The girl is with him in the court, but not by his side. He is finally ordered to dispose of the ‘abomination’, at which point the girl comes up to him, he apologises to her, promises he loves her, and then flicks a switch on the back of her neck; it turns out, SHE was the abomination, a lifelike robot thinking it was alive. The short ends with the man in the office-like room, checking his advanced laptop, which says “copy of [girl’s name] stored.”. The end.
So this is a basic idea for a short. How could I or someone else go about crowdsourcing something like this, if we assume BlenderArtists is the main venue? Note that I have no need for this to get made, and am not trying to pawn off work, it’s just an example to explore.
Well if we are just talking. And this is an idea presented to the group, my contribution is… next. Any more bright ideas for a screenplay? Anyone have anything original? I am not going to spend any time on something that has been overdone already.
First of all, why would you want to spend time working on some kind of drama with people in a room talking? Cast it, Film it, Edit it, done.
You want to get my interest in a 3D film, show me something that lends itself to 3D. Or if it is a regular kind of story, tell me why it is visually interesting. What is the concept artistically? There has to be something to justify doing it in 3D for me.
And the first most important thing to me is story. A good story. And that has to be first something that has not been done already.
As mentioned, I had no expectations it would be done, it was just to have something to debate around. If you have something better for hypotheticals (or an actual project), I would love to read it. Knowing what people find of sufficient interest is one important point of the process, after all!
Well, you are defeating your own purpose. Don’t fall back under the defense of " it was just for discussion". I said, as a point of discussion… that is my response. Hypothetically speaking, as a point of discussion, as an artist/modeler/animator potential contributor to a project. Not as a writer. You want discussion, you got it. The idea is bad. Next. Any more ideas? And don’t use the defense…“well if you have a better idea.” Because not everyone is a writer. But potential contributors may have a good idea of what has been done and have opinions that guide them in decisions on what to work on - especially on spec. This is just discussion. From a very practical point of view as if I was actually going to contribute or not.
Also don’t just assume that because this is some “new” work model that people will throw away all of their common sense and good judgment.
The back bone of any project that will succeed, I don’t care how it is produced, is a good fresh idea.
My suggestion would be. If you want to prove this is workable, then do it. Then when it is done, come back here and write up how you did it and we’ll all clap. Because there is no reason in the world you can not invent a new way to do something. I don’t know why the obsession with this, but if that is your passion, then do it.
Until then all this “discussion” is a waste of time.
If you are trying to figure out how to get something done, then there are plenty of models that have been used successfully, Why not just pick one and do it?
But maybe you are more interested in group discussions and theory rather than actually doing anything. If that is the case then you have my contribution to this discussion. :eyebrowlift:
Having a story and an organized production is key, but I think it would take more if you wanted to actually achieve a finished short. I think you could break something like this down into all of the various stages and focus on one specific task at a time.
Final concept art / storyboard / shot board / animatic
asset generation / models / textures / scenes
animation
lighting
rendering
editing
sound design
Ideally, you’d want to do your voice recording somewhere between step 3 and step 6. You’d need it for lip synch, but you wouldn’t necessarily need it before then.
If you focused on keeping the project in stages like this and had a way to measure how far along everything was, you’d probably get more momentum. Being able to keep people motivated is probably the biggest challenge to a project like this - even if you’re expecting people to just jump on board whenever they want. The hard part isn’t getting people involved toward the end, the hard part is getting a core group of people to work on stuff at the beginning. Otherwise you end up with a few bits and pieces put together from all of the various stages, but nothing really gets finished because you don’t have all of the bits from this scene or that scene.
Forcing the project into stages would - in my opinion - give people a lot more incentive to work on one specific thing at a time, because they can then see the progress of the short more clearly. You can say “Look! We’ve got a decent story and we’ve got concept art for all of this stuff. Before we move on, we need concept art for this this and that.” I think people would be more willing to contribute if they felt that their contributions would have that sort of impact and be put to use almost immediately in the next stage of the production, and it would make the whole thing a lot more cohesive, since you’d be doing all of your bits all at once. You wouldn’t have stuff animated by one guy a year ago, a scene animated by some other guy today, and another scene that’s still being animated by a guy who will finish in a few months. It’ll all be in the modeling or animation or conceptual stages at the same time and I think people would be able to feed off each other’s enthusiasm and maybe competitiveness.
Not only would it make for a more cohesive final project and be more organized, but the project itself could be used as a learning tool for people who want to learn more about the process, or about specific parts, like modeling or painting or whatever. Since everyone will be working on the same aspects at once, the surrounding community discourse will naturally be about that specific aspect and how one can improve at it.
Just some rambling thoughts. I don’t have much experience working with other people, and I’ve put all of my animation projects on hold for the time being, so I’m not exactly an expert on finishing stuff
You want my advice, tho: Figure out a short that would require minimal sets, minimal characters and no spoken dialogue. Simple story, simple models, simple rigs, simple everything. Don’t jump into it thinking you’ll be able to make anything even approaching a Pixar-level short, cause you won’t.
@Culver: Okay, if I somehow insulted you, my apologies, but there really is no need to be abrassive. I’m not trying to prove anything, just get input on what might or might not work. And I was not defending my idea by ‘attacking’ you, I actually, honestly meant that if some other storyline or angle would make it easier to imagine the process, I would love to hear it. I have no idea why you felt a need for that somewhat hurtful tone. But yes, your contribution to the discussion is welcome and heard. But I am not trying to insult or enrage you or anything, just if you somehow felt that way.
And if people think the discussion is a waste of time, I don’t understand what participation helps you. I’m sorry, I can give very little other response, I really don’t know what to say (should I be apologizing for this thread? I’m honestly not sure right now…?)
@Squiggly_P: I think you have something there. I like the idea of a more chaotic and dynamic (read: Free-for-all) production model, but the structure could be a Good Thing. And you hit the nail on the head with the other part, too: People probably won’t care about contributing much before it all looks somewhat spiffy, and without contribution, that will take so much time it kinda defeats the purpose. Is there a solution (or many choices?), you think? Is there a way to engage people early in a process without A) being Ton/Blender Institute, B) paying them, or C) whip out a miracle artist who does a bunch of neat concept drawings for no apparent reason? I am more of a writer, to be hinest, than an artist. My 3D work is very technically experimental, not artistically explorative. I like the beginning of projects, but others seem more interested in, as you say, the end of them. I guess what is needed is some way to collectively envision a project, so that the idea can be collectively considered, without the project already being at stage 5 in your process, for most things concerned. I am getting weird FrameForge vibes here…
No absolutely not. Don’t apologize for this thread.
You are correct I was being an abrasive ass. Not because you offended me. But because of what has not happened.
We have gone no-place. Do you see this? Now I am irked even more. At you yes. And I do apologize for being abrasive.
But hear me out:
My first response was simple and honest. And I addressed exactly why I had that response. From an artist perspective. Yes it was a negative response. It was not full of flowery adulation for your idea.
But I did raise some serious issues from an artist perspective. These are issues you’d have to confront for doing any film in any way. Is it going to interest the artists? Why? Would they consider the idea a waste of time? Why?
Well I gave you some of those issues. Point blank.
And what did you say?
As mentioned, I had no expectations it would be done, it was just to have something to debate around. If you have something better for hypotheticals (or an actual project), I would love to read it. Knowing what people find of sufficient interest is one important point of the process, after all!
I did give you something to debate around! And all you do is come back and say, well I never expected it to get done.
I am sorry but this kind of round about going no place would drive any sane rational person mad.
Then I come back and basically - yes abrasively - blast you for that and what you you come back and do?
Dance around the issues. You don’t address them, don’t acknowledge them, don’t debate them. Just point the finger back at me… I am abrasive. That goes no place. Nothing accomplished.
We still have not talked about what would give a 3D artist something to interest them. What are those issues and why. I brought those up in my initial response.
If you want to stop pissing me off. Take up each one of my issues in both posts and address them responsibly as if they actually mean something. Because to me as an artist they mean a lot. I am not just putting those things across to spend free time. I am trying to get you to look at these things - responsibly as an originator of this new idea. You say you are not a 3D artist. Well I am. And maybe I speak for many arts as well. Are you going to listen to that? Are you going to ask questions as to why and how something could be interesting? Or each time someone brings up an important issue you are just going to say… well I did not mean we are going to actually do it. That is why I said “you are defeating your own purpose.” You give something to debate and then you don’t debate it. How nutty is that?
Weed through the abrasive tone, get over that and address the issues. At least consider them, offer your solutions as an originator of this idea.
Now you brought up another issue. You want this to organically evolve. If you remember - at least I think I posted this - back in your other thread I said something to the effect of I like the idea of it being organic and experimental and trying to mix that with conventional story would be very hard to make work.
Your story ideas so far seem very conventional. I think a more random experimental idea would be better.
Now obviously I can not force you to discuss or anything like that. So accept my apology for the abrasive tone. If you don’t want to actually discuss these things, I’ll respect that and move on.
Richard i cant find that other thread about open source movie making, but a lot of interesting dialogue happened there regarding these concepts. Do you have a thread link to post?
that gets me thinking. if ur gonna do a CG movie, why spend all this time and effort making stuff that looks like real stuff? or, kinda real in an uncanny valley. if you want to film real stuff, as previous poster said, cast it, film it, edit it. Much simpler.
Instead, we should make a virtual reality film. I think that was the original appeal of TRON; it was a fake reality. We should design a fake universe, one that has different rules (like anit-gravity), and non-constant color, and creatures that are intelligent, but don’t look like real little girls with switches in their head. (I too was both impressed and disturbed by AI - great film, no hope to compete with it in my lifetime). Maybe they should look like…goop.
just a thought from an old man struggling to come up with an original idea.
Edit: actually intelligent goop creatures has already been done - Nutty Professor
Interesting idea, both the crowd-sourcing and Papa Smurf’s concept of making a “surreal” animation. I’m going to talk more about the former though
On crowd-sourcing - I think it can be done & quite successfully, but it needs a strong motivator to get enough quality participants. Looking into projects I’ve seen using similar techniques of harnessing community effort, there is always a strong drive that keeps it going.
Participation in these projects seems primarily (though not solely) driven by one of two things:
Subject/story buy-in: the users are quite involved in the subject, be that a mathematics article on Wikipedia, the schematics of the starship Enterprise, or the linguistics of lojban.
Project buy-in: the users want to be a part of the project, even if they are not as interested in the particular narrative. This includes those that submit content for the Star Trek MyOuterSpace website, modellers for Durian’s sprints, and even those that correct the grammar/spelling in Wikipedia articles.
On the assumption that you don’t have the best, most original idea in the world - it is likely that you are either going to need to latch onto an established fan-base (trekkies, star wars fans, zombie flick aficionados, etc) or make the project exciting to be a part of, like Durian. Personally the best independent flicks I’ve seen are those that don’t rely on established settings, but I get a kick out of fanfic features too
Aside from the motivation, there is something else that the successful crowd-sourced projects I know of (which is admittedly a short list) share. That is an authority guiding the production. In Wikipedia, there is an ultimate authority that can shut-down and/or control editing of articles when things look to get out of hand. With the crowd-sourced zombie flicks, there is always a producer/director (generally one & the same person) of some form who wields some authority of script, direction, etc. Durian has Ton (& trusted others).
Without the authority putting their foot down, you get chaos as too many people try to put their idea of “what should be” into the mix. Some of this makes for good changes, but there needs to be an ultimate arbiter of what is a good change and what will be discarded. Design by committee, if it ever produces a result rather than just argument, almost always results in a bad end result.
Note: I’m not saying you have to listen to &/or follow any of the above. Just throwing my immediate impression out there.
