I’ve done an e-mail interview with Ton about the movie:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Interview_with_Ton_Roosendaal_about_Elephants_Dream_and_free_content_movies
Comments welcome.
Nice job. I’m going to read it now.
I hate to rag on Ton, but his answer to this question is really a load of crap:
Question: One of the most common criticisms of CGI films is focus on technology over content. For instance, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within flopped with audiences, in spite of being an undisputed technical milestone. I’ve seen many reviews that criticized the plot of “Elephants Dream” as too bizarre or confusing. In retrospect, are you happy with the story development process?
Answer: … First of all; the criticism resembles how people witness Blender itself, too. Many people expect that Free Software is an easy accessible mass audience product. We get a lot of complaints by non-artists that they can’t get into the software easily, whilst the complexity of commercial products like Maya or Houdini is perceived as a confirmation of its “quality”. Apparently an Open Movie created similar expectations with the audience…
Elephants Dream isn’t being criticized as too complex or too hard to get into – it’s being criticized as lacking basic storytelling elements. It’s the difference between “that was hard to understand because the subject matter is hard” and “that was hard to understand because it was conveyed and explained so poorly as to be astonishing.”
It really disappoints me to see that instead of accepting the criticism graciously and remembering it for next time, Ton chose to take the snobbish route, saying that his work is so amazing that it is above people.
Disgusting.
It really disappoints me to see that instead of accepting the criticism graciously and remembering it for next time, Ton chose to take the snobbish route, saying that his work is so amazing that it is above people.
Are you talking about how he said that since people know it’s free that it’s not as good as commercial products?
I think he was saying that most people are too lazy or single-minded to think about what it ment, which he is mostly right. Why do you think so many people come in this forum and go,“How do I do this?” when the awnser is right in the forum they’re posting in.
But, weather or not he said whatever, is irrelevant.
Nevertheless, let’s hope next movie will be more accessible to a wider audience, and contain more humour.
Taking off my unbiased reporter hat … 
That’s quite harsh, meestaplu. He did point out that the artists had no professional filmmaking background, and that this was an important learning experience for them. I think there’s also some truth to the argument I’ve seen elsewhere that the plot inspires repeat viewings to assign your own interpretations to some of the metaphors (phone and phone lines, cameras, Service Entrance, Colossus/Hanging Gardens, etc.).
However, I disagree with that argument, because I feel that anyone who ordered the DVD is likely a Blendernut who would probably watch it repeatedly anyway just to discover all the techniques used. 
I think a fun film with a witty but plain plot and nice effects might have worked better – something like the intro sequence of Ice Age 1. The other problem I have with ED is that neither lead character is likeable, and the environment is dark and industrial. This doesn’t matter to a techie, but if you’re showing it to a “gut person” they might not judge it by its technical merits, but by the emotions it leaves them with.
Let’s just hope they don’t go with the polar opposite in the next movie – fluffy bunnies.
BTW, if you liked the interview, and you’re on digg, you can digg it here: http://digg.com/technology/Interview_with_Ton_Roosendaal_about_Elephants_Dream_and_open_movies
That is a common perception of Blender, but I don’t think that’s exactly what he was focusing on. To me, it looked like he was saying the following:
- People expect that free software is a mass audience product that is easy to understand.
- Since Elephants Dream is an open movie – a free movie – people also expected that it should be easily accessible and easy to understand.
- However, Blender is not easy to understand, and neither is Elephants Dream.
This logical progression implies that no one understands the movie because, like Blender, it is not for the masses – it’s only for a certain “elite” cadre who can thumb their noses at the rest of the world. If Elephants Dream were Lord of the Rings quality in every way, I could understand such a mindset. But when the movie can’t even tell a story correctly, I can’t believe that he would think to utter such remarks.
- People expect that free software is a mass audience product that is easy to understand.
- Since Elephants Dream is an open movie – a free movie – people also expected that it should be easily accessible and easy to understand.
- However, Blender is not easy to understand, and neither is Elephants Dream.
Funny, It makes perfect sense to me. [EDIT: Your mock logic, not Elephant’s Dream.]
I like the subtle elitist mindset. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside…
Well, maybe we should stop talking about the mindset of somebody and talk about something else before this gets locked.
Pff, that’s quite a leap. Especially since he clearly admits the story development was weak:
I’m the first to admit that - looking back especially - certain aspects worked out quite weakly; there’s loose ends and questionable decisions, especially in story development and continuity.
And then you write:
I hate to jump into flamewars on subject…but this is lame…
meetstaplu, and everyone else who think “the story wasn’t told correctly”…THINK AGAIN.
The short was exactly like they wanted it to be…either you like it or not, it’s alright. Some people prefer linear story a la hollywood, orthers prefer more abstract stories. But please, don’t even dare to say they created something and “they screwed the way they wanted to tell it”. I know they worked alot on the scenario and everything before actually working on the 3d itself, so take back your words and have another look at the work they did.
Yes the story is vague. Yes it’s not clear. Yes there is no specific “initial situation”, “action” and “end” that explains everything…but so what! They weren’t there to make something conventional. They were there to create something unique using THEIR style and THEIR way of telling a story. If you can’t understand that, well, I’m sorry but I have to say: you have a problem.
an ordinary story would have been to ordinary…
I think it’s a good interview, and I kind of found it no surprise to find Plumiferos in the little tidbit in the professionals using Blender, clearly the Orange developments helped them out greatly as well (feature wise).
meestaplu:
I’m the first to admit that - looking back especially - certain aspects worked out quite weakly; there’s loose ends and questionable decisions, especially in story development and continuity. That’s just the risk of doing experiments, and nothing I regret really. - Ton
The other problem I have with ED is that neither lead character is likeable
That’s it! That’s it! You’ve got it in one. One character is an overbearing zealot and the other an empty, wimpish shell. That didn’t hit me at all but now you mention it, that could well explain why so many people can’t connect with it.
The other problem I have with ED is that neither lead character is likeable
I guess I’m weird about this, but I really liked Proog’s character…:o (I don’t condone the fact that he “layed a smackdown” on Emo, though.;):D)
well, to make people feel better, I think the next Studio Orange movie will be less art movie, and more whole family comedy.
we knew we wouldn’t be able to please everyone with this kind of story. but it suited us better. and world is already filled with “ice age trailers”.
.b
basse, that would be too bad as I have seen enough ‘Family Comedies’ done with CG, that’s all they ever do now. The last mature CG movie was the last Final Fantasy installment. Any CG movies that make it to the theatre are always non proportional comedic shallow plots and never any drama or emotion (Other than the heartwarming pathetic feelings) Elephants Dream is a movie I have not yet seen but from what I have read there is a deep plot speaking of life and things beyond it. If I see another movie that contains a talking animal in CG I am going to burst. I don’t like it how this is compared to all movies in it’s catagory, when people do reviews of say… Steven Seagol’s The Foreigner, they don’t sit there and compare it to all action movies just to see how it sums up, but everyone seems to do that with CG movies now. Unless they use the excuse “Well it is made for children and adults that are children at heart” because then it becomes ok to have lame jokes and bad technical composition. Unrealistic? What movie in CG has been more realistic? When was the bar set? I believe this is the first movie to really take a stand against movies that are for children, CG should not be aimed toward an age group. They just pass it off as children’s movies as an excuse for low quality. Elephants Dream was done superbly and nowhere is it said to be a Heartwarming Adventure, because it is not. This is a new step in mature CG art.
Regards,
The Jack
We get a lot of complaints by non-artists that they can’t get into the software easily, whilst the complexity of commercial products like Maya or Houdini is perceived as a confirmation of its “quality”.
I couldn’t agree more.
People expect that free software is a mass audience product that is easy to understand
No, Ton is saying that sometimes people who has not really given himselves an oportunity with Blender, often are the people who complains.
The other problem I have with ED is that neither lead character is likeable
man, you have seen too many Disney movies!
Alvaro
Not a single bad word about Project Orange or the Orangers…
but an old saying comes to mind (from the Animation masterclass):
“Not the most fancy animation or artwork in the world can save
a bad story, and not the worst animation or blurriest lines can
keep a good story down.”
I generally agree about the “world-is-filled-with-ice-age-trailers” notion,
but that still won’t make up for a bad story. This just goes to show
how important the story itself is.
Here we have a really technically sophisticated piece of work,
made by some of the Blender-Communities best “visual” artists,
but the story is so unclear that it confuses the audience, heck…
not even the “elitists” that usually favour stories with cryptic content
to the average joe…didn’t get this one.
I am still glad to be a part of the sponsors behind the movie
I would have done it again (and probably will for the next movie)
because it was a technical learning experience…even though most
of us (like me) didnt participate in the actual movie, we did get
a nice tech-demo of Blenders true potential, which in itself is
a gob-stopper to put in the nay-sayers mouths once the discussion
of Blenders viabillity comes up for discussion - the DVD surely is
a handy thing to have around then