Animator/animation credits, when "animator" is not really used?

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 9 months ago
  • Answered
Hi. I need to clarify a few things. Patience, please.

1) There are some animations (often a bit older, non-English short films in my case) where the "animator" is not really credited as such. Meaning, that he/she is credited with the attiributes like "illustrator", "artist" - or "drawings by", "pictures by" etc. I can usually confirm if the person was the actual animator (I'm in contact with some of them), but the fact is that in some older animations the credits are incomplete or a bit vague (they simply didn't always think of these things back in days - how to credit people).

So it's still possible to add these to "Animation Department", maybe with attributes like "animator: drawings", "animator: illustrators", etc? OR should the credits that doesn't specifically mention "animation", "animator" etc (even when they actually are - and I can confirm this) go to the "Art Department"?

2) With some animations the animator can have (e.g.) two credits: "animation" and "drawings" (or "illustrators/pictures/etc"). I guess this basically means that one person drew/illustrated the characters, backgrounds etc, AND also handled the actual animation process (remember that I'm mainly talking about the older productions before the digital age with digital video and computers).

So do both of these credits (let's say "animator" and "drawings") still go the "Animation Department" - OR maybe "drawings" to "Art Department"?

3) There are also some short films (NOTE: I don't speak about the same examples as in "1" or "2", though) that looks animated, but actually aren't. This means that no real animation technique was used ("..images or objects are manipulated to appear as moving images..", from Wiki) and the character/objects are not moving. The (still) drawings/illustrations/paintings are shot with the camera (in studio maybe) and all the movements are done with the camera. Then everything is edited together with narration, music, sound effects etc. SO: Camera zooms, pans, tilts and moves - not the characters/objects.

Genre question: If the short film/series/etc doesn't use the REAL animation techniques (there are several, but in all of them the actual characters/objects on the screen are moving in some ways), is it still considered being under "Animations" genre (also keyword-related)? How strick the definition is?

Sorry for the long post and thanks!



Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1520 Posts
  • 1900 Reply Likes

Posted 1 year ago

  • 3
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 12544 Posts
  • 9272 Reply Likes
Hi Eboy -

I have reached out to our editorial team to discuss these listings further, once I hear back on the outcome I will provide the information here.
Photo of Andre

Andre

  • 16 Posts
  • 33 Reply Likes

Hi Eboy,

apologies for the long delay in answering your questions.

1)  When you can confirm that the actual role was in fact animation related, then please submit to the animation department. Prefacing with "animator:" is not necessary, as we prefer to store the roles as displayed on-screen.

 2) Background drawings should go to the art department, but agreed, there is a bit on an overlap here, especially for older titles.

 3) That depends on the actual film, but if a significant amount of work has gone into "animating" the camera to create a specific animation-like result, then we would consider it as belonging to the "animation"-genre.

Regards,
André