
Since the early beginnings of cinema, the power of production has already been in the hands of a select few because the capital and operating costs needed to create films were very exorbitant. This is why throughout the decades, the monopoly of film creation rested in the Hollywood prototype — a concentrated area where large commercial studios prevail.
However, commercial studios tend to focus more on profit, thus more often than not, these studios become over-reliant on formula and tried-and-tested stereotypes to mass-produce films and rake in profit. The downside here is that the content of films become diluted and bland.
Thus came, the alternative and independent movie scene.
The independent movie scene — indie, to its dear followers — breaks away from the mold of the traditional major commercial film outfits. They secure their funding through their own pockets, thus there is no pressure to rake in profit. Accordingly, the focus now rests solely on the content of the films. With no commercial motivation, these kinds of films can concentrate on topics which are not marketable such as offbeat and taboo topics — subjects which audience find enriching and empowering.
However, the major downsides of the indie scene were promotion and access to technology and equipments. With the coming of the digital age, these problems were erased for indie filmmakers, ushering a new era of films created from handheld camcorders and post-processed from home editing softwares.
With this paradigm shift, it is quite tempting to ask the possibility of 3D animated movies entering the fray of the independent movie scene.
At first glance, 3D animation movies seem a longshot to be created independently. With the complexity of animation, it seems a given that it should be created within the bounds of a 3D animation studio. If these studios take years to create a full-length feature, how about an independent filmmaker?
But looking deeply, the premium on indie films is always the content. Story is always king, as they say. Moreover, as much as technical prowess, precious time and equipments are needed to create 3D animated movies, these films are relatively easier to create than live-action full-length films.
As far as logistics is concerned, live-action full-length films would need to manage the operating expenses of a huge crew and its cumbersome equipments for shooting days. Moreover, the lead actors and actresses have to appear live and participate in the shooting days.
In 3D animation, the most basic requirement are the dubbing voices of the cast involved. If sophistication needs to be incorporated, actors and actresses should only participate in motion capture sessions to effectively create a 3D range of motion. Still hard work, but not as taxing compared to live-action movie shoots. Here is an example of a motion capture session:

Moreover, there are boundless possibilities available for stories in 3D animation. With no physical limitations to think about except budget and the skill level of animators, quirky and alternative content can be effectively pursued in the 3D animation movie medium.
Indie filmmakers would have to shell out a hefty investment in order to secure the top-of-the-line animation software and equipments needed to create a 3D animated movie without the support of a major commercial studio. However, the rewards can be promising. Creating an indie 3D animated movie will be very difficult indeed, but the thing to remember is that it’s not impossible.

March 31st, 2009 at 6:12 am
I agree with you to some extent, but I also think that there are options for indie film-makers. For instance, there are a number of open source (or very cheap) alternatives to the major packages. I’ll be the first to admit that they are not up there with Maya or XSI, but they are available.
Second, I think it’s a mistake for indie film-makers to try to be pixar or dreamworks. Instead I’d go for a more abstract/ artistic interpretation where technical simplifications are made so that it’s possible to lift the story. For an example take a look at the xkcd web-comic. Extremely simplistic (and not 3d, I’m mentioning it as an example of what you can do even though you can’t do detailed, realistic illustrations) but IMO a container of good content.
Another aspect that I find intriguing is the possibilities for collaboration over vast distances. I know that the numbers of failed collaborative projects vastly outnumber the succesfull ones, but there are some projects that are done this way.
Finally, just as an inspiration, I’m very inspired by Timothy Albee and Kaze, Ghost Warrior. Although he is not just “any guy”, he showed that it is possible to make a 3d-movie with some creative thinking and hard work.
I do agree with you, however, that it takes a lot of hard work and dedication for those wanting to do such a thing.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:30 am
Point well taken. Resourcefulness with options is one of the key attributes of indie filmmakers. Moreover, trying to be Pixar or Dreamworks is like creating the same formula thus I agree that indie filmmakers should explore the box when it comes to the capabilities of 3D animation. Like I said, the possibilities are boundless. Thanks for your thoughts