Why the lack of realism in animation design?
garfangle
seems like since the early 1990s the predominate majority of animated
cartoons (non-Disney films) are what one might call either
post-modern. In that the character designs and background animation
are not drawn in realistic proportion or palette. They can range from
Groenig's Simpsons, Moore & Park's South Park, Klasky-Csupo's Rugrats,
Tartakovsky's Samurai Jack, and even Mike Judge's Beavis & Butthead
(but not KoH). Some of the recent ones like the Oblongs and Ed, Edd,
Eddy take it to extremes. I know that many artists can draw in
realism, my question is why do shows that employ this technique rarely
end up in production for TV shows? As a contrast, almost all major
feature films that have not previously enjoyed support as series
(South Park: the Movie, Rugrats, Doug) have rather realistically
proportioned characters and designs (from Little Mermaid to Atlantis).
Ciao.
Juan F. Lara
garfangle <garf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In that the character designs and background animation are not drawn in
> realistic proportion or palette. They can range from Groenig's Simpsons,
You're lumping a whole lot of cartoons together under the "non-realistic"
banner. This list includes very different styles done by people emphasizing
very different aspects of the artform. You're going from crude styles done by
people who don't draw very well ( "The Simpsons", "South Park" ) to very highly
crafted cartoons done by artists ( "Samurai Jack" ). Very dissimilar
situations here.
> I know that many artists can draw in realism, my question is why do shows
> that employ this technique rarely end up in production for TV shows?
Artists have to learn to draw realistic in order to learn to draw. But
why do you have to always draw your art realistically. The great thing about
animation is that ideally the artists have complete freedom in deciding how
the world should look and work. Why then just photocopy real life when you can
come up with your own visually interesting style. The same goes for movement.
You can move characters any way you want and so you should then try to find
inventive ways to move them. I think those are the points behind "Ren and
Stimpy". The way they drew the characters depended on the scene's context
rather than a model sheet's stock poses.
- Juan F. Lara
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html
Stephen W. Worth
Why draw what you can shoot in live action? The fundamental
core of animation is drawings. Style and caricature are
important aspects of drawing for animation.
See ya
Steve
High Quality CDs of Classic Historical Recordings
VIP Records: http://www.vintageip.com/records/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Spumco Cartoons: http://www.spumco.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Vintage Ink & Paint Animation Art
http://www.vintageip.com
Sweet Zombie Jesus
<48ef815c.01090...@posting.google.com>...
>Moore & Park's South Park
That's Stone and Parker. ...lol
--Greg
==============================================
"Alcohol and cigarettes go together like porn and nachos"
-Pickles Oblong, "The Oblongs"
==============================================
Arnold Kim
Stephen W. Worth <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
news:bigshot-0709...@206.225.65.140...
> Because the quest for realism is a dead end for animation.
> Why draw what you can shoot in live action? The fundamental
> core of animation is drawings. Style and caricature are
> important aspects of drawing for animation.
I think it's possible to have realistic designs and do things that are
difficult to pull off in live action.
Take a look at "Grave of the Fireflies" for instance. The character designs
are realistic, especially for anime standards, yet it would be more
difficult to do this in live action. It's mainly because some of the
special effects that would be required would be more of a burden than
anything else, and it would be difficult to find child actors that could
pull off those roles.
I think comparing animation to live action is not unlike comparing painting
to photography. Even the most realistic artwork still look like artwork.
The fact that it's painted in and of itself adds a visual element that can't
be copied in live action. If you know your '80s music videos, there's the
one for the song "Take on Me", which was done mostly in rotoscoped pencil
drawn (at least, I think it was pencil) animation. It looked infinitely
cooler than it would have had it been just live action.
Arnold Kim
Danger X
"Arnold Kim" <ki...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9nbugi$i03$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Aha!
;-)
One of the coolest videos (imho) made in the 80s...
More or less,
Kyle
ANIM8Rfsk
;-)
One of the coolest videos (imho) made in the 80s... >>
The amazing thing was, they managed to take a pencil test and sell it as a new
art form, heh.
Invid Fan
wrote:
> Stephen W. Worth <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
> news:bigshot-0709...@206.225.65.140...
> > Because the quest for realism is a dead end for animation.
> > Why draw what you can shoot in live action? The fundamental
> > core of animation is drawings. Style and caricature are
> > important aspects of drawing for animation.
>
> I think it's possible to have realistic designs and do things that are
> difficult to pull off in live action.
>
Although this is getting less with CGI. It use to be cheaper to do an
animated space battle then a live action one with models.
> Take a look at "Grave of the Fireflies" for instance. The character designs
> are realistic, especially for anime standards, yet it would be more
> difficult to do this in live action. It's mainly because some of the
> special effects that would be required would be more of a burden than
> anything else, and it would be difficult to find child actors that could
> pull off those roles.
>
The story's writer has said that he insisted it was animated because he
didn't think modern Japanese kids could handle the acting. The current
generation was too soft, and couldn't convey what he had gone through
durring the war.
> I think comparing animation to live action is not unlike comparing painting
> to photography. Even the most realistic artwork still look like artwork.
> The fact that it's painted in and of itself adds a visual element that can't
> be copied in live action. If you know your '80s music videos, there's the
> one for the song "Take on Me", which was done mostly in rotoscoped pencil
> drawn (at least, I think it was pencil) animation. It looked infinitely
> cooler than it would have had it been just live action.
>
Animation should, to my mind, be used when the creator needs a certain
style that live action can't match. It could be matching character
designs to a comicbook or a novel, having backgrounds done in
watercolors, etc. I've never been a fan of the ultra realistic style
such as was used in Ghost in the Shell. It would of been much better if
it had been done closer to Shiro's style.
--
Chris Mack "I'm Mr. Gone! A student of the mystic arts! Unfortinitly,
'Invid Fan' an untalented student, or I wouldn't have to keep
shooting fools like you!" Mr. Gone, 'The Maxx'
Chris Sobieniak
Too bad kids these days won't understand what made the '80s great for
experimentation in music videos. They'll have to put with with the s--t
they've created.
Oddly, I could never understand the bit at the end of that video, with
the guy trying to get his "animated" self out of his system by banging
around the hall. That was really cool, but I had that nerve to think he
died, since they never really showed anything after that point in the
video, you'd have to take it at face value with no back-talk.
Domo Arigatoo to Sayonara!
From the Master of Car-too-nal Knowledge...
Christopher M. Sobieniak
--"Fightin' the Frizzies since 1978"--
Stephen W. Worth
<in...@localnet.com> wrote:
> Although this is getting less with CGI. It use to be cheaper to do an
> animated space battle then a live action one with models.
I wasn't talking about animation as a special effects medium.
I was referring specifically to animation as a story telling
medium. Personally I don't think the fact that the director
didn't think he could find good actors is a good reason to
do a film in animation rather than live action.
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> In article <080920010007396993%in...@localnet.com>, Invid Fan
> <in...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> > Although this is getting less with CGI. It use to be cheaper to do an
> > animated space battle then a live action one with models.
>
> I wasn't talking about animation as a special effects medium.
> I was referring specifically to animation as a story telling
> medium. Personally I don't think the fact that the director
> didn't think he could find good actors is a good reason to
> do a film in animation rather than live action.
>
Well, as for the Wachowski brothers,
they're planning on doing one of the Matrix prequels in animation
because they think the story is too complex (technically, I presume)
to do in live-action (the Matrix movie itself was complex enough,
one can wonder what the brothers have in mind).
As we know, a significant part of the live-action Matrix movie
was written in storyboard,
so I'd expect the same for the animated prequel.
As for whether Keanu Reeves is a good actor or not,
that's for others to debate. ;-)
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ Stanlee Dometita sta...@www.cif.rochester.edu
| ( _| | U of Rochester www.cif.rochester.edu/~stanlee
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___ |__| |__|___| \ ___|
ANIM8Rfsk
the guy trying to get his "animated" self out of his system by banging
around the hall. >>
I assumed it was an homage (or rip off, as you will) to ALTERED STATES.
Invid Fan
<big...@spumco.com> wrote:
> In article <080920010007396993%in...@localnet.com>, Invid Fan
> <in...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> > Although this is getting less with CGI. It use to be cheaper to do an
> > animated space battle then a live action one with models.
>
> I wasn't talking about animation as a special effects medium.
> I was referring specifically to animation as a story telling
> medium. Personally I don't think the fact that the director
> didn't think he could find good actors is a good reason to
> do a film in animation rather than live action.
>
You must admit, animation gives the creater much more control over the
characters then live action does :)
Arnold Kim
> In article <080920010007396993%in...@localnet.com>, Invid Fan
> <in...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> > Although this is getting less with CGI. It use to be cheaper to do an
> > animated space battle then a live action one with models.
>
> I wasn't talking about animation as a special effects medium.
> I was referring specifically to animation as a story telling
> medium. Personally I don't think the fact that the director
> didn't think he could find good actors is a good reason to
> do a film in animation rather than live action.
For the film I was talking about, Grave of the Fireflies, to work would
require performances that would be far beyond the reach of the vast majority
of child actors.
Besides, I think that animation itself (no matter how "realistic" it is)
adds an extra artistic element that live action does not have. Like I said
before, it's like the difference between a portrait painting and a
photograph.
Arnold Kim
Invid Fan
wrote:
> Stephen W. Worth <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
> news:bigshot-0809...@206.225.65.156...
> > In article <080920010007396993%in...@localnet.com>, Invid Fan
> > <in...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Although this is getting less with CGI. It use to be cheaper to do an
> > > animated space battle then a live action one with models.
> >
> > I wasn't talking about animation as a special effects medium.
> > I was referring specifically to animation as a story telling
> > medium. Personally I don't think the fact that the director
> > didn't think he could find good actors is a good reason to
> > do a film in animation rather than live action.
>
> For the film I was talking about, Grave of the Fireflies, to work would
> require performances that would be far beyond the reach of the vast majority
> of child actors.
>
Plus they'd have to be starved for a few months to be able to look
right :)
Arnold Kim
Invid Fan <in...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:090920011617474168%in...@localnet.com...
> In article <9ng6ga$l1f$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Arnold Kim <ki...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Stephen W. Worth <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
> > news:bigshot-0809...@206.225.65.156...
> > > In article <080920010007396993%in...@localnet.com>, Invid Fan
> > > <in...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Although this is getting less with CGI. It use to be cheaper to do
an
> > > > animated space battle then a live action one with models.
> > >
> > > I wasn't talking about animation as a special effects medium.
> > > I was referring specifically to animation as a story telling
> > > medium. Personally I don't think the fact that the director
> > > didn't think he could find good actors is a good reason to
> > > do a film in animation rather than live action.
> >
> > For the film I was talking about, Grave of the Fireflies, to work would
> > require performances that would be far beyond the reach of the vast
majority
> > of child actors.
> >
> Plus they'd have to be starved for a few months to be able to look
> right :)
Well, I think that could have been accomplished by a good makeup team.
Arnold Kim
Arklier
I think it depends on the needs of the project. Animation that's
trying to be more serious usually has more realistic animation. There
is a place for realism in animation. You can't have huge realistic
mecha stomping around, and Dexter and Dee Dee in the cockpit. It
wouldn't work.
ark...@spamnothotmail.com
Remove 'spamnot' to reply by email
Mega Man fans visit alt.games.megaman
Quint's page of Rockman manga scans: http://www.crosswinds.net/~sakugarne
"We may be pirates, but we're not barbarians. We'll let them keep the toilet paper." - Teisel Bonne
Brion Foulke
> I was referring specifically to animation as a story telling
> medium. Personally I don't think the fact that the director
> didn't think he could find good actors is a good reason to
> do a film in animation rather than live action.
>
> See ya
> Steve
What? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Any reason is a good reason to do realistic animation, if that's what
you want to do. Live Action and Animation are two different mediums.
Neither is *better* than the other, and it makes no difference
artistically which one is would be cheaper or easier, etc.
Let me put it this way... It would be equally valid (and probably
equally insulting) for me to say: "Why bother doing any live action at
all when you could just animate it to be realistic?"
Stephen W. Worth
bri...@mediaone.net (Brion Foulke) wrote:
> Let me put it this way... It would be equally valid (and probably
> equally insulting) for me to say: "Why bother doing any live action at
> all when you could just animate it to be realistic?"
It would be completely wasteful to try to make hand drawn
animation that looked like live action. It would be a lot
of work with no real advantage over just shooting it with
a camera.
The essence of animation is drawings. Making drawings that
look like photographs isn't using the medium to its full
advantage. Caricature and style are necessary componants
of hand drawn animation.
Arklier
Worth) wrote:
>In article <b2a34303.01091...@posting.google.com>,
>bri...@mediaone.net (Brion Foulke) wrote:
>
>> Let me put it this way... It would be equally valid (and probably
>> equally insulting) for me to say: "Why bother doing any live action at
>> all when you could just animate it to be realistic?"
>
>It would be completely wasteful to try to make hand drawn
>animation that looked like live action. It would be a lot
>of work with no real advantage over just shooting it with
>a camera.
Let's take this argument and apply it to a simliar medium. Why do
people still bother doing still drawings and paintings when it's just
easier to shoot it with a still camera? One click versus hours of
composition, color mixing, and trouble.
Just as an example, I'm going to use a picture on a box near my desk:
the cover illustration for Everquest: Scars of Velious. It's a
realistic painting by Keith Parkinson showing an elf maid, and a bunch
of different fighters of different fantasy races (dwarf, barbarian,
ect) in action poses fighting a huge blue dragon while knee deep in
the snow. Would it have been easier to just get a bunch of people in
makeup to pose with a mock up of a dragon? Probably. Would it have the
same style or looked as good? I doubt it.
By your argument because it is a realistic style drawing, it would
have been better to either take a photograph of actors or draw the
figures all as goofy charicatures, when that plainly doesn't fit what
the artist, his client (Sony), and his audience (the people who bought
the game) wanted.
>The essence of animation is drawings. Making drawings that
>look like photographs isn't using the medium to its full
>advantage. Caricature and style are necessary componants
>of hand drawn animation.
>
>See ya
>Steve
>
IMHO, there is no particular way animation 'should' be. Charicature in
animation is good, as long as charicature is the point of the
animaiton and it all merges fluidly. From my earlier post, can you see
100 foot tall really cool looking mecha stomping around with Dexter
and Dee Dee in the cockpits? No. Does that mean there shouldn't be
animation with 100 foot tall really cool looking mecha in it? No.
Animation is a medium, and a flexible one at that. There is room for
all kinds and all styles of animation, realism included.
Leaping Larry Jojo
> In article <b2a34303.01091...@posting.google.com>,
> bri...@mediaone.net (Brion Foulke) wrote:
>
> > Let me put it this way... It would be equally valid (and probably
> > equally insulting) for me to say: "Why bother doing any live action at
> > all when you could just animate it to be realistic?"
>
> It would be completely wasteful to try to make hand drawn
> animation that looked like live action. It would be a lot
> of work with no real advantage over just shooting it with
> a camera.
>
> The essence of animation is drawings. Making drawings that
> look like photographs isn't using the medium to its full
> advantage. Caricature and style are necessary componants
> of hand drawn animation.
>
Not a fan of King of the Hill, I guess.
Actually, the necessary components of hand drawn animation are
anything makes a lot of people pay money or configure their Nielsen
boxes to see it... ;-)
Jojo
Stephen W. Worth
<ark...@spamnot.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Let's take this argument and apply it to a simliar medium. Why do
> people still bother doing still drawings and paintings when it's just
> easier to shoot it with a still camera? One click versus hours of
> composition, color mixing, and trouble.
Making a painting look exactly like a photograph is the same
sort of waste as making a hand drawn animated film look like
a live action film. The photo-realist movement in modern art
is a quaint dead end.
Art without expression isn't art.
Homer
>
> It would be completely wasteful to try to make hand drawn
> animation that looked like live action. It would be a lot
> of work with no real advantage over just shooting it with
> a camera.
>
> The essence of animation is drawings. Making drawings that
> look like photographs isn't using the medium to its full
> advantage. Caricature and style are necessary componants
> of hand drawn animation.
So, if in a few years, sombody developes the technology that allows live
productions to duplicate every style and caricature that you can conceive
of, then all hand-drawn animation should cease forever?
>The photo-realist movement in modern art is a quaint dead end.
And who decided this for everyone for all time?
Arklier
Worth) wrote:
>In article <4ghqptcoin11bphvr...@4ax.com>, Arklier
><ark...@spamnot.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's take this argument and apply it to a simliar medium. Why do
>> people still bother doing still drawings and paintings when it's just
>> easier to shoot it with a still camera? One click versus hours of
>> composition, color mixing, and trouble.
>
>Making a painting look exactly like a photograph is the same
>sort of waste as making a hand drawn animated film look like
>a live action film. The photo-realist movement in modern art
>is a quaint dead end.
>
>Art without expression isn't art.
>
>See ya
>Steve
>
What about making something fantastical look real, like the examples
I've been giving?
Stephen W. Worth
(Homer) wrote:
> So, if in a few years, sombody developes the technology that allows live
> productions to duplicate every style and caricature that you can conceive
> of, then all hand-drawn animation should cease forever?
Good luck! They can't even get makeup of live action cartoon
characters to look anything less than horrifying!
> >The photo-realist movement in modern art is a quaint dead end.
>
> And who decided this for everyone for all time?
Do you like any photo realist painters?
Stephen W. Worth
<ark...@spamnot.hotmail.com> wrote:
> What about making something fantastical look real, like the examples
> I've been giving?
Animation is a good tool for special effects.
Brion Foulke
> > equally insulting) for me to say: "Why bother doing any live action at
> > all when you could just animate it to be realistic?"
>
> It would be completely wasteful to try to make hand drawn
> animation that looked like live action. It would be a lot
> of work with no real advantage over just shooting it with
> a camera.
Whether or not it is "wasteful" is irrelevant. This is not a
discussion about what medium is the most profitable... this a
discussion about artisitic merit. Please do not mix up the two.
> The essence of animation is drawings. Making drawings that
> look like photographs isn't using the medium to its full
> advantage. Caricature and style are necessary componants
> of hand drawn animation.
Although a perfectly valid style, caricature is completely unnecessary
in animation.
You're right that "expression" is vital in art (as mentioned in your
other reply.) However, you're under the mistaken impression that
caricature animation is the only type of animation that can be
expressive. This is plainly wrong.
Animation is a medium used to tell a story, just like a book, movie,
or even the spoken word are also story-telling mediums. Each with
different strengths and weaknesses... and yet each enjoyable in thier
own right.
There are many factors that enhance these mediums... for example, with
cinema, things such as cinematography, setting, pacing, and color.
But ultimately, all of these things are useless without a good story.
And in the end, that's what the audience really cares about.
Perfect example: Kevin Smith Movies (Clerks, Chasing amy). Let's face
it... in terms of visual style, the guy is mediocre. He has no sense
of composition. And yet, people love his movies, and with good
reason... why? Because he has a great sense of dialog, and tells
great stories. As a film-maker, he is sub-par in many categories...
but as a story-teller, the guy deserves all of his success.
So, why can't the same be true of animation? Why does character
movement have to be exaggerated? It doesn't. When it comes right
down to it, you really don't need visual style at all. The most
important part of any story-telling medium is the STORY-TELLING. That
is where the important artistic expression is coming from. That is
not to say that caricature animation isn't a perfectly valid way to
add additional artistic expression... but remember, all you are doing
is adding visual style to a story. Visual style ALWAYS plays a
SUPPORTIVE role to the story itself.
If this is true, then it really doesn't matter whether animation is
caricature, realistic, or whatever... it's all just different means to
the same end.
Now, I would like to make a suggestion to you, kind sir. Please, read
over this text one more time. And then *think.*
A closed mind is a dangerous thing.
Stephen W. Worth
> > It would be completely wasteful to try to make hand drawn
> > animation that looked like live action. It would be a lot
> > of work with no real advantage over just shooting it with
> > a camera.
>
> Whether or not it is "wasteful" is irrelevant. This is not a
> discussion about what medium is the most profitable... this a
> discussion about artisitic merit. Please do not mix up the two.
One of the first things you learn as an artist... any kind
of artist... is to understand your medium and be true to
it. Trying to shoehorn animation into being just like live
action is as false as wood grained contact paper, and just
about as tacky.
> Although a perfectly valid style, caricature is completely
> unnecessary in animation.
Caricature is the *essence* of animation. The proof of this
is rotoscoping. Although well done roto is exactly the same
movement, timing and volumes as live action, it looks
flat and lifeless next to good expressive animation. The
ultimate in realistic animation is rotoscope. That is why
it is a dead end.
> You're right that "expression" is vital in art (as mentioned in your
> other reply.) However, you're under the mistaken impression that
> caricature animation is the only type of animation that can be
> expressive. This is plainly wrong.
I don't think you understand what caricature is. It isn't
drawing big red noses. It is exaggerating identifiable traits
to create life that is beyond real. To do that, the artists
exaggerates and highlights certain features in his drawings.
There are a million different styles to draw in, but drawing
straight is the least rewarding and the least effective. If
you want real, just pull out a camera. If you are going to
draw it, the artist had better have something to add
stylistically.
> Animation is a medium used to tell a story, just like a book, movie,
> or even the spoken word are also story-telling mediums. Each with
> different strengths and weaknesses... and yet each enjoyable in thier
> own right.
Precisely... and animation is a medium of drawings. It's strength
and uniqueness lies in the animator's style.
> There are many factors that enhance these mediums... for example, with
> cinema, things such as cinematography, setting, pacing, and color.
> But ultimately, all of these things are useless without a good story.
> And in the end, that's what the audience really cares about.
Story is great and is very important, but that wasn't what
we were talking about. We were talking about drawing style.
> Why does character movement have to be exaggerated? It doesn't.
> When it comes right down to it, you really don't need visual
> style at all. The most important part of any story-telling
> medium is the STORY-TELLING.
You are the one that is outta his mind! Animation without
visual style is complete and utter crap. Animation is
*visual* storytelling. The story isn't told in words, like
a book. It is told in moving drawings. Without expressive
drawing and a visual style, you might as well close your
eyes and listen to a radio show.
You can tell stories with real people MUCH more convincingly
using live actors. A live actor has infinite flexibility in
his face and posture to express emotion. Drawing realistic
characters with anywhere near that kind of subtlety is
downright impossible. It always looks stiff and flat. But
animation *can* exaggerate and caricature much more flexibly
than a live actor can. That is the edge that animation holds
over live action. If you don't take full advantage of the
medium, there is no reason to go to the trouble of drawing
it all in the first place.
> Now, I would like to make a suggestion to you, kind sir. Please, read
> over this text one more time. And then *think.*
> A closed mind is a dangerous thing.
I think you just don't understand understand art. My
suggestion to you is to not just accept artless animation.
Sit down and try to draw. Study it and figure out how an
artist does what he does. You don't have to become a great
artist to have an appreciation for it. I think if you
thought about it a bit more, you would see a whole level
of expression that you weren't even consciously aware of
before.
Brion Foulke
> of artist... is to understand your medium and be true to
> it.
Understand, yes. But "be true to it"? What does this mean? It
sounds as if you are saying to be faithful to a medium. As if we must
pick one medium to work in, and disregard all else. That sounds
narrow minded to me.
> Trying to shoehorn animation into being just like live
> action is as false as wood grained contact paper, and just
> about as tacky.
No, it's a perfectly viable way to do animation.
> > Although a perfectly valid style, caricature is completely
> > unnecessary in animation.
>
> Caricature is the *essence* of animation.
No, you're wrong there. Animation is simply movement. Caricature is
one style of movement. But it's no better or worse then other styles.
> The proof of this
> is rotoscoping. Although well done roto is exactly the same
> movement, timing and volumes as live action, it looks
> flat and lifeless next to good expressive animation.
Because, in YOUR OPINION, rotoscoping looks flat and lifeless, is
pretty shaky proof. It's not even very good evidence. First of all,
ultra realisitc animation is one style, but there are other styles.
Animation can be more realisitc than caricature, but it doesn't have
to be ultra-realistic.
> ultimate in realistic animation is rotoscope. That is why
> it is a dead end.
It's only a dead end if you don't like the end result. You have said
you don't like rotoscoping, and I beleive you. I'm not really a big
fan either. But I won't speak for everyone and say it's bad thing.
To do so would be vain on my account.
> I don't think you understand what caricature is. It isn't
> drawing big red noses. It is exaggerating identifiable traits
> to create life that is beyond real.
Yes, I'm aware of that. The key is that it exaggerates real-life
movement.
To do that, the artists
> exaggerates and highlights certain features in his drawings.
> There are a million different styles to draw in, but drawing
> straight is the least rewarding and the least effective. If
> you want real, just pull out a camera. If you are going to
> draw it, the artist had better have something to add
> stylistically.
Well, that's incredibly narrow minded. As I have just got done
telling you, animation is a story-telling technique... therefore your
main priority is always the story. Which means that drawing straight,
as you put it, is no more or less rewarding than exaggerating
movement. Example: South Park is an excellent show. Why? Because it
is entertaining... it has crude animation, and yet nobody cares. And
unless they are big fans of animation, or animation students
themselves, there is no reason why they should care. The graphics
always play a supporting role to the story.
> Precisely... and animation is a medium of drawings. It's strength
> and uniqueness lies in the animator's style.
True, but caricature is only one style. You don't need to exaggerate
movement. If you want to specializin in caricature, hey, knock
yourself out. But there's absolutely no reason why anyone else should
have to limit themselves to just that sub-genre
> Story is great and is very important, but that wasn't what
> we were talking about. We were talking about drawing style.
Well, actually what we are talking about is viable mediums for
story-telling. My point is that any type of animation is viable. It
makes no difference if you don't prefer it because in your mind it is
"lifeless." And the animation quality isn't really what's most
important to the audience anyway, nor should it be.
> You are the one that is outta his mind! Animation without
> visual style is complete and utter crap.
I'd rather watch South Park than some Disney Movies. I am not out of
my mind, and it would be incredibly rude for you to suggest so. Why?
Because I am more interested in the show as a whole. Here's a phrase
you should remember: "Only film buffs care about cinematography." And
remember Kevin Smith.
Animation is
> *visual* storytelling. The story isn't told in words, like
> a book. It is told in moving drawings. Without expressive
> drawing and a visual style, you might as well close your
> eyes and listen to a radio show.
Another thing you should think about: even limited animation can be
very stylized, and visually appealing, if done proberly.
> You can tell stories with real people MUCH more convincingly
> using live actors. A live actor has infinite flexibility in
> his face and posture to express emotion. Drawing realistic
> characters with anywhere near that kind of subtlety is
> downright impossible. It always looks stiff and flat. But
> animation *can* exaggerate and caricature much more flexibly
> than a live actor can. That is the edge that animation holds
> over live action. If you don't take full advantage of the
> medium, there is no reason to go to the trouble of drawing
> it all in the first place.
The only reason you need to work with a medium is that it is
different. If you do realistic animation, you are creating a world
that can never be created by live action.
> I think you just don't understand understand art.
No, I understand it perfectly well, in fact that statement seem to me
to be a cop-out, a way for you to disregard my arguments without good
reason.
> suggestion to you is to not just accept artless animation.
> Sit down and try to draw. Study it and figure out how an
> artist does what he does. You don't have to become a great
> artist to have an appreciation for it. I think if you
> thought about it a bit more, you would see a whole level
> of expression that you weren't even consciously aware of
> before.
Thanks, but I have already taken your advice before reading this,
through-out the course of my life. And yet, I still feel that
everything I have said is true, and I feel that your close-minded ness
is dangerous.
I am not saying it is wrong for you to prefer caricature animation.
What I am saying is, it is wrong for you to state that this is the
best kind of animation, as a statement of fact.
Please, in the fututre, try not to disguise your opinions as fact.
Stephen W. Worth
> Understand, yes. But "be true to it"? What does this mean?
Being true to a medium is to utilize its strengths and not
try to make it be a bad imitation of another medium.
> No, you're wrong there. Animation is simply movement. Caricature is
> one style of movement. But it's no better or worse then other styles.
Pure movement may be the essence of special effects animation,
but not hand drawn character animation. Hand drawn character
animation is all about creating life with drawings. The A-1
technique for achieving lifelike animation is caricature.
> Because, in YOUR OPINION, rotoscoping looks flat and lifeless, is
> pretty shaky proof.
Do you think rotoscope is expressive and lifelike?
> It's only a dead end if you don't like the end result. You have said
> you don't like rotoscoping, and I beleive you. I'm not really a big
> fan either. But I won't speak for everyone and say it's bad thing.
> To do so would be vain on my account.
No, it would be making a conclusion based on observation and
analysis. If you aren't able to make judgements based on the
evidence of your own eyes, you don't have much to say.
If I ask you why you don't care for rotoscoped character animation,
I bet you would say that it looks flat and lifeless. Accept it.
> As I have just got done
> telling you, animation is a story-telling technique... therefore your
> main priority is always the story.
And I told you that effective character animation uses *visual*
storytelling techniques which are part and parcel with the visual
style of the artist. The story is not separate from the drawings.
> Which means that drawing straight,
> as you put it, is no more or less rewarding than exaggerating
> movement. Example: South Park is an excellent show. Why? Because it
> is entertaining... it has crude animation, and yet nobody cares.
I do. It hurts my eyes to watch. But it is a good show to have
on the TV set while I wash dishes in the kitchen. South Park is
not a good example of good realistic animation. But it's a great
example of bad, styleless animation.
> unless they are big fans of animation, or animation students
> themselves, there is no reason why they should care. The graphics
> always play a supporting role to the story.
And that is precisely why it is "half a show". It might as well
be hand puppets or a radio show. It doesn't utilize animation
at all. The creators of South Park have publicly expressed
distaste for animation. They are crappy animators. They don't
give a damn what their show looks like, and they are incapable
of making it look any better than what a ten year old child
could come up with. That *isn't* a good thing.
> True, but caricature is only one style. You don't need to exaggerate
> movement.
Wrong. Ask *any* animator if he or she can make something look
convincing on the screen without exaggeration. They will show
you the classic bouncing ball exercise. If you draw it realistic,
it looks fake. You have to exaggerate the timing and shape to
make it look natural.
Again, rotoscope is perfectly un-exaggerated animation. It is
the best you can achieve without exaggeration. And it looks
stiff, flat and lifeless.
> Well, actually what we are talking about is viable mediums for
> story-telling. My point is that any type of animation is viable.
There are many mediums for story-telling... books, short stories,
live action movies, live performance, music, etc. Each one of
these mediums can be done well, or they can be done poorly.
Any hand drawn animation that makes good effective of drawings
for visual storytelling is viable. If it doesn't, it might as
well be a book or a play. A hand drawn animated film without
charicature and expressive drawings is like music without
interesting combinations of notes.
> > You are the one that is outta his mind! Animation without
> > visual style is complete and utter crap.
>
> I'd rather watch South Park than some Disney Movies.
OK... Some Disney movies suck too. Maybe they don't suck quite
as much as South Park. Maybe they suck a little more. It's
still like expressing a preference for horse crap over dog crap.
> I am not out of
> my mind, and it would be incredibly rude for you to suggest so.
See the thread title...
> Because I am more interested in the show as a whole. Here's a phrase
> you should remember: "Only film buffs care about cinematography."
All right. You are undiscerning. Congratulations. You like
animated films that people who don't care for animation like.
> Another thing you should think about: even limited animation can be
> very stylized, and visually appealing, if done proberly.
Absolutely. Limited animation is *stylized* movement. It is
even more caricatured than full animation. If you want to
talk about high quality limited animation, I would be happy
to do that.
> The only reason you need to work with a medium is that it is
> different. If you do realistic animation, you are creating a world
> that can never be created by live action.
Huh? That sentence makes no sense at all.
> > I think you just don't understand understand art.
>
> No, I understand it perfectly well, in fact that statement seem to me
> to be a cop-out, a way for you to disregard my arguments without good
> reason.
You aren't convincing me with arguments like "Animation isn't
important to animation... story is." and "When you create
realistic animation, you are creating a world that can never
exist in reality." Those are self contradictory arguments.
> I am not saying it is wrong for you to prefer caricature animation.
> What I am saying is, it is wrong for you to state that this is the
> best kind of animation, as a statement of fact.
> Please, in the fututre, try not to disguise your opinions as fact.
My opinion is based on twenty years of working in animation. I
have spoken with many animators, past and present about the
art. My opinions are based on my experience. You are free to
believe anything you want. But all opinions are not created
equal. There are such things as informed opinions and ignorant
ones. Sorry if that hurts your feelings... I'm just trying to
share my experience with you. If you really don't care about
animation, then feel free not to care.
Arklier
Worth) wrote:
>My opinion is based on twenty years of working in animation. I
>have spoken with many animators, past and present about the
>art. My opinions are based on my experience. You are free to
>believe anything you want. But all opinions are not created
>equal. There are such things as informed opinions and ignorant
>ones. Sorry if that hurts your feelings... I'm just trying to
>share my experience with you. If you really don't care about
>animation, then feel free not to care.
>
>See ya
>Steve
I think that what everone is objecting to is that you seem to be
giving the impression that your opinion is the right one and the only
one that matters. Not to mention that you just implied that everyone
who disagrees with your opinion is ignorant. And in most 'realistic'
animation, the realism only extends to certain parts of the show. If
the people in the show are realistic, then the situations they're part
of aren't, such as the mecha I mentioned earlier. There are very few
animated programs that are 100% realism. Usually realistic looking
humans are used to bring fantastic elements more into the 'real'
world, such as realistic people interacting with 100 foot tall robots,
slimy disgusting aliens, dragons, or huge green saddle wearing talking
tigers. Could all of these be done in live action? Probably. But very
expensively, and there would be a lot less animation on TV than there
is now. So realism does serve a purpose and have a place in animation,
just perhaps not in the comedy that you seem to prefer it to be
limited to.
Brion Foulke
> try to make it be a bad imitation of another medium.
The way I understand it, "being true" to something means to be
faithful to it. But hey, have it your way... it's not really
important.
> Pure movement may be the essence of special effects animation,
> but not hand drawn character animation. Hand drawn character
> animation is all about creating life with drawings. The A-1
> technique for achieving lifelike animation is caricature.
Well, when you put it that way... I guess I prefer special-effects
animation. Personally, you give me a choice of "life-like movement,"
or high quality art-design, I'll take design in a heartbeat. But
that's just me. I'm not saying you should feel the same way.
Seriously, I respect your opinion, and see the merit in caricature
animation. And I think I understand your argument reasonably well.
> Do you think rotoscope is expressive and lifelike?
Hmmm... well let's see. Actually, now that I think about it, I really
enjoyed the first hour and a half of Lord of the Rings. The movie
really drags towards the end, sure, but for awhile it's very
entertaining. As an alternative to the norm in animation styles, I've
gotta say that I enjoyed it quite a bit. I think there is something
kind of cool, different, and unique in rotoscoping... maybe there are
better techniques out there, maybe not, but hey... I'm glad I saw it.
Now, is it expressive and life-like? Well... actually, now that I
think about it.... I really don't see why it isn't. I could be wrong
about this, but I think if you were to poll people and ask them that,
you'd get an overwhelming response yes. (I know... who's actually
seen rotoscoping anyway?) I will say this about Lord of the Rings...
I thought it was visually compelling enough to immerse me in it's
"world," if you know what I mean. Which, really, if you want to talk
about visual storytelling... isn't that all that matters? Immersion?
> If I ask you why you don't care for rotoscoped character animation,
> I bet you would say that it looks flat and lifeless. Accept it.
Yeah... I did say that didn't I. I'm going to have to backpedal on
that a little bit, I think what I should have said was: most of the
movies I've seen that utilize rotoscoping, I didn't like...
irregardless of the fact that they utilized rotoscoping.
I mean, thinking about Lord of the Rings again... to be honest with
you, I just don't think it looks flat and lifeless. In fact (and I've
never really bothered to think about this before, so you can credit
yourself with getting me to start) the more I think about it, the less
I see your point. I just don't see how it's flat and lifeless. Maybe
it's just a personal preference.
> I do. It hurts my eyes to watch. But it is a good show to have
> on the TV set while I wash dishes in the kitchen. South Park is
> not a good example of good realistic animation. But it's a great
> example of bad, styleless animation.
Uh, ok. I did'nt realize that South Park is not a good example of
realistic animation... thanks for straightening me out.
...
Anyway... obviously no one is going to argue South Park is a well
animated show. I wasn't trumpeting it's life-like qualities, if you
remember, my point was it is a successful show despite these
short-comings, which I think proves that "life-like" animation
obviously isn't necessary for the animation to be successful, if
nothing else.
But I guess this arguement isn't about financial success, right? It's
about artistic merit. That's correct, right?
Let me know, because if it is, then we shouldn't be defending our
points with arguements like "this style is a waste." Because, of
course, you're implying it's a waste of money/rescources. Which, if
it's successful, it's *obviously not*.
So I think we can agree that "Realistic Animation is a waste" is a
flawed arguement, correct?
> And that is precisely why it is "half a show". It might as well
> be hand puppets or a radio show. It doesn't utilize animation
> at all.
Well, it doesn't seem to need to.
> The creators of South Park have publicly expressed
> distaste for animation. They are crappy animators. They don't
> give a damn what their show looks like, and they are incapable
> of making it look any better than what a ten year old child
> could come up with. That *isn't* a good thing.
Ok. Well, I've got to come to the defense of South Park a little
here... personally, the style may be crude, but you know what? I like
it. A style doesn't have to be artistically savvy to be visually
appealing. You want an example of a show I don't find visually
appealing? The Family Guy. Everyone wonders why such a funny show is
barely treading water, I'll tell you why... it just looks ugly. But
that's just my own speculation, based on my own opinion...
Now on the other hand... take a show like the Simpsons. Very visually
appealing, (again, IMO) which I think is just one of the factors that
can be attributed to it's continued success.
And when I say visually appealing, just to be clear, I'm talking about
the "look of the show." Not really the animation per say, just the
art. I don't have a problem with South Park's style at all. I think
most people would agree on this: "If it didn't look like that, it
wouldn't be South Park." Which to me, would indicate that the style
is successful.
> Wrong. Ask *any* animator if he or she can make something look
> convincing on the screen without exaggeration. They will show
> you the classic bouncing ball exercise. If you draw it realistic,
> it looks fake. You have to exaggerate the timing and shape to
> make it look natural.
Hmmm.... well that's an interesting point. But I thought about it a
little bit, and I'm not convinced that expiriment isn't inherintly
flawed... the ball in question wouldn't happen to be a silhouette,
would it?
> Again, rotoscope is perfectly un-exaggerated animation. It is
> the best you can achieve without exaggeration. And it looks
> stiff, flat and lifeless.
I'll take your word for it. Again, I disagree, but... I'm sure you'll
think I'm saying that just to further my own arguement, so, I guess we
may as well drop roto-scoping alltogether.
But anyway, saying it looks lifeness is not a good arguement. Because
that's purely your own opinion. It's not based on anything other than
your own personal preference.
> There are many mediums for story-telling... books, short stories,
> live action movies, live performance, music, etc. Each one of
> these mediums can be done well, or they can be done poorly.
Well that's certainly true. But there is flexibility within all of
those styles. There is no best style of music, book, movie... there
are a huge variety of styles within all categories. We all know that.
> Any hand drawn animation that makes good effective of drawings
> for visual storytelling is viable.
Take out the word VISUAL and I agree. There is nothing visual about:
story, plot, pacing, dialog, music. Yet these are all essential... we
agree on that I hope, right? The visuals are only one part of that.
And not the most important part.
> If it doesn't, it might as well be a book or a play.
Which one, book or play?
I'm curious... what essential ingredient, when removed from a book,
would make you say "you may as well just animate it?" Or is animation
just inherently an inferior medium to books? Is there something, when
removed from plays, that would make you say "this may as well be a
movie?" Or does it go Movie>Book? Ok, wait, let's get this order
clear... how about Book>Play>Movie>Animation... right?
Am I understanding your point correctly? Correct me if I'm off base.
> OK... Some Disney movies suck too. Maybe they don't suck quite
> as much as South Park. Maybe they suck a little more. It's
> still like expressing a preference for horse crap over dog crap.
Actually I liked Atlantis. And I like South Park too, but let's not
dwell on that. Ummm... let me see if I can put it this another way:
what is more entertaining: a classic episode of Bugs Bunny, or an
episode of Samurai Jack? I'd go with Jack in a heartbeat. But that's
just me...
Or does Samurai Jack/Dexter's Labratory/Powerpuff Girls count as
caricature? I would have said no, but you have implied that
"caricature animation" as you would define it is a pretty broad
category, so correct me if I'm wrong.
> > I am not out of
> > my mind, and it would be incredibly rude for you to suggest so.
>
> See the thread title...
Hehe... oh yeah, you're right! That was a big mistake... Jeez... good
catch, by the way. Yeah, you know what, even forgetting the title of
this thread, that statement I made about how it would be "incredibly
rude of you to do so" is kind of over-reactionary isn't it? Yeah,
sorry about that. Too much coffee that day. It happens.
> > Because I am more interested in the show as a whole. Here's a phrase
> > you should remember: "Only film buffs care about cinematography."
>
> All right. You are undiscerning. Congratulations. You like
> animated films that people who don't care for animation like.
Well, no, not really. You make it sound we're apathetic. Which isn't
true, and wasn't my point. My point was, the general film-going
audience has a different set of priorities than a film-student. They
are more concerned with the writing than the visuals, in general. It
seems to me that in this country, people tend to be more
right-brained, which would explain this...
> > Another thing you should think about: even limited animation can be
> > very stylized, and visually appealing, if done proberly.
>
> Absolutely. Limited animation is *stylized* movement. It is
> even more caricatured than full animation. If you want to
> talk about high quality limited animation, I would be happy
> to do that.
Well, I'm just curious, what would you say is a good example of this?
> > The only reason you need to work with a medium is that it is
> > different. If you do realistic animation, you are creating a world
> > that can never be created by live action.
> Huh? That sentence makes no sense at all.
Huh? Well I probably could have constructed that sentence better, but
it doesn't seem that unclear to me... well I better reiterrate, as
it's an important point.
Well... I didn't want to do this, but I'm going to have to bring up
this movie: Final Fantasy the Movie. *sigh* Now, I know I shoudn't
jump to conclusions, but based on what you've said so far, it seems to
me that you probably hate this movie.
Ok, anyone who's seen it knows the writing was horrible. The plot was
horrible. But... pretty much every review I've ever read of this
movie, while mentioning the bad writing of course, does praise the
movie's visuals. Problem is, this movie would seem to conflict with
your whole "life-like is ideal" arguement. Well actually, maybe it
doesn't, at least not to most people. I think if you asked anyone if
this movie was life-like, they'd say "Oh yeah, definetly!" Well
actually I know that that's what they'd say, because that's all I've
ever heard, and I've talked to alot of people about this movie,
believe me.
But let's put that aside for a second. Getting back to my original
point... well, let me just let Mr Ebert say it for me: "I have a love
of astonishing sights, of films that show me landscapes and cityscapes
that exist only in the imagination, and "Final Fantasy" creates a
world that is neither live action nor animation, but some parallel
cyberuniverse."
> You aren't convincing me with arguments like "Animation isn't
> important to animation... story is." and "When you create
> realistic animation, you are creating a world that can never
> exist in reality." Those are self contradictory arguments.
Here's a little tip... this is purely accidental on your part, no
doubt, but those are misquotes. Here's what I actually said: "When
you create realistic animation, you are creating a world that can
never BE CREATED BY LIVE ACTION."
You change it to "exist in reality" and it sounds kind of silly,
doesn't it? I guess it's just a coincidence that you did that,
though. I'm sure it won't happen again.
> My opinion is based on twenty years of working in animation.
Great. Doesn't matter to me if it's 100 years, though, your
statements should be able to stand on thier own merit.
> I have spoken with many animators, past and present about the
> art. My opinions are based on my experience. You are free to
> believe anything you want. But all opinions are not created
> equal. There are such things as informed opinions and ignorant
> ones. Sorry if that hurts your feelings... I'm just trying to
> share my experience with you. If you really don't care about
> animation, then feel free not to care.
Actually I do care, otherwise I wouldn't be posting here. You realize
that, right?
Remember though... basically, my entire arguement can be summarized by
"there is more than one way to do it." Yours basically is "there is
only one proper way, and here's why." Which kind of puts the burden
of proof in your corner, wouldn't you say?
I'm not questioning that your have alot of experience... what I am
saying is this: it seems to me that a few of your basic principals
about animation are inherantly wrong. Since all of your knowledge and
experience is based upon these principals, that would explain why what
you are saying doesn't seem to make sense.
Now I'm open minded... I think caricature animation is a good thing.
You like it? Great! Now do me a favor, and don't tell us again why
it is inherently superior, until you can back that up with some real
evidence. And no, "it seems more life-like doesn't it?" is not good
evidence.
Stephen W. Worth
> Now I'm open minded... I think caricature animation is a good thing.
> You like it? Great! Now do me a favor, and don't tell us again why
> it is inherently superior, until you can back that up with some real
> evidence.
I don't mean to insult you, but there really isn't
much point going over this again. I think you are
discussing a little bit beyond your experience. Your
comments indicate that you don't really understand
what I'm talking about.
Save a copy of my posts, do a little reading on visual
expression and animation technique and then read what I
said again. Keep thinking about what you watch. Too many
people watch with their brains turned off. As you see
more and think more, you might find that you understand
and appreciate different things than you used to.
Danger X
A rose by any other name...
"Informed opinions" and "Ignorant opinions" ARE equal, as both have just as
little to do with any "supreme truth" that might exist as each other.
Even if you had 1,000,000 years of experience, little 5 year old Billy's
opinions of artistic 'merit' on any given piece will always be equal to
yours. OTOH, If we're talking technical questions, then we all bow to your
superior knowledge.
...I got the strangest sense of deja-vu now! ;-)
Cheers!
Kyle
Brion Foulke
> much point going over this again. I think you are
> discussing a little bit beyond your experience. Your
> comments indicate that you don't really understand
> what I'm talking about.
No, actually I understand perfectly well. Here's your problem: you're
ideas about animation are basically supported by your own personal
preferences, which happen to reinforce your beliefs. But you seem
incapable of understanding that other people may have different
personal preferences. This concept just doesn't make any sense to
you, because you have confused your personal opinions as facts...
therefore you think all other people must see animation the same way
you do, and if they don't, they simply don't "understand."
But we do understand. And there are many of us who don't agree with
you. We like different things about animation than you do. You may
as well accept this, because it is true whether you want to believe it
or not.
Do yourself a favor, please, and try to open your mind a little bit.
> Save a copy of my posts, do a little reading on visual
> expression and animation technique and then read what I
> said again.
Well, thanks for your concern, but I learn plenty of new things about
visual expression all the time. But this is mostly from film, which
is something us Americans are really good at... unlike Animation,
which in my opinion, has been stifled here for a long time. Well, I
shouldn't say that... there are new things coming out which are very
encouraging... let's just hope the wildly innovative Samurai Jack is
an influencial as it ought to be.
> Keep thinking about what you watch. Too many
> people watch with their brains turned off. As you see
> more and think more, you might find that you understand
> and appreciate different things than you used to.
What you really mean here is "as you see more and think more, you
might learn to appreciate things the same way I do." I might, but why
would I want to?
Stephen W. Worth
> No, actually I understand perfectly well. Here's your problem: you're
> ideas about animation are basically supported by your own personal
> preferences, which happen to reinforce your beliefs.
I am definitely not speaking about personal preferences. I
am talking about my theories, which may be right or wrong
based on the strength of my arguments and examples backing
them up. I've done a lot of research into how animation is
made and have spoken with a lot of major creative talents
in the industry. I've used that background to come up with
a set of criteria for determining what is a good use of the
medium and what isn't. I don't necessarily *like* everything
that fits my criteria, and there are things that don't fit
it that I have a personal fondness for. I'm happy to talk
about my personal preferences, but I don't think you would
find that nearly as interesting.
> But you seem
> incapable of understanding that other people may have different
> personal preferences.
If you are arguing the point based on your personal
preferences, there isn't much point carrying on with this
conversation, because your tastes are absolute to yourself.
I am sharing theories and giving you examples and analysis
to back them up. If you have your own theories and examples,
feel free to share them and we can discuss it. But if you
are just sharing your preferences, I have nothing to say
except, "Yes, I believe you like that."
> But we do understand. And there are many of us who don't agree with
> you. We like different things about animation than you do. You may
> as well accept this, because it is true whether you want to believe it
> or not.
Feel free to do your own research and come up with your own
criteria and theories. They'll stand or fall on the basis of
your support for them.
> > Keep thinking about what you watch. Too many
> > people watch with their brains turned off. As you see
> > more and think more, you might find that you understand
> > and appreciate different things than you used to.
>
> What you really mean here is "as you see more and think more, you
> might learn to appreciate things the same way I do."
Nope. I'm simply sharing some of my experience. When I first
started getting interested in animation, I was most interested
in current stuff that was widely publicized in the fan world.
I didn't really know why I liked it... I just liked it. As I
gained more experience, my understanding for other types of
animation grew. It ended up that the first things that
appealed to me weren't the same things that I appreciated
when I had more experience. I've had the same sort of experience
with my appreciation of music and art. If you keep looking
and thinking, you grow. If you just depend on your own
personal tastes, you stay in one place.
the ARROW
The reason why you do animation as opposed to live action is that animation
is for things that do not necessarily work well in live action.
Case in point: most any cartoon that has been translated into a live action
movie ie: Flintstones, Popeye etc.
The two mediums are different and have different uses.
Price of Eygpt, for all of what they tried to attempt should have been a
live action flims as the charcater points that drove the sotry did not need
animation to sell them. If the emphasis had been on the visual
components--the plagues and spectacle of the story then it would have
desreved the animation treatment.
It's kinda like wondering out loud why Raging Bull or Schindler's List is
not an animated film...
--Ken
Brion Foulke
So you're saying that because a film *doesn't need* to be animated, it
therefore *shouldn't* be animated. I don't follow your reasoning.
You're either implying that live-action is an inherently superior
medium to animation, or you're saying that things should always be
done the easy way. Either way, I disagree. I think I *would* like to
see an animated Raging Bull...
Brion Foulke
> am talking about my theories, which may be right or wrong
> based on the strength of my arguments and examples backing
> them up.
If the foundation of your arguement is "doesn't that look lifeless to
you?" then you *are* speaking about personal preference, and your
arguement has no weight.
> I've done a lot of research into how animation is
> made and have spoken with a lot of major creative talents
> in the industry. I've used that background to come up with
> a set of criteria for determining what is a good use of the
> medium and what isn't. I don't necessarily *like* everything
> that fits my criteria, and there are things that don't fit
> it that I have a personal fondness for. I'm happy to talk
> about my personal preferences, but I don't think you would
> find that nearly as interesting.
You just said that the purpose of your criteria is to determine what
is a good use of animation and what isn't. Yet you stated you like
things that don't fit into this criteria. If you LIKE something...
then isn't that a good use??
South Park is not a well animated show. *Should* it have been? It's
distinctive look certainly adds to the feel of the show. Obviously
it's a successful show. Is that not a good use of animation? If you
were the executive producer behind this show, would you have given it
the axe?
If your criteria can't be used to determine how successful a show will
be, nor to determine how well people will like it, then what good does
your criteria really do us?
> Feel free to do your own research and come up with your own
> criteria and theories. They'll stand or fall on the basis of
> your support for them.
You do have some good points... you shown why exaggeration is
important in animation. But your analysis doesn't really tell us how
much is necessary, or what kind. Obviously, too much exaggeration can
have it's drawbacks too. I believe it's what people refer to as "too
cartoony;" It's hard to become immersed in something that has doesn't
create a sense of it's own reality. I think too much exaggeration
hurts this. Which seems to me to be one of the drawbacks to
caricature animation. It's hard to take something "cartoony"
seriously.
But anyway, I think you're missing my entire point. I'm not trying to
tell you what kind of animation is best, so I really don't need
theories. My point is a simple but important one: what you consider a
good use of animation is purely your own opinion. And that goes for
any artform.
If I like something, then as far as I'm concerned it's a good use.
It's wrong for you to tell me what I should find visually appealing.
> Nope. I'm simply sharing some of my experience. When I first
> started getting interested in animation, I was most interested
> in current stuff that was widely publicized in the fan world.
> I didn't really know why I liked it... I just liked it. As I
> gained more experience, my understanding for other types of
> animation grew. It ended up that the first things that
> appealed to me weren't the same things that I appreciated
> when I had more experience. I've had the same sort of experience
> with my appreciation of music and art. If you keep looking
> and thinking, you grow. If you just depend on your own
> personal tastes, you stay in one place.
Growth is broadening your horizon, opening your mind. As you learn to
appreciate art in different ways, from different viewpoints, you are
growing as a person. If you are learning to appreciate art in one
specific way, you are not growing into anything. That's change, but
not growth.
So if you've changed into a person who appreciates only caricature
animation, fine. If you want to enlighten us on the positive aspects
of caricature animation, please do. However, if you need to do so by
explaining how other styles are inferior, then please do us a favor
and don't. We would love to grow, but we don't need to change to fit
your image.
the ARROW
> So you're saying that because a film *doesn't need* to be animated, it
> therefore *shouldn't* be animated. I don't follow your reasoning.
> You're either implying that live-action is an inherently superior
> medium to animation, or you're saying that things should always be
> done the easy way. Either way, I disagree. I think I *would* like to
> see an animated Raging Bull...
Yes, pretty much the above. The reasons for being are believability,
integrity of the project, and the "flavour" of the film.
By "flavour" I mean its level of seriousness amongst other things.
Some films just plain do not work in animation, and some do not work in live
action--two different mediums for two different reasons.
In western cultures particularily, the animation medium is essentially
pidgeon-holed as a child's medium--render a acrtoon and it automatically is
biased towards whimsy and not serious story elements. Most any "serious
story treatment in animation inevitably results in a work that is not well
recieved. Just off the top of my head, something like WATERSHIP DOWN, from
years ago, was a flop, critical panned because it........well it sucked. Add
to that the fact that it used typical cartoon icons (bunnies, etc) in a
serious light only messed up its congruency for its audience--never min the
source material is a novel.
You'd NEVER see a work like Schindler's list in animated form--just would
never happen--you more than likely see something like MAUS--Art Speigleman's
comicbook creation, but not the former adapted directly.
Neither live-action, nor animation is superior as you seem to want to
establish, but each does have its strengths over the other.
Prince of Eygpt is a classic example of a feature that was
received.......with modest response. Modest because there was a lot
unsatisfying about it. My own conclusions are that the visual treats that
animation could have provided were sparse and short-changed in the film.
What we got was a lot of talking and not alot of spectacle.
When I first heard of the flick going into production, myself and many of my
colleagues wondered aloud why they would try something that visually has
already been done in Cecil B Demille's Ten Commandments?? Granted some of
the scope of the visuals of the latter could certainly be improved upon with
animation, but many of the supporting live action character pieces remain
as broad and clear as any animation storytelling--so WHY re-tell it??
Just because it "can" be done in another medium, not not mean it needs to
be done in that medium.
As far as the easy way goes--ever animated a scene, rendered a storyboard?
Done a sequence of drawings over and over?
Easy is a relative thing in animation, with CGI you can texture the piss out
of something and move it much like a virtual puppet, where as in hand-draw
animation the pencil mileage becomes an issue with the rise in drawing
detail and complexity of the scene.
The more detail in a drawing, the more the practical risks in shimmying of
the lines and miss-inbetweened drawing in the scene. Shimmy on a line
drawing magnified on screen becomes VERY noticeable and dispells the
illusion of life for the audience--an illusion that is essentailly for
animation to work.
Staving this off requires LOTS of time, makes the payscale for the artists
either abysmal, or skyrockets it for the producers and then makes the
project financially non-viable. Again, just because you "can" does not
supply enough reason to "want to".
As you can probaly see now, even if you can't, there are LOTS of reasons
why the two mediums are seperate and NEED to be kept seperate with each
playing up the kinds of material that suit them best.
--Ken
Stephen W. Worth
bri...@mediaone.net (Brion Foulke) wrote:
> So you're saying that because a film *doesn't need* to be animated, it
> therefore *shouldn't* be animated. I don't follow your reasoning.
> You're either implying that live-action is an inherently superior
> medium to animation, or you're saying that things should always be
> done the easy way. Either way, I disagree.
He isn't saying any of those things. What he is saying is, there
are things that animation and live action share as filmmaking
mediums, and there are aspects that are unique to either live
action or animation. Some examples of these unique aspects
would be the subtlety and depth of acting capable by a human
actor and natural settings for live action; and visual drawing
style and the ability to depict fantastic things with animation.
If you are going to make an animated film that doesn't exploit
any of the unique aspects of the medium, and instead try to
shoehorn it into mimicing the unique aspects of live action,
you are bound to end up with nothing more than a poor substitute
for a live action film. It's the artistic equivalent of making
a piano out of plastic and covering it with wood grained contact
paper.
> I think I *would* like to see an animated Raging Bull...
There is no question that it would suck compared to the live
action one.
Stephen W. Worth
bri...@mediaone.net (Brion Foulke) wrote:
> If the foundation of your arguement is "doesn't that look lifeless to
> you?" then you *are* speaking about personal preference, and your
> arguement has no weight.
If I point to a dead dog in the street and say, "My! Doesn't
that dead dog look lifeless!" I am not expressing my personal
opinion based on my preferences. I am making an objective
observation. If you look at the dog and start whistling and
throwing a stick for the dog to fetch, I am going to start
wondering if your personal opinion is coloring your objective
observation.
> You just said that the purpose of your criteria is to determine what
> is a good use of animation and what isn't. Yet you stated you like
> things that don't fit into this criteria. If you LIKE something...
> then isn't that a good use??
For *me*, yes. But since I only like it based on my own
solipsist reasons, it is totally meaningless to you. Here is
an example... If I like a show because I watched it when I
was little, and I look at it today and still like it, even
though it is clearly a steaming pile of feces, that is an
example of me exercising my own personal preference. But
there is absolutely no point discussing that sort of thing
on usenet. I can say, "I like it just because I like it"
and the discussion is over. There is nothing more to say.
But when I apply my criteria for judging the quality of
an animated show, and base my analysis on observation and
research into the subject, my opinion *can* have meaning to
you. Do you get it now?
> South Park is not a well animated show. *Should* it have been?
Yes.
> It's distinctive look certainly adds to the feel of the show.
Please explain to me how the design of the show adds to
its effectiveness.
> Obviously it's a successful show. Is that not a good use of
> animation? If you were the executive producer behind this
> show, would you have given it the axe?
No, I would have hired some talented cartoonists and given
them the opportunity to make it a great show.
> If your criteria can't be used to determine how successful a
> show will be, nor to determine how well people will like it,
> then what good does your criteria really do us?
Success is based on a lot of things. Not all of them have
anything to do with the quality of a show. If you are interested
in discussing those things... (ie: marketing, scheduling, legal
and business strategies) I will defer to you, because I don't
know much about that.
I know how quality animation is made. I know how the great
animators of the past made the films we now regard as classics.
I know how the best animators working today do what they do.
If you have interest in that subject, feel free to jump in.
> You do have some good points... you shown why exaggeration is
> important in animation. But your analysis doesn't really tell
> us how much is necessary, or what kind.
OK. This is a new subject... Exaggeration and caricature have
to be used for maximum expressiveness. The sort of caricature
you would use in a cartoon with two animals hitting each other
on the head with croquet mallets would be different from the
kind of caricature you would use when animating a sexy girl.
Expressiveness is the key... whatever sells the emotion and
mood of the scene. Underplaying a scene works for live action
actors working in extreme closeup, but it doesn't work for
animated characters. If you go close on a character's face
and underplay his acting, he turns into flat colors and
lines. That is what makes acting in animation different than
live action.
> Obviously, too much exaggeration can have it's drawbacks too.
> I believe it's what people refer to as "too cartoony;"
"Cartoony" is a visual style, just like "film noir" or
"stylized. It isn't better or worse, or more exaggerated
or less exaggerated. It is just exaggerated in a different
direction. Whether serious or funny, all animation has
to use caricature to get its point across. Animation isn't
"life"... It's the *illusion* of life. Caricature is the
tool used to create that illusion.
> It's hard to become immersed in something that has doesn't
> create a sense of it's own reality. I think too much
> exaggeration hurts this. Which seems to me to be one of
> the drawbacks to caricature animation. It's hard to take
> something "cartoony" seriously.
Why? The art of comedy is no more or no less an art than
any other. Chaplin and Keaton made comedies that could be
seriously discussed. I think that Avery and Clampett are
just as important and deserving of serious study. People
who don't work in animation sometimes have the idealized
idea of a cartoonist as being someone who is just
naturally funny who sits down and makes some funny
drawings that end up being funny on the screen. It isn't
like that at all. Animation is a very complex medium. It
requires careful planning, experimentation and detailed
analysis of technique to be effective. Whether an animated
film is serious or funny, it requires the same sort of
careful thought.
> But anyway, I think you're missing my entire point. I'm not
> trying to tell you what kind of animation is best, so I
> really don't need theories.
OK. If you just want to operate on your personal taste,
that is fine for you. If you happen to meet someone who
shares your taste, great. This is the crux of our argument
then, because I am not talking about personal taste.
> My point is a simple but important one: what you consider a
> good use of animation is purely your own opinion. And that
> goes for any artform.
And my opinion is based on years of working in the
business alongside great current animators, and discussions
with quite a few giants of the past, like Art Babbitt and
Grim Natwick. That makes my opinion an *informed* one.
All opinions are not created equal. Some are based on
experience and others are based on ignorance. You can
ask your mother what she thinks about abstract paintings
and her opinion would not be equal to Pablo Picasso's.
Picasso may disagree with Klee on some aspects, but
even with their disagreements, they still hold more
weight than your mom's opinion.
> Growth is broadening your horizon, opening your mind.
That isn't true. You don't learn about art by laying back
and letting it wash over you. You learn about it by
thinking about it. You don't need to open your mind as
much as you need to *use* it.
Danger X
> In article <b2a34303.0109...@posting.google.com>,
> All opinions are not created equal.
Since opinions are not facts... "Ignorant" opinions as you put it, are just
as close to any idea of "supreme" truth as "informed" opinions.
> Some are based on
> experience and others are based on ignorance. You can
> ask your mother what she thinks about abstract paintings
> and her opinion would not be equal to Pablo Picasso's.
Actually it would... If you're talking artistic merit... Everyone's a
critic. Arrogant opinions are no more valid than "ignorant" opinions as you
so judge them.
> Picasso may disagree with Klee on some aspects, but
> even with their disagreements, they still hold more
> weight than your mom's opinion.
About technicality... yes...
> > Growth is broadening your horizon, opening your mind.
>
> That isn't true. You don't learn about art by laying back
> and letting it wash over you. You learn about it by
> thinking about it. You don't need to open your mind as
> much as you need to *use* it.
Using your mind means nothing if you haven't seen the piece in question.
Knowing the technicalities of it, does nothing to validate one's opinion on
the artistic merit of a piece over another's.
If you've forgotten how to just view art and let it wash over you (at least
for the first viewing, or listening), then all the thinking about art in the
world is going to contribute a thing to personal growth.
More or less,
Kyle
Arnold Kim
> bri...@mediaone.net (Brion Foulke) wrote:
>
> > So you're saying that because a film *doesn't need* to be animated, it
> > therefore *shouldn't* be animated. I don't follow your reasoning.
> > You're either implying that live-action is an inherently superior
> > medium to animation, or you're saying that things should always be
> > done the easy way. Either way, I disagree.
>
> He isn't saying any of those things. What he is saying is, there
> are things that animation and live action share as filmmaking
> mediums, and there are aspects that are unique to either live
> action or animation. Some examples of these unique aspects
> would be the subtlety and depth of acting capable by a human
> actor and natural settings for live action; and visual drawing
> style and the ability to depict fantastic things with animation.
... I really suggest you go out and rent "Grave of the Fireflies" if you
haven't already. It is truly an _amazing_ film and one of the best World
War II films I've seen, animated or otherwise, and it's pretty darn
realistic. Ebert even put it on his list of the greatest movies of all
time.
Arnold Kim
Skeleton Man
"Arnold Kim" <ki...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9ooiuj$st8$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> ... I really suggest you go out and rent "Grave of the Fireflies" if you
> haven't already. It is truly an _amazing_ film and one of the best World
> War II films I've seen, animated or otherwise, and it's pretty darn
> realistic. Ebert even put it on his list of the greatest movies of all
> time.
Funny how the opponents of realistic animation have no answer to this
one....
--
Skeleton Man
http://users.lvcm.com/artfx
Chaos on DVD!.....finally....
Skeleton Man
"the ARROW" <thearr...@homelessspam.com> wrote in message news:KsAr7.8156
> Price of Eygpt, for all of what they tried to attempt should have been a
> live action flims as the charcater points that drove the sotry did not
need
> animation to sell them. If the emphasis had been on the visual
> components--the plagues and spectacle of the story then it would have
> desreved the animation treatment.
That is a complete load of bull.. Why are you placing limits of what should
or shouldn't be animated? By your account, many of my favorite animated
films should not have been made or should have been made live action. Did
you ever consider that many realistically animated films achieve things
impossible to do in Live action. (by impossible I'm excluding the use of
$200+ million budget needed to achieve the same thing)
Interesting piece of animation called "Magnetic Rose". This is one of the
most brilliant realistic pieces I have seen. It very well could have been
done in live action, but only by a huge American studio with a large budget
and they would never have attempted such a story in the Hollywood commercial
world. But some Japanese guys got to make this film with no where near that
ammount of money involved and it was great. Based on your arguements, they
should have left it on the drawing board.
I just don't buy it!