I believe John K summed up the bad movie poster epidemic pretty well with the word "tude"
Movies wont sell unless the characters look like they have tude.
please forgive your useless sister.
Joined on 2/27/05
- Level:
- 41
- Exp Points:
- 17,818 / 18,660
- Exp Rank:
- 1,181
- Vote Power:
- 8.17 votes
- Art Scouts
- 3
- Rank:
- Police Captain
- Global Rank:
- 4,053
- Blams:
- 626
- Saves:
- 1,584
- B/P Bonus:
- 16%
- Whistle:
- Silver
- Trophies:
- 33
- Medals:
- 214
- Supporter:
- 4y 2m 17d
some movie studio needs to start the hand-painted oil masterpiece poster again like the old star wars posters. those always turn heads. i honestly don't know anyone that likes or collects modern movie posters.
you know, i have to completely agree with you this time. But i do have to say that i don't think 3D lacks somthing, i just think, like you, that it's different than 2D. The only thing is that, since right now it sells through Ooh's and Aah's, every movie producer tries to use and abuse it as much as possible. Honestly, Most 3D animated movies like Horton and stuff, I see no point using 3D. But somthing like Ratatouille, or the Incredibles, in my opinion, since it's SO heavy in action in the incredible's case the fast moving dinamic camera become's a lot more practical tool for animating such sequences. Or the fast crawling sequences in ratatouille.
I just think it's a big help, or tool, for those kind of things. But I agree, there is some sort of more presence of life in 2D animation. I just think that anything that has to go through a rendering process is, i don't know... beaurocratic. but then again, rendering is also relatively similar to inking and finally coloring animation right?
I personally think 3D, again, when used correctly and not abused, is a better guide to special effects in live action. Though, something like I Am Legend, which is a peice of shit in my opinion, they even made the fucking lion 3D, just give the trained animals a job for god sakes and get a real lion. I don't understand this molestation of making everything 3D. I personally think that there are few movies out there where 3D was used wisely for special effects. One of those would have to be King Kong. Because it was used in the right places. And not Treated as if they make 3D to say "look how real this dinosaur looks" but more "Watch out, it'll bite you". People forgot what movies are all about ever since decent CGI came into the picture.... literally. It's not about how much action you can cram, and how realistic that looks, it's about using CGI as a tool to help tell your story. I personally find latex, and puppetry and anamatronics a lot more believable than most CGI now adays.
If it's one thing i have to agree with you RTIL in your post is the fact that people are obsessed with realism, and how that's limiting to the imagination. Animation (traditionally, keep in mind that not everything has the same purpose) is about that: making visual comments about the real world through abstract ideas.
So yea, there's a lot of things i didn't agree with that you've said, or you've approached very arrogantly. With that said, i just want to ask, "Was that too hard to get your point across without shitting all over something with hatred?"
;P
good post man,
-HVH
rendering is not veyr similar to inking and coloring. i can't make 50 thumbnails of renders with different colors and styles to find out the look i want. i have to keep rendering until i can get it the way i want, which sometimes never happens. yes, it could also never happen on paper - but that's very unlikely. you're not looking at it from the pipeline view. the biggest difference between 3D and 2D is that in 2D, y ou are only limited by your imagination. in 3D, it is your imagination that hinders you. 3D forces you to look at things from , well, a 3D perspective. everything HAS to look good from EVERY angle, and if it doesn't, you set up a camera in the only shot that you like, and place lights and what have you wherever you have to in order to get the look you want. it's all smoke and mirrors.
i also think that 3d is lacking something, and that is the human touch. yes, everything there was made by humans, but indirectly. i didn't place my hand in the screen and sculpt that myself, i did it with a mouse. the beauty of a cel is that everything is hand-drawn and painted, and i think they often look much better than the renders you see today.
i think 3d and 2d can be mixed very well, check out the movie Aachi and Ssipak. i guess you'd call those films 2.5D. they used 3D for mechanical things like vehicles, buildings and camera moves, but they saved the character animation for the 2d people , and it worked very well. i don't even think that all SFX should be 3d - i tend to enjoy stylized explosions much more. now in live action it's a different story, but that's not really my concern. if you need SFX in your live action movie, chances are you don't have the budget and might want to scrap it .
the reason you find puppetry and things more believable is because there is a real person behind those. in CG you'd have maybe two or three dozen people working on the same character, and chances are a lot of them didn't do their research (which could be as simple as standing in front of a camera and acting it out yourself). and that's where the life usually gets sucked out of it.
That reminds me of Tron for some reason.
one of my teachers said that too, only like 5 months ago in the concept stages when it looked way different. i guess the tron part of it is still there, lmao
i'm in 100% agreeance with everything said above and also very sad that there haven't been many (or any) big 2D productions out there lately. i was thrilled to see Persepolis in theaters though, for the same reasons you posted above. style really plays an important part in the story and besides, it's just a gorgeous little thrill. plus it got a negative protest from the iranian government. i'd like to see a talking clownfish do that.
seriously? wow. i need to see that
SRY for the mean review on "move your feet". i didn't write that...i got a hacker in my pc who did it...so sry for that.
haha, that's ok. get a better password!
yeah what i meant by rendering and inking and coloring comparison, was the fact that you have some sort of sketchy representation of the final result. and as a traditional 2D animator you won't see what the final product will look like until it actually goes through that process.
as for the whole research stuff. I honestly don't know about the rest, because i haven't done my in depth research on 3D, but I've seen how pixar and such do lots of research on animation and film themselves and such. if you watch monsters inc. or ratatouille while on mute. you're going to find so many little gestures that really is what brings out the character from the screen creating a sort of human connection. people get distracted with the whole "how real it looks" i dunno about you, but when i watch Monster's Inc, that Mike character i love, he's a character i feel for as much as a good actor on a live action film. but then i think, it's a green ball with legs and one eye. But all this gestural research that they do and stuff pays off. There's a lot of psychology behind those movements.
anyways aside from that. yeah, yeah, i hear you stylized explosions and such for movies, i appreciate them too. but sometimes a style can be stylish without labeling itself stylish. what i mean is, not all movies are made to be stylish, at least not an obvious, animated movie look. Some movies just need to make an explosion, in let's say a church or something, but don't have enough money to build some kind of a miniature model or something. that's where 3D i think should be treated more as a TOOL and not a FOCUS. film makers might not want to distract the audience from their goal of what to deliver emotionally in a scene. you have to remember that not all movies and films are visual showcases, ryan. trust me i am an extreme stylized viewer. but stylized visuals just doesn't apply to everything. not the kind of stylization i think you're talking about.
In fact, i think sometimes directors get too caught up stylizing all the massive amounts of visual effects they have in movies and don't get down to the core of things. and it's just plainly telling a good story from start to finish. to do that you need captivating characters, a fitting pacing, and an overall tone established. and the artists values are only supporting things. sometimes the artistic support is more noticable and helps all together deliver a stunning visual, which helps captivate an audience. For example, sin city would not have been the same if it were shot in color and all that junk. So yes, I do appreciate stylization, but it just doesn't apply at that level to everything. You love to generalize. :P
what pixar people usually do is film themselves acting or get other people to act it out, then translate that into 3D. if the characters don't move like we do, the audience usually feels awkward about it and they'll say something like "i didn't like it". they don't know why, but they're usually right.
and uh, yeah i don't know if you take me for an idiot or something but i never said anything about all films only existing to be 'visual showcases'. you made that up because you think that's all i care about. of course a live action film would want a realistic CG explosion - and like i said that's a whole different story. and no, it's not the most important thing. disney fell to pixar because pixar's number one priority was to make sure all their animators knew how to tell a visual story.
i do not "love to generalize". you're the one generalizing, accusing me of only caring about stylization. i know that a successful animated film requires a good story and it requires all ends to be pulled for a worthy adaptation. so, thanks for the lecture, but i already know.
wow dude, no need to get steamy and point the guilty finger at anyone. i must have misinterpreted your point of view. i wasn't accusing you of anything, dude. you're quite the snappy one. I was just having a conversation, and all good conversations have opposing points. you don't need to see them as an attack.
well you treat me as if i always have a lesson to be learned from you. it's kind of insulting.
here's a lesson, grow up. and I'm sure that's something you don't "already know". you can go ahead and have the last word. prick.
Whoop! The first thing that came to my mind was Daft Punk, seriously. As I read some people's comments, I saw something about Tron. The light blue-ish glow, and the inside-of-the-computer-like designs of both the suit and the building is what I think does it. I haven't seen Horton yet, but it looks like another Ice Age/Over the Hedge 3D child animated movie. I dunno though, people said it was really enjoyable, as I found most of them to be.
As far as 2D and 3D goes, I can understand. I won't go into depth on that (partly because I'm a noob and can't)
I ROFL'd at Zekey's 8D comment. I seriously wonder what effects adding on dimensions would have though...sorry if this was a little long...
I should probably watch Tron, cuz people keep saying it looks like it and I haven't seen the movie. All i know is that's super ghetto.
The reason why Horton looks like Ice Age is cuz i'm pretty sure that Blue Sky animated Ice Age. dunno about over the hedge, though.
i shat a clam
he will soon star in a new 3d animated film this summer starring gilbert gotfried
can't wait!
This is stupid
You're ideas are stupid and mine are great
Why can't you see that?
i am lost please help me
hy i m a big fan of wors and so i whant you to go to my page to chec the chnges i made on my post i whant your honest opinion please and greatfull one of your biggest fans check posts number 2 and 3
wait what
2D animation is truly a thing of beauty but I'd be lying if I said I hated all 3D animation. I was actually first in line to see Shrek 3. Those kids were pissed off.
The most perfect example of... 2.5D, I spose, animation I've ever seen was that in "The Iron Giant." I loved that film. It had the nostalgic feel and beauty of a 2D animation paired with the complexity and stunning visuals of a 3D animation.
I just try not to compare the 2. Sure, Pixar is bullshit, I stopped watching their films after "Madagascar" {eugh), but the entertainement value of some is still very good. However I still find myself flicking through Boomerang to watch Tom & Jerry and Looney Tunes on those sleepless weekday nights.
Good luck with Freetown 2.
pixar didn't produce madagascar - blue sky did.
hey how are u?i love ur flash animations.im waiting for ur next flash good luck
i'm just fine and dandy, thank you.
well it sucked whoever made it
yeah, it did!
RTil, Have you considered an writing an article on voice acting?
i'm not much a voice actor but no i haven't. there's quite a lot to say about it, though!
your flash are great i demand more they kick ass
KMA FAGGOt
yeah dude ur so pwned
If you've never seen Tron, you should watch it. It's actually a good movie, and I think it had some of the first 3D animation in movies.
Rammer
i'm doing a research paper for my english class on the "downfall" of 2d animation in the movie industry. i already interviewed lulu about it, but if you could throw in your 2 cents (or if you are a cheap bastard, if i could have permission to scour your previous posts about it) for my essay, i would be very grateful. i need 6 sources, and half of them are news articles off ProQuest :P
but yeah. about 3d programs...i tried 3ds max and i was utterly bewildered. maya is at least fairly intuitive, but 3ds max was just confusing as FAWK for me. i like using swift 3d and blender more than any other 3d program.
i still prefer using the line tool and paint brush tool in flash over moving little vertices around, though.
rtil
the bulk of my belief about is it in this news post, but i suppose i could say some more. i don't think it's going to disappear, because if it did there would no longer be animation. you simply cannot start animating straight in 3d. all successful 3d animators had a 2d background. but it's not even treated as a stepping stone these days. i believe it was eisner when he was chairman of disney that was treating 2d as if it was obsolete, when truly it is the only path to success in the next dimension of animation.
there's a serious lack of respect for it today. in the same way a lot of adults think cartoons are just for kids, a lot of 3d people think 2d is something you did when computers weren't around. it's a real shame, and until the industry learns what makes a good pixar and blue sky movie (2d background), we may face a serious crisis when all the veteran animators retire and fall away.
however, we have people like richard williams with godsend books like "the animator's survival kit" to keep us going. i think there's far too much passion in an industry as important as this to let it die.