DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:56 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:26 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 12205
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
enigmawing wrote:
Perhaps Escapay, but it's interesting to note that animated films are rarely shot on actual film anymore.

I know, which is why I'm more forgiving of grainless DAC films post-1991. But when it comes to anything from the pre-CAPS period, these animated films were shot on actual film, making grain just as much a part of it as the cel. Erasing it because it's a distraction that "ruins" the original artwork is just as bad as editing a film for political correctness.

enigmawing wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I'm gonna stick with mine.

Naturally. :) That's the wonderful thing about forums, people can present their opinions without having to force others to change it.

I just want people to understand that grain is a natural part of film, and should be preserved in a film. Animated films should not be an exception just because they're animated.

Albert

_________________
WIST #56:
Aaron: With Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon on Blu-ray, Bedknobs & Broomsticks seems like a given. Come on, Disney! They could even call it the Naboom-Blu Edition!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:41 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4196
Location: one with the wind and sky
I suppose being able to see different versions is why I don't mind double-dipping! ;)

But it's all good. :D I'd like to point out that I don't feel that existing grain is a distraction for a film not do I feel it's a requirement. I just find myself in awe over the fact that technology allows it to be removed. I love seeing a good restoration when possible but am happy with a copy that is not a bootleg and has a relatively nice, clean image. :lol:

And I'm just glad this isn't turning into a flame war. ;)

_________________
Image Blu-rays! The artist formerly known as enigmawing.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:52 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 12205
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
enigmawing wrote:
But it's all good. :D I'd like to point out that I don't feel that existing grain is a distraction for a film not do I feel it's a requirement. I just find myself in awe over the fact that technology allows it to be removed. I love seeing a good restoration when possible but am happy with a copy that is not a bootleg and has a relatively nice, clean image. :lol:

I get where you're coming from regarding the technology, it's amazing what can be accomplished today. An example that I've probably used too often (and have netty to thank for), but shows just how far restoration can go, is the "Doctor Who" restorations. Not only are they able to restore film prints to the original videotape look (VidFIRE), but they manage to clean up and restore old and faded episodes to something that looks like it was shot yesterday, but with the original "look" as well. Their restoration on The Invasion is amazing.

enigmawing wrote:
And I'm just glad this isn't turning into a flame war. ;)

Me too.

I have a feeling, though, that it would turn into a flame war if we were arguing about whether or not Aurora was a heroine or a human prop. :lol:

Albert

_________________
WIST #56:
Aaron: With Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon on Blu-ray, Bedknobs & Broomsticks seems like a given. Come on, Disney! They could even call it the Naboom-Blu Edition!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:57 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 3524
Location: Puerto Rico
Escapay wrote:
Naturally. :) That's the wonderful thing about forums, people can present their opinions without having to force others to change it.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

rotfl rotfl rotfl rotfl

Sorry for laughing, but I've been to some forums where people want their opinion to be the end all so much that they'll insult and degrade any opinion that contradicts theirs. Plus, this is the Internet we are talking about, where opinion can magically become fact. Why? Because I said so!

Usually, when I see a thread that I know will never end I just post my opinion and move on.

Escapay wrote:
I have a feeling, though, that it would turn into a flame war if we were arguing about whether or not Aurora was a heroine or a human prop. :lol:


HUSH! You don't want to make Ariel'sPrince upset! :P

_________________
ImageImageImageImage

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:06 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4196
Location: one with the wind and sky
Escapay wrote:
An example that I've probably used too often (and have netty to thank for), but shows just how far restoration can go, is the "Doctor Who" restorations. Not only are they able to restore film prints to the original videotape look (VidFIRE), but they manage to clean up and restore old and faded episodes to something that looks like it was shot yesterday, but with the original "look" as well. Their restoration on The Invasion is amazing.

Wow, that is just insanely cool. :o

_________________
Image Blu-rays! The artist formerly known as enigmawing.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:23 am 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 1:06 pm
Posts: 1003
pap64 wrote:
IE, its not really about how good/bad a movie looks, its more about the images WE remember seeing, and if we see that image again, except with some changes, we are troubled.

.


It's ONLY about how good/bad a movie looks.

Some things work, some things don't.

No-one knows exactly what it originally looked like.
But if you look at the Pinocchio screenshots for example, everyone can see that the 3rd one with the candle doesn't work. It doesn't make sense.
The sources of light are wrong, there's no depth, it looks really flat and empty, anyone can see that.

Can someone please tell me what's the reason for that?

So let's leave the "what's intended" thing out and let's look at the actual presentations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:07 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:00 pm
Posts: 9416
Location: UK
I think its important to note that technology is constantly moving forwards. It never stops. What may have been a state of the art restoration at some point may end up not being state of the art a few years later. Yes, even 3 or 4 years later.

Again, because I know so much about it thanks to their website, the Doctor Who restoration team are on the cutting edge of restoration work - and without spending a fortune on each restoration. Despite this, they've come up with (or were the first to use) lots of exciting restoration techniques including RSC (Reverse Standards Conversion for NTSC > PAL transfers), VidFire (using computers to "estimate" frames between film exposures to revert back to the smoothness of video), successfully overlaid blurred, colour images over sharp B/W film prints and most gobsmacking of all, a method is currently being worked on to get colour (yes, colour!) images from black and white film taken off video monitors.

In addition, when the Davros Collection was released last year, the Restoration Team redid the Remembrance of the Daleks restoration, because the technology had improved so much in the past few years, that the new one would be substantially better. And that's a restoration of a TV show from 1988!

Check out www.restoration-team.co.uk for info on their work (click on DVD).

The last restoration of Sleeping Beauty suffered from pulsing or flashing colours, even though work was done to remove this during the restoration. (It's presence also makes me question if the original negatives were used for the prior restoration too, being as the negatives are not supposed to fade). The technology at the time just wasn't good enough, so whatever Disney may or may not have said about the restoration at the time, it was far from definitive. I doubt this new restoration is definitive either - techniques are always improving.

Oh and finally, just to show how images can be manipulated now, although this is not "restoration", check out the video on this site - its incredible, especially when such tricks are now being carried out on home PCs.

http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects ... cement.htm

_________________
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:32 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:00 pm
Posts: 9416
Location: UK
Oh and going back to the Grain issue, here's what Spielberg thinks of film grain.

Spielberg: Now the thing I'm most saddened by is the constant talk about the photochemical process becoming a thing of Thomas Edison's past. There's a magic about chemistry and film. Sure, a digital shot is steady. It doesn't have to ride through the gate of a projector. And, sure, it's as clean as the OR in a major hospital. That's exactly what's wrong with it. Film has a molecular structure called grain; even a still of just a flower in a vase has life because of the grain, because of the molecules in the film. Especially if you sit in the first five rows of any movie theater, you know what I'm talking about. The screen is alive. The screen is always alive with chaos and excitement, and that will certainly be gone when we convert to a digital camera and a digital projector. I was one of the first people to use digital technology to enhance my films, but I'm going to be the last person to use digital technology to shoot my movies.

--http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/spielberg_pr.html

_________________
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:34 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 4500
Location: The Netherlands
2099net wrote:
Oh and going back to the Grain issue, here's what Spielberg thinks of film grain.

Spielberg: Now the thing I'm most saddened by is the constant talk about the photochemical process becoming a thing of Thomas Edison's past. There's a magic about chemistry and film. Sure, a digital shot is steady. It doesn't have to ride through the gate of a projector. And, sure, it's as clean as the OR in a major hospital. That's exactly what's wrong with it. Film has a molecular structure called grain; even a still of just a flower in a vase has life because of the grain, because of the molecules in the film. Especially if you sit in the first five rows of any movie theater, you know what I'm talking about. The screen is alive. The screen is always alive with chaos and excitement, and that will certainly be gone when we convert to a digital camera and a digital projector. I was one of the first people to use digital technology to enhance my films, but I'm going to be the last person to use digital technology to shoot my movies.

--http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/spielberg_pr.html


"...but in the name of political correctness I will replace guns with walkie talkies if nessacery."

Also, I wonder how the CGI squirrels from Crystal Skull fit into that vision. :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:04 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7097
Location: America
What Scaps said was amazingly wonderful, and I would bet mostly, probably right. Except...well, you said they are films first, art second. And I'd say all film is art. Even popular art, art that is meant to please some people, is still art, isn't it? I know I've heard it said Disney made animation a popular artform...

Enigmawing, okay, you know how you talked about those color tests and how the film wasn't going to look exactly like the cels and backgrounds? You're right, they knew film wasn't going to look exactly like the cels, which is why the film of an animated film should still look like film! Because they planned their films with the way it would look photographed in mind! For instance, the cels of Aurora has green hair. They did Technicolor photographing that made it gold. It's just an example of how the Disney artists actually photographed the film to the look how they wanted, and definately not to make it look exactly like the artwork itself, so it should still look like the photographic film, not the cels.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:37 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 12205
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Mike wrote:
Except...well, you said they are films first, art second.

Yep. I can understand many arguments and opinions on how film is art (as you said), but I try to keep the two separate. To me, it's another "apples and oranges" paradox. On some level, they are the same. But there's an entirely different level where they are worlds apart. Even in its broadest (and especially at its most abstract) definition, art is any form of expression that is meant to emote feelings from its observer. And film is that, much like a painting or a simple sketch or a sculpture or a song or a poem anything else that does/doesn't fall under the traditional confines of "art". But there will always be a difference in how a film affects a viewer versus how a painting/sculpture/whathaveyou affects a viewer. It's simply the way that you would respond to eating an apple versus eating a bar of chocolate. You can enjoy both, but not necessarily for the same reason.

That's why it was hard for me to write "film first, art second". I just knew that it would attract a certain amount of disagreement from someone eventually, but I welcome it as it allows for stimulating conversation.

I can agree, to an extent, that all film is art. But at the same time, it shouldn't be considered art the way that a painting is traditionally considered art. We don't pause a frame of Reefer Madness and discuss how that particular shot makes us feel, why the director chose to compose his actors in that position, and how the light is used to a scene's benefit. We can't, and we shouldn't. It's (to use a tired phrase) apples and oranges again. Both are visual mediums (film and traditional hang-in-a-gallery art), but it doesn't mean both should be "equal" in the way that people view them.

For me, a film (be it stop-motion, live-action, animated, etc.) will always be a film first. It's meant to be 24 frames of an image that pass in front of our eyes every second, for a fixed amount of time (be it two minutes, a half-hour, or three days). It's meant to only be witnessed passing in front of our eyes. Focusing on one frame and examining each minutiae is not how film is meant to be seen (unless it's for a film restoration/clean-up, but I digress as that will contradict my entire argument). So even an animated film, where each frame is drawn one by one, is not meant to be "hang on the wall" art. It's meant to be seen in motion, coming at you at those 24 fps and still eliciting an emotional response of "oh my god, I love this" or "wtf am I watching?" For people who do watch their animated films with the pause button ready, more power to ya, but I try not to.

albert

_________________
WIST #56:
Aaron: With Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon on Blu-ray, Bedknobs & Broomsticks seems like a given. Come on, Disney! They could even call it the Naboom-Blu Edition!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:45 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7097
Location: America
Well, you know Disney themselves hang the art from the animated films up on the walls, but then again, apparently they sold off cels because they thought no one cared about them, for only $2 sometimes! But when they make a segment called "Four Artists Paint One Tree", indeed, they regarded themselves as artists, and thus what they made, including trees in animated films that looked just like the ones from that segment, is their art.

You also have theater, plays and musicals, which is considered art, and often called more artful than movies.

Also, what about a sculpture that moves? Indeed, they exist. Or even a painting that is mechanized to move? Or just something flat on a wall in a frame that has the figures in it move? Indeed it can and has been done.

At first I thought whether something was art or not depended a lot on whether the creator thought what they made was art or not. But in art, it's also supposed to be about how the viewer of the art feels, and what they think.

Me thinks, though, there are multiple definitions of art, and we may be thinking of different ones. Even poetry is art, isn't it?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:30 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 12205
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Mike wrote:
You also have theater, plays and musicals, which is considered art, and often called more artful than movies.

Also, what about a sculpture that moves? Indeed, they exist. Or even a painting that is mechanized to move? Or just something flat on a wall in a frame that has the figures in it move? Indeed it can and has been done.

I think you got lost a little bit on my whole "film should be viewed in motion" statement. It's not about how something that moves versus something that doesn't is a different type of art. Obviously, it is. My main argument is in how people view an animated film (in this case, Sleeping Beauty). When you compare a still frame of it to its entire scene in motion, it's easy to see that one version is the way it's meant to be seen. And that's the version that moves. Sleeping Beauty was made to be a film, not a painting. People seem to mix up on it simply because of its reputation as "the moving painting". Even if Walt said somewhere that he wanted it to be looked at as a moving painting, it doesn't mean it should be paused and printed for a frame. That would destroy the entire idea of "moving painting".

So regarding theatre, plays, moving sculptures, mechanized paintings, etc. then yes, obviously they were made to move. But my main gripe is that people view Sleeping Beauty (or any animated film) as a painting, a still-life portrait that should be analyzed as if it were hanging on a wall. I don't mind if people do that (hence my whole "if you watch with the pause button, more power to ya!"), but for me, that's not the way one should watch the film. People can hang up an animated cel of Alice in Wonderland's caterpillar smoking his hookah or preserve it in a book for all I care, but to me that will never be the "proper" way to view the caterpillar. He must be seen in all his smoking glory, puffing that sucker and spouting out smoke rings and alligators and fishes. :P

Mike wrote:
At first I thought whether something was art or not depended a lot on whether the creator thought what they made was art or not. But in art, it's also supposed to be about how the viewer of the art feels, and what they think.

Which is why I said: In its broadest (and especially at its most abstract) definition, art is any form of expression that is meant to emote feelings from its observer. ;)

For example, could one really consider a bag blowing in the wind to be art? Just watching the air toss around a plastic bag seems rather silly to some, but in American Beauty, it's considered the most beautiful thing Ricky Fitts ever felt in his life. And who am I to argue with Ricky Fitts? :P

Mike wrote:
Me thinks, though, there are multiple definitions of art, and we may be thinking of different ones.

Most likely. :lol:

Art is always a subjective topic. One person's definition will always differ from another, and their opinion on what is art is always going to disagree with someone else's.

Mike wrote:
Even poetry is art, isn't it?

So long as it isn't Vogon poetry. :P

albert

_________________
WIST #56:
Aaron: With Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon on Blu-ray, Bedknobs & Broomsticks seems like a given. Come on, Disney! They could even call it the Naboom-Blu Edition!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:33 am 
Offline
Gold Collection
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:39 am
Posts: 61
Location: Vancouver
Thanks for the summary, it is much appreciated! I would have loved to have been there. I agree with another poster, it would have been nice if this was done earlier or if there was some way to get that night on the DVD.

Maybe for the re-release in 2018 :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:01 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7097
Location: America
Okay well it seems we've gotten into not discussing whether film is art or not, but whether film should be viewed the same way a still piece is. Film is art, that's just a given. What definition of art? There's so many. It depends. But it's art.

Well, I think the Disney artists would certainly approve of animation fans pausing the movie or looking at the cels and backgrounds like looking at still pieces of art.

But yes, the film is meant to be watched like, well, film. But I think animated films transcend other films, obviously you work on and make an animated film like you make a still piece of art, because you are in fact making still pieces of art. And you should be able to look at those still pieces that way, too, but it is not the way to look at it.

What do you think of the art in the books Disney sells, then? Or the cels Disney hangs themselves. In production photos you see them hanging art from Disney films...or is that only concept art which is entirely different? So maybe they didn't hang up actual pieces from the film itself...but do they still end up in the books Disney sells? Then again books do also have stills of live-action films. Looks like I'm going nowhere with this paragraph.

The way we got here was how the animated films should be treated in restoration. Well, they should try to find out as much as possible, with the time they have, what the original creators and artists would have wanted. But barring that, just treat the films like any other film, grain and all. And you and me agree on that, I'm pretty sure.

Thanks for talking about that bag in the wind from American Beauty. Now I know more about what was with that floating bag in Not Another Teen Movie!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:39 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 12205
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Mike wrote:
Okay well it seems we've gotten into not discussing whether film is art or not, but whether film should be viewed the same way a still piece is.

Pretty much, yeah. And my opinion on it is probably still the same (film shouldn't be viewed with a pause button, not even animated films).

Mike wrote:
Well, I think the Disney artists would certainly approve of animation fans pausing the movie or looking at the cels and backgrounds like looking at still pieces of art.

I'm sure they would approve, but at the same time, I think they'd prefer if people saw their work in motion. The transformation scene in Beauty and the Beast for example, is best seen transforming that if it were one frame studied for an hour, then the next for another hour.

Mike wrote:
But yes, the film is meant to be watched like, well, film. But I think animated films transcend other films, obviously you work on and make an animated film.

I can understand your reasoning, and this next part is not directed towards you at all, but towards the general idea among animation enthusiasts that animated films are better than live-action because they're animated and because the animators spend so much time to make sure what they draw is right...

Why is it that live-action films seem to get the short end of the stick when animation fans talk about it? Seriously, they'll marvel at the amount of man hours put in to draw backgrounds and characters, but seem to think that live-action isn't as good because...well, the actors and sets are already there and don't have to be drawn. That the background is constructed and will remain the same without having to be redrawn. That the time it takes to get a shot in a live-action film is less than it really is. There's a variety of factors to consider in each and every shot for a live-action film, and a shortlist would include: allowable camera angles, lighting, backgrounds and sets, dialogue, sound effects, actors' marks and cues, make-up, etc. All these are important to the director, because he/she has to create a believable world in whatever space he/she has to work with. Not to mention the amount of post-production work to make a group of random shots and sequences represent some semblance of continuous action that furthers the story, with believable visual effects if necessary. Great shots and great editing doesn't happen by accident or circumstance. They take as much time and as much consideration as animation. Just because it'll take animators several weeks to shoot what would take live-action several days doesn't mean that it's a better film for it. Sure, live-action seemingly takes less time, but it's still the same amount of dedication to the project. Would someone say a piece of carp like Shark Tale is better than Elephant simply because one's an animated film that took a few years to make while one's an independent film that took a few weeks?

I don't mind if people say they enjoy animated films more than live-action. But I really get annoyed if someone says that an animated film is better than a live-action film just because people draw it all out themselves and that whole "human touch" aspect is there. Bullsh!t. Film is film no matter how you make it, and all film should be viewed equally. Never mind if it's live-action, stop-motion, 2D animation, CGI, etc.

Mike wrote:
What do you think of the art in the books Disney sells, then? Or the cels Disney hangs themselves. In production photos you see them hanging art from Disney films...or is that only concept art which is entirely different? So maybe they didn't hang up actual pieces from the film itself...but do they still end up in the books Disney sells? Then again books do also have stills of live-action films. Looks like I'm going nowhere with this paragraph.

I don't mind so much that it's in books or hanging on walls. Heck, I've got The Art of Meet the Robinsons! But those kind of things are geared more towards people who do view a film as a piece of art that can be paused and studied, and I can't fault them for that. The only reason I've got the MTR book is because it was on sale at Character Premiere and there's no art gallery on the DVD (with stuff like concept art and storyboards, which is what I'm more interested in than stills from the film.). And art galleries bring up a whole other horse of a different colour, but I won't touch it now.

The way I see it is this: if it's conceptual art or storyboards, stuff that is not gonna be seen in the final film, people can analyze it to their heart's content with the pause button. But if it's an actual scene from the film, then all the parts of it (the background, the animated cel, the grain on the film when it's developed, etc.) should not be viewed with the pause button. That's just as bad as asking a guy in a lecture to stop, rewind himself a few sentences, repeat one sentence ad nauseum, then start up again.

Mike wrote:
The way we got here was how the animated films should be treated in restoration. Well, they should try to find out as much as possible, with the time they have, what the original creators and artists would have wanted. But barring that, just treat the films like any other film, grain and all. And you and me agree on that, I'm pretty sure.

Yep.

Mike wrote:
Thanks for talking about that bag in the wind from American Beauty. Now I know more about what was with that floating bag in Not Another Teen Movie!

I guess I should be glad that you now know the American Beauty reference, but I'm a bit disappointed that you had to learn it through Not Another Teen Movie and not yet seeing the film it came from! Then again, I like NATM, so I shouldn't be that disappointed. At least you weren't referencing the scene in "Family Guy" where Peter ignores Stewie's first ride on the tricycle to videotape a bag in the wind:

(Stewie is riding his tricycle.)

Lois: Here, I gotta check on dinner. You keep taping Stewie. Don't miss a moment.

(She leaves.)

Peter: I got it.

(He then focuses on a bag blowing in the wind.)

Peter: Look! It's dancing with me! It's like there's this incredibly benevolent force that wants me to know there's no reason to be afraid. Sometimes there's so much beauty in the world, it makes my heart burst.

(Cut to God in the clouds.)

God: It's just some trash blowing in the wind! Do you have any idea how complicated your circulatory system is?

albert

_________________
WIST #56:
Aaron: With Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon on Blu-ray, Bedknobs & Broomsticks seems like a given. Come on, Disney! They could even call it the Naboom-Blu Edition!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:16 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7097
Location: America
Hey, you just quoted one part of my sentence and used it to talk about something I wasn't!

I said animated filsm are worked on like still pieces of art, because they are made up of still pieces of art.

I never meant animated films are better than live-action ones because they are "worked on more."

However, since you did bring that up, animated films are better at certian things than live-action films, and indeed I do prefer animated ones to live-action ones.

But I'll just tell you that with an animated film, the artists makes everything from their head. I don't mean they don't look at the real world or study humans, duh, in fact everything in our head partly comes from things we've seen in our lives. Completely original ideas that are not similar to anything that exists or existed in anyway? I'd love to believe that. But anyway, everything, the sets, the characters, the costumes, the acting, comes from the artists minds and imagination. All these things didn't exist until the film. You know, I don't have all the time to explain all the wonders of what the animated film has over and animated film, I may go into it another day, but this gets the gist I think.

And it's very good for fantasy films especially. An imaginary land and story created completely from the imagination. But I don't think animated films are just great for the fantasy aspect. Just...everything I said above.

For more realistic films, well, if it's about art and different views on the world, animated films do it better in this artistic sense. Unique visions of a place, like say, New York, rather than everyone filming in the very same New York.

I read everything else you said, and there's not much I can say. It's all good stuff, a lot of true stuff and stuff I agree with.

I did also see that Family Guy gag. I didn't first make the connection, but now I get that one, too, so thanks!

_________________
Image


Last edited by Disney Duster on Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:07 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 12205
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Mike wrote:
Hey, you just quoted ne part of my sentence and used it to talk about something I wasn't!

Sorry, I misread it. When I saw the part where it said "animated films transcend live-action", it just got me in a mood to start ranting about the whole thing. Like I said, it wasn't directed at you, just at the general idea of animated films being better than live-action.

Mike wrote:
But I'll just tell you that with an animated film, the artists makes everything from their head. I don't mean they don't look at the real world or study humans, duh, in fact everything in our head partly comes from things we've seen in our lives. Completely original ideas that are not similar to anything that exists or existed in anyway? I'd love to believe that. But anyway, everything, the sets, the characters, the costumes, the acting, comes from the artists minds and imagination. All these things didn't exist until the film.

But the same argument can be made for live-action films. All the ideas come from a person's head and is put down on paper. :P The only difference is rather than draw it out, it's constructed or sewn together. Somebody has to design and build the sets, someone has to conceive and sew the costumes. Someone must decide how light affects these sets and costumes, how much to use and how shadows can enhance some of them. And of course, the actors have to create the character out of the words on the page, the same way that a voice actor must create a character without being seen at all. ;)

Hence why I say that film is film and should be viewed equally. They all go through the same motions of conception to delivery, it's simply the method used that differentiates one from another. It's like with babies. Some are conceived naturally, some through in vitro. And some are born naturally, while others are caesarean section. But they're still babies.

Mike wrote:
For more realistic films, well, if it's about art and different views on the world, animated films do it better in this artistic sense. Unique visions of a place, like say, New York, rather than everyone filming in the very same New York.

But compare the Los Angeles of Blade Runner or the New York of A.I. Artificial Intelligence to the real-world counterparts. Granted, these are futuristic conceptions, but unique visions nonetheless. Or to look at a contemporary conception of a city, there's the entire film Paris, Je T'aime. It focuses on many aspects of the city, some of which aren't often seen in typical Parisian scenes. Not every scene has the Eiffel tower or the streetside cafe. That's the magic of live-action, they don't always have to show what's expected, and when they do, they can do so from unique angles or viewings.

Mike wrote:
I did also see that Family Guy gag. I didn't first make the connection, but now I get that one, too, so thanks!
:lol:

albert

_________________
WIST #56:
Aaron: With Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon on Blu-ray, Bedknobs & Broomsticks seems like a given. Come on, Disney! They could even call it the Naboom-Blu Edition!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:24 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4196
Location: one with the wind and sky
I just wanted to point out that yeah, I'm one of those people that will watch an animated movie with my thumb on the pause button, but to be fair I've been like that ever since I got my hands on our first VCR as a nine-year-old kid. I was always someone that was like, "woah, how'd they do that" or "wow, how'd they make that?" Maybe it's the way my mind works, maybe it's because I love to draw, maybe it's because I've always felt a connection with the medium and dreamed of working in the industry when I was younger. I imagine I'll always love not only watching Disney animated films, but breaking down and visually analyzing them once I've had a chance to sit down and enjoy them as a whole.

And at the same time, I don't feel that animated films are "better" than live-action by any means just because they are drawn by hand, I merely have a preference for collecting them in general, whether they're hand-drawn, stop-motion, or CG. That probably goes along with the whole weird analysis thing I have going on. :lol: I do enjoy live-action films as well, I just don't have the compelling need to own them as much, if that makes sense.

This kinda makes me think of how I've been criticized by a handful of peers (traditional artists) because I've stated I enjoy Finding Nemo more than Tarzan. Don't get me wrong, I love Tarzan, I just enjoy the story of Nemo a bit more. But to have people telling me that I have my priorities all wrong, that I have to like the hand-drawn films more just because they are hand-drawn? C'mon. If I really think about it I probably like Back to the Future even more than either of those films! I don't believe the claims that just because it is done by hand means that it is better, nor am I even trying to claim that any of these films are "better" than the others, they are just films I enjoy for what they are to me.

Any film, no matter the medium, can be full of heart and soul or whatever emotion you find yourself attaching to it.

One last thing about film grain; hopefully I was able to make it clear that I don't mind film grain or think that it gets in the way, I'm just in love with the idea of seeing the cleanest image possible, lol. I imagine I'm several years away from getting a TV on which it will actually make a difference anyway. ;)

_________________
Image Blu-rays! The artist formerly known as enigmawing.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:22 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7097
Location: America
Well, I have some time today to get more into this.

The same argument cannot be made for live-action films. I an animated film, everything comes from the maker's heads. But in a live-action film, the wood to build the set already came from some place else, and the actor was already in previous roles, etc. Basically, the things in a live-action film already existed before the film. With animation, it never existed until the film. So don't stick your tongue out at me when you are so wrong! (I'm teasing).

You can try to talk about how the paper and the paint already existed before the animated film, but that is getting out of what I'm talking about and what I mean. You know the differences between how you draw and paint a universe and making it out of what live-action sets and costumes are made out of. Nope, painting the set isn't the same as using the paint to make that whole set.

And hand-drawn is definatley better than CGI in many ways, mainly the way the artists can pour their thoughts, feelings, and soul more into something with pencil or paint than clicking with a mouse. And it's more of an artistic thing, even though it's all art.

And this also goes to enigmawing, I did not say animated films are better than live-action films. I said animated films do some things, some very important things, better than live-action films. And that's part of why I prefer them.

As for the different visions of a world, nope, animated films still do the different visions better and more thoroughly than live-action. They can try to light the scenes of a city differently, or use some digital trick, but it will never be able to be a completely different vision like with animation.

Admittedly, CGI in live-action films makes what is a live-action film harder to tell nowadays. In actuality, we're getting almost half animated films. But hand-drawn animation still does it better, as I gave some reasons above.

Basically, you can say that live-action and animated films do similar things, but animated films do some of those things, mainly the artististic and creative things, better.

And enigmawing, all you wrote about pausing the VCR and why you like animated films so much is a lot like what I have done and how I feel, very nice. But like Escapay, these things are films and should be treated as such.

I think maybe we could rephrase what scaps said earlier into "they are films first, still paintings second". It's all art.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DisneyEra, Google Adsense [Bot] and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group