DVDizzy.com

Hope you know I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

I think it's fair to say that an animated film will carry a higher level of fantasy simply because of of how it's created and what we see on the screen, which is perhaps a part of why I tend to prefer them myself. But IMO creating a live-action film requires just as much dedication and creativity, even if it's channeled in different ways.


You've got a common opinion that I don't necessarily agree with there.

When you're animating a character, whether it be drawn by hand, a manipulated puppet, or CG character starting out as a wire frame, you still have to be an actor creating a performance. You have to pull off a character that's not only able to move around in a convincing manner but can convey emotions that an audience can relate to. No easy task! The computer is just another tool controlled by the artist. A poor animator is unable to pull that off no matter what tools he may have at hand.

I make a similar comparison when people argue that traditional art is "better" than digital (I've worked with both). There are no magic tools that will improve the feel of your work. Once you get a feel for your tools and learn to handle them (regardless of what they are) your talents and passion will shine through and be reflected in any art you produce, regardless of the media you choose to create your vision in.


I'd like to point out once again that I watch the films as a whole first. Somebody has to break down the process in order to create the film in the first place, I just enjoy finding ways of looking into that process.

_________________

Can I use this one then?



hehehe...

Sorry, I just have to respectfully disagree. Just because something already existed (and in some cases in another form, mind you) doesn't mean that it should be considered with less creativity than something animated.

After all, a tree is a tree until someone cuts it down and turns it into wooden planks to build a house, or paper to write upon, or sawdust to do god knows what with.

The main thing is that an idea is formed in someone's head, and how that idea is illustrated, how it comes to be, is such a beautiful thing. Whether someone constructs that idea out of pre-existing wood, or draws an entire world of it on paper and cels that go by at 24 fps, it's the same concept and I still believe it can be looked upon equally.


I can pick up a random rock, get some paint, and make a design on that rock that never existed before. And that design will stay on that rock until water washes it away or time fades it away. But knowing that once upon a time, that rock had my design on it, and perhaps that designed rock was captured on a piece of celluloid...that's just as real to me and just as much imaginative to someone else as if I had done it all in 2D animation, in CGI, or if I had picked up another rock and made the same design.


I'm with enigmawing and will have to respectfully agree to disagree.


Of course, it's all a matter of opinion, as I have yet to find an animated film that has captured and equaled the artistic-ness and creativity found in a knock-out live-action film called The Ten Commandments. But then again, I'm biased.


Eh, I like my version better. Mainly because it's mine.


Whenever I read a 2D vs. CGI discussion and this point is brought up, it always reminds me of a line from Star Trek: Insurrection...

"Our technological abilities aren't apparent because we've chosen not to employ them in our daily lives. We believe when you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man."
-Sojef

Which is ironic because most of the arguments for 2D says that because there is that human touch, that it is a better form, as opposed to CGI, which is...well, to some not a human touch, but just a click of the mouse. I don't side in the 2D/CGI debates because both are unique forms of expression and who am I to say that one is better than the other when the best I can do is a stick figure and finger paints (the ultimate form of artistic expression, in my harkening-back-to-kindergarten-days opinion).


One of the most beautiful pictures I've ever seen in my entire life (so much so that I impulsively bought it and it now hangs proudly above my bed) is a hybrid of traditional art and digital art. It's by Alan Foxx, and the only reason I came upon it is because he frequently appears at Hoy Poloi at Downtown Disney West Side, and his work there is always available.

Traditional and digital art combined is such a beautiful thing. I only wish more people were aware/appreciative of it.

albert

_________________
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?

Escapay, you didn't make the whole rock with that brush. That is totally diverting from what I was talking about.

In animation you make the whole entire rock, the whole entire world, except for the voice work.

Holding a pen or brush that actually makes the art is more involved with the art that is being made. Making lines or strokes with the pencil or brush acually is what makes up the art, not mouse clicks. And you can put more soul and feeling into the lines and brush strokes of the pencil or brush. And creating something with lines and strokes is actually making the art, and it's acually easier, too. See, I'm not arguing animation is better because it's harder.

Now, you could say "that's not being more artistic, that's being more hands on." But the art is being made by those more hands-on artists.

Spekaing of the human touch and machines doing things.

And after TM3-Megatron talks about how robots will become like humans someday, so much so they will start garnering the same rights, we could also get into some whole "will robots every be as creative as humans thing", but any opposition to humans always being better than robots in all areas including soulful creativity will depress me beyond words or f*** with my mind so much I go insane.

HOWEVER I'm fully aware CGI is definately still artistic, creative, filled with ideas and imagination and yes, soul. It's just less of all that can get through than with hand-drawn or painted stuff.

I took a look at some of that Alan Foxx guy's stuff. It looks cold and I thought "blech" to a lot of it. But yes, some of it is very beautiful. In fact, yes, some of it is hard to tell whether it's a painting or a photo.

I fear the day when we can't tell computer-generated stuff from real life. Not just in movies, there was actually some video of kids going into a virtual landscape (because we took such bad care of Earth). I mean, it was in cartoony CGI, but the concept was to these kids it was like a real place.

I'm just worried about the day when fake stuff looks exactly like real stuff.

Which brings up the whole robot debate. We make robots, fake humanoids, that turn out so much like us, we start questioning what makes us people? WTF?!

We never question what makes a tree a tree, We know the difference between a fake tree and a real one. Maybe I should get to TM2-Megatron...

Or is he really gonna say "just because those mountains and grass weremade of different materials than that set of a mountain and grass doesn't make it any less 'real'. I mean, look at how the clay mountains and [insert light material here] grass work the same as real mountains and grass. Look, the grass even sways in the wind!" Hm, well, I guess humans work differently than inanimate objects. But the idea is the same. You all get what I mean, right? Hm, what if we found material that grows just like grass, but it wasn't grass? A lot of this is just meant to be thought-provoking, you know.

_________________