 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: For those who think CG effects are turning film in to video games.... posted by Tom §. on May 18, 2004 at 08:13:12:
The situation is analogous to the introduction of modern manufacturing techniques into the formerly artisan endevour.With more and more imagery generated by computers and other means, some movies will basically become the "machine made" things. That will contrast with the minority that will still bemade using human talent and "hand labor".
The two coexist in many fields today. We have machine-made shoes and hand-made ones. Shirts... many other things.
Masses want cheap product, cheap shirts and shoes, food and entertainment.
The fine things shall remain the prerogative of the few cognoscenty that are willing to pay premium prices for their wine, single harvest, no blend.
So yes, the CG IS turning movies into cheap mass-production entertainment. Fortunately for us, good movies will continue to be made.
Follow Ups:
... I am watching a throwback type of animated film this evening, 'Spirited Away', and I hope I am as impressed with it as others who have reviewed it... it's one of the top-rated movies ever on 'Metacritic'
How did you like it?
I was at a screening of Spirited Away with Miyazaki before it was released in the U.S. They made use of CG for this film. Surprise!If one insists upon cleansing one's system of all CG, then from Japan I'd recommend starting with My Neighbor Totoro (Miyazaki) and Grave of the Fireflies (Takahata). These 1988 films debuted in Japanese theaters as a double feature.
..."Cognoscenti" - A person of superior, usually specialized knowledge or highly refined taste; a connoisseur.
And the one that not only recognise the class but have to have the money too.
Class is posible with very little money, but money does not make class.
"The situation is analogous to the introduction of modern manufacturing techniques into the formerly artisan endevour."Not even close to the truth. Computers are just another tool for the artist to use as a means to an end.
"With more and more imagery generated by computers and other means, some movies will basically become the "machine made" things."Again completely untrue. The machine is just a tool. The designers still have to design the product. One could say the same thing about film itself that you have said of CG. Computers are just another tool for generating an image.
"That will contrast with the minority that will still bemade using human talent and 'hand labor'."
This is laughable. Do you imagine a world where CG is not the product of talent and hand labor? Do you know how CG are created? Do you think machines are writing the stories and designing the artwork?
"The two coexist in many fields today. We have machine-made shoes and hand-made ones. Shirts... many other things."
And they can both suck or be excellent depending on the design and execution.
"Masses want cheap product, cheap shirts and shoes, food and entertainment."
Yeah, It's what they can afford.
"The fine things shall remain the prerogative of the few cognoscenty that are willing to pay premium prices for their wine, single harvest, no blend."
It seems you fail to see the real source of excellence in this world.
"So yes, the CG IS turning movies into cheap mass-production entertainment."No. Suits are doing this. Don't blame technology for business decisions.
"Fortunately for us, good movies will continue to be made."
Some with and aome without CG.
You write: "Masses want cheap product, cheap shirts and shoes, food and entertainment. The fine things shall remain the prerogative of the few cognoscenty that are willing to pay premium prices for their wine, single harvest, no blend."Do you actually believe this, or am I missing the sarcasm?
I'm sure many will salute you .Let me ask you this. What do you think of the films from Disney's golden age ( Snow White , Bambi , Pinocchio , etc.)? Were they the unfortunate "cheap product" that resulted from "the introduction of modern manufacturing techniques into the formerly artisan endeavor"?
If you answer yes then I can't help you.
If you answer no then you probably don't realize that the computer is no less "artisan" a tool than pen and paper.
I really don't think I need your help, so don't feel under no pressure.You are completely off basis, of course. The Disney films were made by men, not machines. Perhaps you should reread my post and cool down.
If you see the CG in the same realm as the pen and paper, then... well, borrowing your phrase... "I can't help you".
You wrote: "The Disney films were made by men, not machines."Let's take a specific example. You're saying that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was made by men and Finding Nemo was made by machines? The story, the set design, the character design, the animation, the shading, the lighting -- done by machines? Is that what you're saying?
I can not speak of Nemo as I have not seen it and don't know how it was made.BTW - it wasn't me who brought the anime into the discussion - as it really has nothing to do with the subject. Something like the Gladiator, on the other hand, is what this is about.
"I can not speak of Nemo as I have not seen it and don't know how it was made."Right. Perhaps next time you'll be more interested to learn than to posture and puff.
There is a completely different understanding of a making of.
At Disney time it was a so called garage work individuel , now it is a computer world where you can take things in that you, yourself never create, of course there need to be the skill and artistry of some one.
But it as not the same quality anymore.
This only a big machine.
It seems you are not very well versed on the production of animation. How do you think characters are created when using CG and how do you think characters are created when using traditional cel animation? Can you compare and contrast the methods? Can you tell us the difference in structure of the artistry in both types of production? Are you even aware of the history of use of computers for "traditional" cel animation?
I know only that at Disney time the " creatures " had soul. Now not any more they only have a cold calculated charm. They are just a caricature.
The drawing crew must have been then much better back then.
Where do you draw the line for the "Disney Time." They are still making animated films at Disney. Do you think dancing Hippos had more soul than say Belle from Beauty and the Beast or the characters in Finding Nemo? Where do you draw the line? Do you think Prince Charming had more soul than Shrek?
Jungle Book, of course. I did not think to have to be more precise.
And yes. I do.
Jungle Book. An interesting line to draw in the sand. many people believe that the art of Dinsey animation had all but dies by that time. The animation was clearly inferior. They just weren't spending the money they used to. So would you say that Robin Hood was souless nad inferior? Hint, many of the same artists worked on both while few of the same artists worked on both Jungle Book and Snow White. Interesting that you say Prince Charming had more soul than Shrek. How so? Personally, I find Prince Charming to be one of the most uninteresting characters in the history of Disney animation. Perhaps comparing that character to Shrek was a bit unfair given the fact that Shrek was the priciple character in that movie. But really, the dancing hippos had more soul than Belle? Do you really want people to think you believe this?
I did not see Robin Hood...But I do not find the same charm in later time animation film, but I must say that it is not my speciality, I saw almost all of Disney The only one I did not like was " Fantasia " it was on the too much education trip, as for new time trick films they are quite well made, but do not compare ( for me ) to the genuis of Walt.
I do not want anythink, that is MY opinion. As the other is YOURS.
You give far too much credit to one man. If you divide the Dinsey product into two catagories; with and without Walt I suspect you are basing your opinions more on prejudices and less on actual product. From Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to the current crop of Dinsey anmated features there has been all sorts of peaks and valleys in the quality of the animation and story telling in those features. It is too bad that anyone would dismiss an entire group of movies based on such a prejudice. Your loss though not mine.
i do not. I spoke already yesterday abot. I now the collective work and the egotism of Walt.
No loss, as curiosity killed the ccat.
You write: "The drawing crew must have been then much better back then."Now this thread is starting to become reasonable. It is indeed all about people, not tools, and that is as true now as it ever was. Time may or may not agree with your assessment of recent movies, but history has proven Disney's Nine Old Men to have been great masters of their craft.
Was I un-reasonable? You know some part of the magic is NOT to know how things are done, in a practically way, save one of the best of it kinds ( La Nuit Americaine ).
I just read a biography of the old man...And thanks for the link.
There were better. No doubt.
It can still be quite magical when one does know how things are done. The problem with not knowing how things are done rears it's ugly head when one starts talking about cause and effect. People start blaming creatively bankrupt business decisions and poor artistry on a tool. Then those same people start forming irrational prejudices against any film that uses certain tools.
I donīt think so, really I mean you can enjoy it but not to the extend you would, if you where not.....( sorry an English word is missing...) in the secret of the Gods.
What Victor did want to say is true, te art of carfting is vanishing. I the way one man can create a watch. Or leather goods ( where are the good leather pieces? With the acid rain..)
I think that to find a common language will brind us a step further...and good will. as we have the same goal..Films and Fun..Is it not so?
I understand what you are saying. Knowing how takes away the mystery. Well knowing how changes the magic it doesn't eliminate it. a knowing eye is more descriminating but a knowing eye can find even more magic in excellence.As for Victor's comments I think he is clearly wrong. The art of crafting is evolving it is not vanishing. The folks who create CG are artists and craftspersons. they are simply using different tools.
Don't worry to much about the language barrier. You English is pretty good and when you struggle you manage to get struggle across. And yes, there is a common goal. Hopefully with a better understanding of technology and film technique you will be less afraid of the nes technology. With animation the process is so much the same with computers or with cel animation that the differences cannot be blamed for characters lacking soul. In both cases the characters are born from the writers. They are then given their first breath of life from the voice actors. The design of the characters is based on the script and the actors' interpretations through their performances. Sculpted 3D designs and 2D model sheets are then created. From there the animation begins. The character's "soul" has already been launched by that point. The performance in the animation is determined by the animator not the tool he or she uses. The decisions critical to performance are made by people not machines. Don't fear the technology. Fear the business people who cater to the lowest common denominator. They are the enemy of art. Not the computers.
Afraid? No but I donīt know how old you are, for me still not on the verge of complete senility, I have enough experience in my range to be able to compare.
That is all what it is about.
Fear? well you donīt know me, so we will have to learn more about us. Time will comply.
"Afraid? No but I donīt know how old you are, for me still not on the verge of complete senility, I have enough experience in my range to be able to compare.
That is all what it is about.
Fear? well you donīt know me, so we will have to learn more about us. Time will comply."Age does not matter thanks to the magic of home video. I have seen every Classic Disney animated feaure ever made along witrh all of the best ones that followed Walt's departure from this world. You may have the experience to compare but, by your own admission, you do not have the knowledge of the inner workings how these pictures are made to reasonably ascribe cause and effect in terms of quality. Victor and you both wrongly ascribed computers as a caused for a percieved demise in the quality of Disney animated features and in films in general. I sense a prejudice in your opinions of these features based on the age of the given film and executive in charge of their productions. I think this is yet another mistaken case of cause and effect. I think your opinions are affected by this baggage.
Age does matter for the best or the worst. You can not take short cut in life. But some are very young and are already brillant.
As told before ( you remember ) I want not to prise the hard labor behind the blue screen ( or else ) but just the result. As a consumer.
I donīt think so because I am always willing to like something new. But I can not jump over my own feeling and experience.
"Was I un-reasonable?"I was referring to the thread as a whole.
It is reasonable to prefer one movie to another, or one artist to another. In this case, most people (experts and moviegoers alike) disagree with your dismissal of modern animated films, but it is a subjective judgment.
It is unreasonable to conclude that computers are harmful to the art. At this point in the thread, I think we have established this.
No dismissal! I just said that the hand crafted ( what I do undertsand under this words..) have more of my liking. Toy Story as an example, was a nice try. But the Disney are in another league, for me and quite a few others. I suppose.
Computers are a tool. As long it do not take the humanity of the finish product, or art. It is ok for me.
"I just said that the hand crafted ( what I do undertsand under this words..) have more of my liking."I bet you and Victor would be surprised to find out that computer animation is just as hand-crafted as cel animation. Clearly the message is not getting across -- but perhaps you will have the opportunity to see for yourself someday. The manual labor that goes into modern animated movies is staggering, almost impossible to understand if you haven't seen it yourself. Talk about the magic of not knowing how it's made!
It came across, but mine did, obviously not! I said that the artists back then were maybe better at theirs work than the one we have today. That and some others things, like less marketing and more faith.
"I said that the artists back then were maybe better at theirs work than the one we have today."That isn't what you said but if you want to say it now then I'd say you are finally on the right track. Nothing wrong with prefering one artist over another for personal reasons.
"That and some others things, like less marketing and more faith."I'd leave faith to religion. Art is not a faith based endevour. Can't stop people from marketing in a capitalist society. It would be nice if the suits would try maketing he visions of film makers instead of doing test screanings and revising the work based on the opinions of teenagers.
I said it. And mean it. And there is no " track for me " I am " freewheeling ".
Faith? Only religion??? Well think twice.
For the last: is THIS not evident ?
"I said it. And mean it."Sorry, you didn't say it before that post.
"And there is no ' track for me '"
That may very well be true. You may very well be just lost and wandering with the occassional post that randomly hits. This is nothing to be proud of though. Not IMO.
" I am ' freewheeling '."
See above.
"Faith? Only religion??? Well think twice.
For the last: is THIS not evident ? "I'm not sure what you mean here.I never said "only religion" But for the artist the creation of art is not faith based. Any artist worth his or her salt should tell you that. Of course some artists are prone to creating a sense of mystique around themselves and over time some may start to buy their own bullshit. They are usually has beens by that time though.
(~8^D)
I'd ascribe your stance to just looking at how certain elements of human nature will abuse technology rather than how technology will enhance the medium. Take for instance using CG technology (not CG animation) to enhance older films by removing flaws in the film stock (streaks, dirt marks, etc.) to provide a more pristine presentation which in the end, let's the viewer focus more on the film/story. CG also enables a director to be able to more fully visualize their conceptions. This is also a double edged sword. I think what we're seeing is that the fully visualized imagination of some directors is worse than their previous compromised visualizations made before CG was available.There's always been a "mass-consumption" element to film long before anyone even thought of CG. It has nothing to do with how effects are created be it with optical/analog tricks or with a mouse and animation software. Excellent movies shine through with both technologies equally and poor movies stick out just as sorely.
Tom §.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
