 
|
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: Re: Are you joking? posted by ephemere on May 18, 2004 at 11:42:30:
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.
Follow Ups:
"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)
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 ]
