When I was attending an open house at a college I was looking into (And later attended for a few months), the speaker, Frank Espinoza, talked about what cartoons should do. Specifically, they should do things that can't be reproduced in real-life. An example he used was Iron Giant - he didn't like how the kid (can't remember his name at the momest) acted like a read kid. "When he's walking up to a wall, instead of turning around, he should have started walking UP it." It almost struck me that he considered the defining aspect of animation to be slapstick. I've always thought that some of the best animation was the type that could have been filmed but conveyed the same emotion through animation.
How does everyone weigh in on the matter?
For anyone one that may not know, Frank Espinoza designed the Loonatics, the reimagined Looney Tunes characters. And the Baby Looney Tunes.
I agree that animation should do what only animation can do - but I think it shouldn't be all-out cartoony in every sequence, scene and frame. Animation is, after all, about conveying emotion and not all emotions are larger than life. Only recently, I learned that subtlety in animation is one of the hardest aspects of the art to master (and I still have a looong way to go).
That said, I'm opposed to realism in animation that's as "real" as real life (e.g. rotoscoping). If it's that real you're better off shooting a live-action film in my opinion. See Bakshi's Lord of the Rings which I like to describe as a low-budget fantasy live-action flick that somebody traced to make it look less tacky. (Balrog, anyone?)
what the hell? he should of walked up the wall??? haha
ANIMATION FORUM
Production Blog
Let me clarify, I'm not talking realism as far as models go. While sometimes I'm impressed with how close 3D models can get to a real person, it doesn't necessarily have to look like that. I'm more talking realism in animation and situation.
I am whole-heartedly opposed to anyone attempting realism in animation. Chris Landreth and Richard Linklater should be sentenced to life in prison for their crimes against the medium (Landreth's Ryan and Linklater's Waking Life).
But, I also disagree with what Frank said in that Hogarth (the boy's name in Iron Giant) should have walked up the wall. It would not have fit with the story Brad Bird was trying to tell nor would it have fit Hogarth's character. What should have happened was that he could have turned at the wall in some stylized fashion, at least stylized enough so that there is no way it could have been reproduced in live action. Of course, I haven't seen Iron Giant in years. Anyone who has it on dvd, could you watch that "walking up to the wall" scene and tell us what happens?
Oh, and Frank should also be sentenced for his work on Baby Looney Tunes and Loonatics as well. Unless he was forced into it against his will. In which case, we'd let him go if he squealed on the bastards who ARE responsible. :p
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
I hope those of you saying "animation should do what live cannot" are not the same crowd that proclaims "story is king".
Animation should advance the fundamental idea of the film, if that means slavish recreation of realities minutiae then by all means it should be done. If it means the kids should spider crawl up a wall like Linda Blair, then it should be done.
What is more important -illuminating the human condition (and striving towards the Socratic "good", or making drawings and pixels do extraordinary things simply because you have the power to?
The walking up the wall thing was just an example he mentioned, not something directly out of the movie. Basically he was saying it should have been a "cartoony" reaction, instead of a realistic one.
I think he said he wasn't a supporter of the redesigns of the Looney Tunes, so I'd let him off the hook for that one.
Well, of course, if it's a important part of the movie for a character to do something unrealistic, it needs to be done. That's like saying you can't make a Spider-man movie because humans can't get powers from radioactive spiders. But to say a character should do something outrageously stupid just because of its animated media? That's ridiculous.
Spongebob Squarepants isn't the only definition of a cartoon, and neither is something like Final Fanatsy, or Chicken Run.
Limiting ones definition to zany unreality is to deny all other kinds of story situations.
Iron Giant works far better as a animated feature than it would it almost any other medium, with the possible exception of CGI.
Besides, Iron Giant DOES have some of those "zany unrealistic" moments Espinoza cites: the scene at the swimming hole with the tidal wave and the fish, raccoon and Dean swooshing by "under" the water.
I think Espinoza confuses the ease of communicating zanyness in a single cartoon image with its dominance in a animated film.
Cartoons ARE ideal for zany situations--they work far better in a cartoon, but cartoons need not be soley zany.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
Did anyone ask Frank Espinoza WHY Hogarth would walk up the wall? What purpose would it serve?
Also, thats not a very cartoony thing. Live action people have been walking up wall and celings for decades.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
I should have, but I wussed out. I would guess his reason is just because someone drew him. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the questions thrown his way were about Japanese vs American animation. Freaking anime fanatics.
I reject the notion that animation must conform to a set of academic rules. When animation does that, it is no longer art. It's formulaic commercialism.
Some of the greatest animated movies - Watership Down, The Plague Dogs, the Miyazaki films, Akira - rely on more realistic animation styles.
I personally don't have a problem with cartoons with realistic animation done well. Any of Miyazaki's films are great examples of this.
However, I have a problem with animation that tries to make itself look like live action. The results are usually stiff and uninteresting to look at.
James :cool: