Do you think anything is missing from 3-D animation. It seems that the coolest 3-d stuff is that which looks closest to our reality. I miss the painterly quality of older animations. Or maybe I am watching the wrong stuff. Any comments or viewing suggestions?
I think the biggest problem in 3D is how most companies spend SO much time on the look of their CG stuff but don't seem to give a crap about realistic movement.
Why do they spend a billion hours on making sure hair looks real on a creature but they can't make the creature jump and look real. King Kong (the ape) was fantasticly realistic in closeups and with subtle movements, but when there was action, everything was either too jerky or moved too quickly and unatural. No weight or gravity.
How can Spiderman look like a rag doll/puppet when he swings yet Bugs Bunny can jump and look natural? Because the folks at Warner brothers were animators, not graphic designers. They perfected movement as opposed to making Porky Pig look pretty or realistically accurate to an actual pig. Too many 3D artists are trained in looks than in movement.
The Hulk was another disaster. The movements were the worst I've ever seen in CGI. Even as brilliant as Lord of the Rings was, Gollum still jerked around from rock to rock.
Why can Pixar make Monsters and Toys look and move so realitically, yet King Kong and Spiderman can't? Pixar has the secret and whatever it is, it works! Time for the rest of them to do more studying.
Finally, King Kong looked to me like a "hurry up and get it done and out by the deadline" job rather than a work of art. Not to mention the acting was absolutely horrible. Remember Jack Black seeing dinosaurs that no humans have ever seen and his reaction was, "Oh, I should maybe set the camera here, this would make a neato shot".?????? Give me a break. Or when the girl sees a giant ape in her face and looks as if to think,"Oh, you're a scarey guy ain't ya". Sorry for the Ebert and Roeper, just had to get that out.:D
My Site
Truth be told, my eye for weight seems to be off compared to most people's, but I thought Gollum and Spider-man were pretty much dead-on. Keep in mind too that some of Gollum's movements were hybrids from the motion capture information that were later cleaned up by character animators. Since I've never seen a ring-affected hobbit in real life I can't say for sure if they were successful in -that- regard but it seemed believable. If you're thinking about some of the visual effects in the first Spider-Man movie like hopping along the rooftops those weren't as effective...and there are going to be some stylistic things (like not snapping in two after a ten story drop when you hit the end of your ridiculously-strong webbing, the fact that it doesn't pull straight, etc...)...but there's also making sure the poses and such get across and sometimes that overrides total uber-physics. If they worried about nothing but the appeal or entertainment value might've gone out the window.
That new car commercial with the big fuzzy cars rodeo-style, that has one shot where I always think...they have to know about weight being in there...and the movements are great....but maybe they had priorities (I imagine for a commercial deadlines are too tight for perfectionist people) and most folks wouldn't notice or care, since it gets the point across...
The most disgruntled people will be the trained eyes, and we're in the minority...
I've never seen a problem with Spider-man's or Gollum's or even the Hulk's movements. As far as I know, they were all mo-capped (hell the director of the Hulk mo-capped that one himself), and I don't see how you can get more real-life movements than from a real-life person. I can see how they might need to be cleaned up a bit to account for the differences between the actor and the character's figure, but what more could you ask for? The only thing more realistic is getting a human in the movie itself, right?
The answer to your question is actually in the questions themselves. Bugs Bunny and the Pixar films exist in a totally synthetic environment that has a look, feel, and reality that is unique to itself. Within that environment, whatever happens is bound to look real, because who's to say that it doesn't? None of us have ever actually been to those places, so we accept the "reality" of that environment as part of our suspension of disbelief.
By contrast, Spider-man and Kong are dropped into a true-to-life (if exaggerated) environment that we all recognize as "real" - places like New York City and the jungle exist. The bar is set much higher for the animators that work on those characters. Not only do they have to integrate a character made of 1's and 0's into a live-action plate, but they are up against the audience's knowledge of how the "real world" looks and works. A tough task at best. Sometimes they fall short of the mark, but it's not for lack of trying.
Also, we have to keep in mind that we know far more about how this all works than the average moviegoer does. What may look somewhat "fake" to us is absolutely seamless to an unschooled pair of eyes. That doesn't mean those people are gullible or easy to fool; it means we are geeking out just a bit too much due to our knowlege.;)
Think of the Japanese monster movies, how a guy is in a rubber suit stompping around a miniature city. While that guy is just walking around everything is ok, for a Japanese monster movie, but once he starts smashing stuff the fakeness starts to show through.
The Hulk's bounding around those rolling hill was totally cartoony. If they had shown some sort of diminishing movement in the Hulk and show the land breaking under his impact, that scene would have been much better.
So are we talking about the animation of the character itself or its interaction with the enviroment? I was disappointed with the Hulk in the latter regard - sure the camera shook but I can't even remember if there were billows of dust around his feet when he landed. But I do recall him almost stumbling when he landed sometimes, which I thought was pretty realistic.
Wanna see suckage.........like, MAJOR suckage?
Catch the 1970's King Kong flick with total man-in-suit action and Jessica Lange OVER-acting and Jeff-Bridges' hair.........oh maaaaaan. Rick Baker used to be THE monkey king in Hollywood.........his Kong was walking around upright, never once moved like a real ape....
I used to dig that flick, saw it a week ago..........oy vey! Where WAS my mind at?
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
I think you might be right, it is for sure that the scene stands out in my memory but not as a good one.
Ken, not sure but I must have seen most of those type of movies. Odd that I can not stand them now. :D
I think most animators these days are so fascinated with how realistic 3D animation can become that they don't broaden their views. I'd like to see them do more abstract stuff from 3D. But the 3D animation I like the most is the very technological type, like robots or whatever. I'm talking real ones, not that Robots movie kind.
Most 3D is utter shit--bland, banal, boring with lousy timing and dead expressiveness. But then a lot of 2D is the same, too.
Productions with some 2D background behind them, like the Pixar, Blue Sky and Dreamworks stuff come across stronger because they understand how to push the expressions.
The other stuff relies on mo-cap, or stiffly rigged models that limit the motions and expressivness of the characters.
Next time you watch a CGI film, make note of how hands grasp an object--then looks at a 2D film--there's no comparsion. 3D work seldom conveys a "grip" when holding an object in-hand--its just fingers folding over another object.
Learning to push a single key image beyond structure for a single frame can give a motion some real Emotion--but the technology becomes such a crutch because its literally like puppetry. Take a look at any of the Barbie flicks to see how bland this medium can get.
The stuff which looks closest to "reality" --the Final Fantasy et al stuff--is often the worst for the above attributes because they try too hard to make it real.
Its the old, old adage that if you don't need to do it in animation, then don't.
A film like Final Fantasy became a expensive gimmick, one that was really hollow at its core.
Something like Bug's Life, Madagascar, or Incredibles commuincates much stronger because they start as cartoons and capitalize on cartoon attributes.
The "realism" aspect is wasted because I've seen very few that know what to do with it--and most of those works are integrated in live-action films anyway.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
The use of 3d animation is merely an approach to animating things, just like 2d and stopmotion. I think that its more due to artistic choice* that affects the quality and the look of the animation. Despite the trend in using 3d to get a realistic look, its has great potential to do other things as well, as long as someone makes the effort to try new things.
I am a flash animator, and I've seen horrible examples of flash animation and some that are truly amazing. It all depends on how the person chooses to use the program. Maybe the same could be said of 3d.
And also, despite their inherent differences, there have been many examples of 3d and 2d complementing each other very well, such as "Prince of Egypt", "The Iron Giant", and the "Le Building" animation shown at Aneccy.
*money and marketing might also be a factor, unfortanately.
Interesting topic. I've noticed that many 3D packages are playing up their non-photorealistic rendering abilities. Is this a reactionary response to sweep-up a few extra sales or is this now a requirement? The whole CG World went head long into photorealistic rendering achieving the ultimate, a synthetic World that doesn't seem to sell movies any better than the old stuff. Now it seems the head long rush is to make things look like they've been hand generated. What's a person to think?
-Splat!
.
It might be that good story's produce good characters. This is sort of a chicken and egg contest in most of the current animations making me wonder whether the character developed was formed that way cause it was easier to manufacture the toy product that way. I've noticed also that the bereft in SoCal have been playing things over and over again due to a total lack of original creativity. Seems no one wants to get fired for trying anything outside the safety zone of the tried, true and familiar.
Getting an audience to suspend disbelief and allow the story to transport them requires a very special combination of the art..., screw up any one part on the way there and it will shoot the tube.
I like to model characters around actual people. Especially the ones that have medium to massive character defects which is essentially what comic opera tends to spotlight. I look at them and see them in a totally new light, scheming in my mind a light sketch on top of their physical reality representing the transformed character in an exponential sort of way. Cerebral Sketchbooking is what I call it and I need to scribble drawings and notes to survive the essence of the thought process so that it can be savored, refined and executed at a later time. It turns out to be quietly addicting. Go ahead try it, with a little practice you'll have more than enough character personalities to populate your plot in practically no time. This can't be done hanging out in darkened studio behind a computer screen. It has to be acquired in real time, in real life and through social interaction either directly or through observation...,
One last thought about good characters comes from the first golden age of animation. These guys, as far as I can tell, were vaudeville regulars and knew many of the major players and their gigs. The vaudville characters were, in many respects, literally translated directly into the animation shorts of the day. Can't do this today due to the long reach of the subpoena power types...,
-Splat!
Well, it wouldn't be for lack of trying.
This is a tangent, actually unlreated to animation per se, but sort of related to you point abouve.
Ever seen the British comedy series Mr. Bean?
Rowan Atkinson's brilliant Mime comedy really caught a lot of people attentions.
One of the standout spots was the Christmas special he did--and notably the hysterically funny turkey skit within.
Well, a few years back, someone in the US decided to "import" Bean in the form of a feature film.
The problem is they had so little point to what they were doing, the thing had so little reason for being, that they recycled a lot of the material from the series.....including the famous turkey skit.
How many jokes are funny when told the second time?
Talk about killing a brand too.
Its sad when nothing original can be thought up. Why didn't they just edit together some of the episodes themselves and release that as a feature--one wonders?
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
Didn't Friends steal that turkey bit too for a Thanksgiving episode?
I thought Bean was funny just because I'd only seen a handlful of his skits and none of them were repeated in the movie. I knew the turkey thing was in one of them, but I hadn't seen it before so I laughed out loud. Sad thing is, I knew Bean was silent most of the time, so to see him give a speech was truly disappointing. "Brace yourself" was funny though.
While we're on the subject of Bean (and totally unrelated to the topic of the thread), I saw there was once a Mr Bean cartoon; were the gags from his show copied onto the cartoon as well?
The Mr. Bean skits are the result of Rowan Atkinson's genius..., the turkey bit is one of the funniest but please don't forget how Mr. Bean redecorates the flat or changes into swimsuit attire at the beach. One point from this is that Atkinson invented, improvised and delivered a character without dialogue that can make nearly everyone laugh and enjoy, all this by mostly just himself. It is the predicaments that the individual get's into and the individual actions which only deepen the predicament till the character invents a wholly non-traditional method of solution.
I don't believe this is off the thread's topic. I may be in a minority but I kind of OD'd on the amount and force of delivery of animation in King Kong. It was superbly done and finely woven into the live action shots etc.., BUT it was an abusive overuse of animation to make a few story points and a lot of presell rushes for the public. This was when I really started thinking about what's wrong in 3D animation. It hit me that one of the better characters was the German ship captain, imagine that? And it hit me, the 3D animated characters were all over acted in a script of rush-in the monsters to scare the audience effect. Too bad to. Such a lot of good visuals wasted by the sloppy drivel of a soggy script...,
Splat!
As much as I like Kong, I'm inclined to agree.
The over-use of eye-candy elements IS a distraction in that film, and eye-candy doesn't amount to entertainment in my book.
Its just a veneer.
When you take someone like Atkinson, who as a performer entertains all by himself, its a striking example compared to the heavily orchestrated visual machinations of something like King Kong.
Yes, dinosaurs are dangerous and scary, but did we need "raptors" in the dino-stampede?
Did we need other bugs in the Spider Pit sequence? Does the story need that much threatening flora and fauna within to convey that Skull island is a dangerous place?
Because CGI can easily multiply components in a scene, compared to doing 4 dinos in stop-motion for example, the over-visualization becomes a problem.
The last three Star Wars films are a good example of that...........so much visual frenzy going on that it can detract from the communicated story, and thus the emotion the audience feels.
Having someone like Mr. Bean be the sole focus of attention on screen should, by rights, provide a more succinct kind of entertainment.
But does it?
I've hearing reading that audience attention spans have changed enough that a lot of films feel they have to maintain some kind of "screen wiggle" ( hence that GAWD-AWFUL hand-cam technique that's become more common) in order to engage their audience.
CGI is making gimmicks like that easier to supply, when as a tool it should be used even more sparingly.
I kind of like some of the things James Cameron did with CGI in Titanic, where in the long shot over the ship and hovering/drifting away as the ship sales towards a fateful sunset conveyed a "helicopter-shot" but one done in CGI.
It sold the shot because it was like something we have seen and accepted countless times, but done with a tool that made it not only possible, but believable without building an actual ocean liner.
Its so easy to over-use and abuse CGI.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
Some of the movies I enjoyed the most are the smaller, low budget ones, where more attention is invested into the characters and any CGI used is limited to supporting the story. Some of M Night Shyamalan's movies are sort of like this.
The best CGI happens when you can't even tell if it is being used at all, but when it becomes too blatant, it can really lessen the story's impact. I think Kong could have been much more effective if it focused on just the interaction between Kong and Ann, rather than the random monster eye candy that appears every ten minutes or so. One T rex was fine, but three?
I haven't seen Kong yet (couldn't figure out why Jackson needed three hours of my time to tell me the same story that was told in half that time previously...), but from the clips I've seen it does seem to be somewhat over the top.
One shot that comes to mind is the clip that's used in the new Hefty bag commercial that shows Kong rampaging through New York, throwing cars here and there and destroying theater marquees. Granted, it's out of context, but it seemed frenzied and over the top to me.
Eventually, when I have three hours to spare (sigh...), I'll see the thing.
Back to the thread story line "Whats missing in 3-D animation"...,
If you're asking about the tools the answer is absolutely nothing. Only wish I could learn to use half of one application competently before the deadline.
If you're asking about the overall process the answer is (and will always be, I'm afraid) "where do you want to start, and will you need a menu?". Good visual story tellers are about as rare as are naturally born keyframers. The two together go down in history. 3D tools have allowed those who are fascinated by the tools ability but sadly just don't have required mix to make it all work plod along wondering when it's all going to come together. Knowing what works also requires a lot of experience and the ability to empathize with the human condition which unto itself eliminates a good portion of humanity. The one other requirement is simply dogged determination and persistence. This leaves a very small number of people that can actually make a difference. 3D animation is just a tool, a gadget for helping out the ancient art of story telling. It takes a story telling artist to know the difference of what works and what doesn't. Getting this right is sometimes lost in the corporate culture where corporate idolatry removes the guise that it all started out as an effort to entertain people...,
-Splat!
There's a DEADLINE?!?..... ;)