They are all here on every post!
http://oliviacgreen.wordpress.com/
Time For Hugs Banner
Monday, May 7, 2012
Comments 1-12
Every one of mikes posts now bears my thoughts. TAKE THAT MIKE. I have no idea who you are.
http://mikeweber90.wordpress.com/
http://mikeweber90.wordpress.com/
Blog post 12: the end of the blogs
Oh the last blog, and I still have so much more to do. Cursed is the life of a procrastinator.
Today I'll talk about how the class impacted me and my works.
For those of you who don't know (looks around web page) I have my own comic. It's not animation, but it is sequential images that tell a story, so some of the lessons are pretty applicable.
In truth very few of the lessons were new to me as far as how animation relates to it's stiller brother comics. Scott McCloud lists off a fair amount of what makes a cartoon in "Understanding comics". This means I will skip over quite a few of the overlapping lessons and the lessons about cartoons, which leaves just the lessons of how sequential art evolved as my topic for this post.
In truth I suppose that cuts down a lot of what I was going to talk about. What commonalities do sequential art forms have in common. Not cartoons. Just sequential art.
Well I could easily start with their differences. Comics rely on choice of moment, while animation show step by step movement and have far less choice of moment. You do see transitions however, so they do overlap slightly. Animation can have many more moments. You have all of the stages of a punch, you don't need to worry about whether or not you show a middle to the punch, it's already there. But transitions do exist for many of the same practical reasons. Meanwhiles, laters, and other announcer type sayings pop up in both of the forms.
Sound. Comics have none, animation has the ability to have it. Instead of writing pow, slick, bang you can actually hear it. Animation doesn't require you to voice the characters, it gives you a voice for them. Animation has a whole other sense for viewers to enjoy.
Story. Ah there it is. A story. Everything requires a story in sequential art. That's why it's sequential, to tell something that one picture could not.
So if anything were to truly be learned by comparing the two. It is the need for a story to accompany the art.
Today I'll talk about how the class impacted me and my works.
For those of you who don't know (looks around web page) I have my own comic. It's not animation, but it is sequential images that tell a story, so some of the lessons are pretty applicable.
In truth very few of the lessons were new to me as far as how animation relates to it's stiller brother comics. Scott McCloud lists off a fair amount of what makes a cartoon in "Understanding comics". This means I will skip over quite a few of the overlapping lessons and the lessons about cartoons, which leaves just the lessons of how sequential art evolved as my topic for this post.
In truth I suppose that cuts down a lot of what I was going to talk about. What commonalities do sequential art forms have in common. Not cartoons. Just sequential art.
Well I could easily start with their differences. Comics rely on choice of moment, while animation show step by step movement and have far less choice of moment. You do see transitions however, so they do overlap slightly. Animation can have many more moments. You have all of the stages of a punch, you don't need to worry about whether or not you show a middle to the punch, it's already there. But transitions do exist for many of the same practical reasons. Meanwhiles, laters, and other announcer type sayings pop up in both of the forms.
Sound. Comics have none, animation has the ability to have it. Instead of writing pow, slick, bang you can actually hear it. Animation doesn't require you to voice the characters, it gives you a voice for them. Animation has a whole other sense for viewers to enjoy.
Story. Ah there it is. A story. Everything requires a story in sequential art. That's why it's sequential, to tell something that one picture could not.
So if anything were to truly be learned by comparing the two. It is the need for a story to accompany the art.
Blog posts 11 Animation as art?
Blog post 11: I can has be qualified as art?
Cartoonists always seem to get a bad rap as Vaudvillans (The words of Rube Goldberg, not mine). That is, people who preceed the main act, and art meant simply for entertainment purposes. Of course we live in a different time now than the 60's, where entertainment has become a form of art, but animation still falls into the category of sub-art.
Or do we? In truth I don't know. Everyone in my circles seems to agree that animation is art, but when does the change happen? When does Cartooning go from "vaudvillian" to "artist". As a community we typically relegate realistic looking things to art. The more real it looks, the more art it is. I don't know if this is really where we, as cartoonists, want to be.
Yes, we are being considered art now. Fine. Good. Yay even.
But do we even want to? If we have to be like "professional artists" to be artists aren't we giving up the best part of cartoons? The fact they are a medium both separate and included in art?
I don't mean to disrespect those that have been established as artists within the community, and those that truly are worthy of both art in the since of classic art and in cartoon art. But I think you are all our strongest advocates. They all know how art is both similar and different than animation, and only they can perhaps prove that we can be art, and that even those that don't fall under the classic ideal of art can be a new form of art.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Blog 10: I have no idea what to write about again
Guess what I'm doing? Writing all of my responses to blogs. Yep. I should have them all done soon. I liked waiting till the last minute so I could comment on all of the best ones.
At least that's what I'll keep telling myself as I write 20 paragraphs of responses.
Watching Legend of Korra now. Maybe I'll talk about that.
I've already talked about the blend of eastern and western animation, and the Avatar series seems to fit in precisely with that. (http://www.nick.com/videos/clip/legend-of-korra-101-full-episode.html) for those who are interested.
Avatar definitely has an eastern feel. The main character is dressed and trained like an eastern monk, and much of the mythology is very similar to eastern themes, even the theme of reincarnation. The fire nation bears many ties to imperial Japan during the Meji period. The story promotes a main character who is contemplative, and the art focuses heavily on a sense of place. Even the art is more eastern based, especially with the eyes.
Legend of Kora strikes me different for many reasons. Although it is a continuation of the series the character shares more in common with American Superheroes as far as ego and will is concerned, and the sense of pacing is a little lost. This is not a bad thing, it is simply a more western thing. Even the art style bears a more western tinge. Cities and statues outweigh natural scenes.
I'm not sure what my animation point is here, maybe that some TV shows are really trying to find out where cultural differences can become similarities.
At least that's what I'll keep telling myself as I write 20 paragraphs of responses.
Watching Legend of Korra now. Maybe I'll talk about that.
I've already talked about the blend of eastern and western animation, and the Avatar series seems to fit in precisely with that. (http://www.nick.com/videos/clip/legend-of-korra-101-full-episode.html) for those who are interested.
Avatar definitely has an eastern feel. The main character is dressed and trained like an eastern monk, and much of the mythology is very similar to eastern themes, even the theme of reincarnation. The fire nation bears many ties to imperial Japan during the Meji period. The story promotes a main character who is contemplative, and the art focuses heavily on a sense of place. Even the art is more eastern based, especially with the eyes.
Legend of Kora strikes me different for many reasons. Although it is a continuation of the series the character shares more in common with American Superheroes as far as ego and will is concerned, and the sense of pacing is a little lost. This is not a bad thing, it is simply a more western thing. Even the art style bears a more western tinge. Cities and statues outweigh natural scenes.
I'm not sure what my animation point is here, maybe that some TV shows are really trying to find out where cultural differences can become similarities.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
THE FINAL IS DUE TODAY!?!?!
DID I MAKE IT! HERE IT IS! I totally forgot it was due. Luckily I had the intro done. I wanted so much more.
Blog 9. Ponies
It’s getting harder and harder to come up with topics for these blog posts. It may be because I’ve been watching less and less car…toons…
WAIT A MINUTE! MY LITTLE PONY IS ON NETFLIX!
*A few hours later*
Whew that was good. Now where was I… Oh… I forgot about my blog post. I better hurry up and write something. Something that has to do with animation and…
Ponies.
That’s right this blog post is about Ponies. Don’t like it? Tough cookies. But how do I make this about something other than appreciation? …
I got it.
Why is guys liking My little Pony such a big deal that they garner the nickname “Bronies”. We do live in a society where gender differences are mocked when one takes on the other, a prime example being the ridicule I received from my girlfriends family when I gave her son a toy kitchen for his birthday. (By the way, the kitchen is the manliest place in the house as it houses knives, fire and food.)
So my argument here is, do classic cartoons promote gender bias and do modern cartoons seek to reverse it?
Let’s take a look at classic cartoons. The first Disney princesses are, for lack of a better term, subservient and totally dependent on men and preyed upon by other women. Classic cartoons paint women at their best as helpless and at their worst as petty vultures. Look at old Disney movies. Look at Popeye the sailor man’s Olive Oil. Look at any female character in looney toons. Cartoons are meant to be caricatures, but there is a fine line between pointing out differences and promoting stereotypical themes as fact.
Now let’s look at modern stuff! My little pony, Foster’s home, Phineas and Ferb. All of these shows feature a host of many gendered characters but instead of relying on gender stereotypes they instead rely on themes. My little pony’s characters are based off of laughter, honesty, loyalty, magic, kindness and generosity, and the only way to tell they are girls is because of their voices and some of their quirks. The stereotypes are hidden behind the themes, not in place of them.
I suppose what spurred this article was the disbelief that I could like a show most people assume is a girl show. It was, back in the day, but now it is more than that and people simply revert to the classics to inform their decisions. And the kitchen thing. My son can have a kitchen and be a man.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Blog 8: Are all of these shades of gray making us blue?
One thing I've noticed lately, especially after last classes look at the movie 9, is that animation changed from fairy tales and pretty distinct sides to plots with a little more shades of gray. You always knew Popeye would be good and Bluto would be bad. You know Mickey mouse will be good. You always knew a witch would be bad. Now look at modern cartoons, which many split the gambit of not having a "good guy" or having a main character who's flaws sometimes make it hard to tell if they are a hero or not.
Part of this comes from our societies falling out with the fairy tale. Reality TV has proven that many people like to watch shows where they can identify aspects of their own lives. This is why spongebob is so popular. There's rarely a quest, it's just simple day to day living. We don't need a hero anymore to enjoy a story. Cartoons have matured with their audiences and we no longer need that black and white morality, we no longer even crave it, we just want people living life. Of course I'm in the latter part here I suppose, as I love a hero more than I love everyday life. It seems rare that a cartoon will give us a hero to aspire to anymore.
Which brings me to my next point. Shades of gray. Lets look at the best example of a gray hero: Invader Zim. He wants to take over earth, but in many episodes you see him show compassion, kindness, and he even saves the earth a few times. He's a moral ambiguity. You never know what he will do. We like that. Just look at the evolution of superheroes. We go from paragons such as Superman in the 1930's to less than perfect people like Spiderman and Wolverine. This also has roots in the first point I made, that people like things relatable in real life. It is rare we can be a paragon of any real world troubles. Life is about give and take, and paragons rarely compromise.
Part of this comes from our societies falling out with the fairy tale. Reality TV has proven that many people like to watch shows where they can identify aspects of their own lives. This is why spongebob is so popular. There's rarely a quest, it's just simple day to day living. We don't need a hero anymore to enjoy a story. Cartoons have matured with their audiences and we no longer need that black and white morality, we no longer even crave it, we just want people living life. Of course I'm in the latter part here I suppose, as I love a hero more than I love everyday life. It seems rare that a cartoon will give us a hero to aspire to anymore.
Which brings me to my next point. Shades of gray. Lets look at the best example of a gray hero: Invader Zim. He wants to take over earth, but in many episodes you see him show compassion, kindness, and he even saves the earth a few times. He's a moral ambiguity. You never know what he will do. We like that. Just look at the evolution of superheroes. We go from paragons such as Superman in the 1930's to less than perfect people like Spiderman and Wolverine. This also has roots in the first point I made, that people like things relatable in real life. It is rare we can be a paragon of any real world troubles. Life is about give and take, and paragons rarely compromise.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Blog 7: Puss in Boots
Over the weekend I saw Puss in Boots with my girlfriend. Seeing as I haven't seen anything else this week it seems like the only real topic I can talk about. In order to stray away from movie appreciation I will delve into what I think the Shrek franchise truly is: a mixture of people we know voicing characters we are already familiar with in fantasy situations with modern day references and problems.
It's a great formula. The most important key to the Shrek series success has been it's accessibility to multiple crowds. Say you know nothing about fairy tales but love the Hollywood elite. Chances are you watched Shrek to hear Eddie Murphy, Mike Myers or Antonio Banderas then. Say you don't know anything about Hollywood but are familiar with a range of Fairy tales. You watched them because you already knew about some of the characters such as the gingerbread man, pinocchio and the three blind mice. Say you are big on popular culture. The godzilla reference in shrek 3 and some of the other references probably brought you back. Then there is the plot. Hidden beneath the fairy tale esque quest you find that most of what they are doing is pretty mundane, every day life things. Shrek faced the problems of raising kids, finding love, and that feeling of dissatisfaction with life.
Puss in boots shares a lot of these themes, but thankfully strays from the every day lifeism that the later shreks became and instead focused on the adventure that brought such attention to the original Shrek.
Puss in Boots does all the things that make a cartoon watchable and likable. A cast of characters, with the lead role being one with a sad backstory and a real personal change throughout the movie. A villian who we grow to know as a person rather than a cardboard cutout of evil.
So why wasn't it as successful as shrek? Under many other circumstances a movie like this would have been a contender for an award. The answer? or Answers as they may be? It lies in three areas. Upon a little digging I found out that Puss in Boots is currently the highest grossing Halloween release movie at 34 mil, topping SAW III's 33 mil. But there was it's problem. Imagine how much more attention it would have received if it had come out on a normal movie weekend. It is not a Halloween movie, so a lot of people who would have seen it instead went to a Halloween movie. Second is it's lack of anyone big. Zach Galafinakis and Antonio Banderas are the two most recognizable names. Not exactly Eddie Muurphy and Mike Myers. Third, and probably the real reason, is exhaustion. The Shrek franchise is not held in such high esteem as it used too because of the horrendous flick that was Shrek 4. If Puss in Boots came out on the heels of Shrek 3 it would have been much more successful.
It's a great formula. The most important key to the Shrek series success has been it's accessibility to multiple crowds. Say you know nothing about fairy tales but love the Hollywood elite. Chances are you watched Shrek to hear Eddie Murphy, Mike Myers or Antonio Banderas then. Say you don't know anything about Hollywood but are familiar with a range of Fairy tales. You watched them because you already knew about some of the characters such as the gingerbread man, pinocchio and the three blind mice. Say you are big on popular culture. The godzilla reference in shrek 3 and some of the other references probably brought you back. Then there is the plot. Hidden beneath the fairy tale esque quest you find that most of what they are doing is pretty mundane, every day life things. Shrek faced the problems of raising kids, finding love, and that feeling of dissatisfaction with life.
Puss in boots shares a lot of these themes, but thankfully strays from the every day lifeism that the later shreks became and instead focused on the adventure that brought such attention to the original Shrek.
Puss in Boots does all the things that make a cartoon watchable and likable. A cast of characters, with the lead role being one with a sad backstory and a real personal change throughout the movie. A villian who we grow to know as a person rather than a cardboard cutout of evil.
So why wasn't it as successful as shrek? Under many other circumstances a movie like this would have been a contender for an award. The answer? or Answers as they may be? It lies in three areas. Upon a little digging I found out that Puss in Boots is currently the highest grossing Halloween release movie at 34 mil, topping SAW III's 33 mil. But there was it's problem. Imagine how much more attention it would have received if it had come out on a normal movie weekend. It is not a Halloween movie, so a lot of people who would have seen it instead went to a Halloween movie. Second is it's lack of anyone big. Zach Galafinakis and Antonio Banderas are the two most recognizable names. Not exactly Eddie Muurphy and Mike Myers. Third, and probably the real reason, is exhaustion. The Shrek franchise is not held in such high esteem as it used too because of the horrendous flick that was Shrek 4. If Puss in Boots came out on the heels of Shrek 3 it would have been much more successful.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Animation Blog number 6... I think
I was talking about the difference between western and eastern cartoons with my middle schoolers the other day at work and realized I had a few of my facts wrong, so now that I have another means of making my distinctions I'll go ahead and do that here.
After watching Popeye and Betty boop, and the dwarves in snow white, I began to notice a trend in Western cartoons. Walt Disney once said that all cartoons are characatures, and that is just what Western cartoons mostly are. Over exaggerated people who can be easily determined even by just a sillouhette of their forms. Cartoons give us characters that are wildly different, and for the most part the story is about them. Western stories are more about (or were I should say, as the line between east and west has quickly gone away since the 90's) the character than the world. Our mode of story is very character driven, not story driven. There is no sense of destiny, we are in control, we have an ego.
Eastern comics are different. Their characters used to vary as wildly as ours did, but now many anime's and mangas have capitalized on a common style and their differences come in eyes, hair and simple changes in body type that are for the most part realistic. You don't see the forearms of popeye or the odd shortness of dexter. Their differences make them easily relatable, if sometimes samey. But besides character design the difference also lies in story. Anime gives you a definite sense of pacing and place. Where you are as important as who you are. Destiny, the story, takes a front seat to what the character thinks.
There are of course, more differences, but I wanted to take this time to point out the key difference I have seen (With a little help from Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" and "Making Comics")
After watching Popeye and Betty boop, and the dwarves in snow white, I began to notice a trend in Western cartoons. Walt Disney once said that all cartoons are characatures, and that is just what Western cartoons mostly are. Over exaggerated people who can be easily determined even by just a sillouhette of their forms. Cartoons give us characters that are wildly different, and for the most part the story is about them. Western stories are more about (or were I should say, as the line between east and west has quickly gone away since the 90's) the character than the world. Our mode of story is very character driven, not story driven. There is no sense of destiny, we are in control, we have an ego.
Eastern comics are different. Their characters used to vary as wildly as ours did, but now many anime's and mangas have capitalized on a common style and their differences come in eyes, hair and simple changes in body type that are for the most part realistic. You don't see the forearms of popeye or the odd shortness of dexter. Their differences make them easily relatable, if sometimes samey. But besides character design the difference also lies in story. Anime gives you a definite sense of pacing and place. Where you are as important as who you are. Destiny, the story, takes a front seat to what the character thinks.
There are of course, more differences, but I wanted to take this time to point out the key difference I have seen (With a little help from Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" and "Making Comics")
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Blog post #5: Why won't they stop moving?
After watching betty boob and popeye last class I could not help but think to myself "Wow, if they don't stop moving for no reason I'm going to shoot myself." At the risk of sounding non politically correct I would just like to say it looked like every character was Michael J Fox. Since then I've been trying to figure out why they kept moving, and I have a few hypothesis on the issue.
1. Going to he beat: That is betty boops excuse and I suppose it fits. At some points it was really distracting and I couldn't really focus because betty couldn't seem to realize that she wasn't constantly in an earthquake. It was especially noticeable in the weird frankenstein esque creature episode.
Popeye was a little better, as they didn't have any beat to go to, but Pop eye could never seem to sit still.
2: Hard to animate stillness: I don't really know, Maybe it's really hard to animate someone sitting still. I've never tried. Superman had some still standing people though.
That's about all I have this week, I just couldn't find a real reasons besides "The beat" why characters seemed to constantly move.
1. Going to he beat: That is betty boops excuse and I suppose it fits. At some points it was really distracting and I couldn't really focus because betty couldn't seem to realize that she wasn't constantly in an earthquake. It was especially noticeable in the weird frankenstein esque creature episode.
Popeye was a little better, as they didn't have any beat to go to, but Pop eye could never seem to sit still.
2: Hard to animate stillness: I don't really know, Maybe it's really hard to animate someone sitting still. I've never tried. Superman had some still standing people though.
That's about all I have this week, I just couldn't find a real reasons besides "The beat" why characters seemed to constantly move.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Rango: Blog Post #4
Best animated picture during the oscars went to none other than Rango, the nickelodeon backed, western comedy. Why was it a success? Why did it win over the variety of other movies, especially when Hugo left with more awards than it did. And would it have passed my critical eye?
Yes.
Yes it would.
Rango's charm comes from three locations: Design, Characters, and References.
Like many successful animated movies the design is unique, and yet a recognizable. Every character can be recognized by their silhouette, and in many cases only bear a slight resemblance to the species they represent. Despite this the coloring and texturing is extremely realistic. It is almost as if they took cartoon characters and put them into the real world.
Characters are another reason why it won. Johnny Depp as Rango is just what a chameleon should be, someone who blends in to their environments, just as an actor does. None of the characters can be confused with the personality of the other.
And now for the part that makes it accessible to adults. The constant western references, especially with Clint Eastwood, adds another level to the movie that only veterans of the western genre will get.
And those three reasons are why Rango won.
Yes.
Yes it would.
Rango's charm comes from three locations: Design, Characters, and References.
Like many successful animated movies the design is unique, and yet a recognizable. Every character can be recognized by their silhouette, and in many cases only bear a slight resemblance to the species they represent. Despite this the coloring and texturing is extremely realistic. It is almost as if they took cartoon characters and put them into the real world.
Characters are another reason why it won. Johnny Depp as Rango is just what a chameleon should be, someone who blends in to their environments, just as an actor does. None of the characters can be confused with the personality of the other.
And now for the part that makes it accessible to adults. The constant western references, especially with Clint Eastwood, adds another level to the movie that only veterans of the western genre will get.
And those three reasons are why Rango won.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Blog post #3: Racisms
In my last History of Animation course (or our last should you be in my class, and I mean... who else would be reading this but ya'll?) I saw something that didn't surprise me, racism in old cartoons. I forget the title of the cartoon, but it was a small white boy and a small black boy and there was a fair amount of racism in how the black child was portrayed, how he talked, and how he was treated. Back then this blatant racism was accepted and commonplace. But to what extent is this racism and to what extent is it caricature? Where is the fine line between racist and simply emphasizing the traits of a person?
As a society we are sensitive to calling out anyone based on their social, racial or cultural characteristics because we don't want to risk a confrontation or conflict. Whether this is too sensitive is not the point of this article, what I would like to point out is how caricature, although sometimes bordering on racism, is still alive and well in todays cartoons and is not necessarily a bad thing.
Todays cartoons do something that has been going on since the smurfs, removing the human element from the characters. Who is to tell if Wilt from forsters home for imaginary friends is black or white (Because he's red) even though sterotypically he shares many common traits with the stereotypes of a black person. Todays society casts a wide net over what is racism, and if you were to turn all of the characters in Foster's home for imaginary friends, my little pony friendship is magic, transformers, chowder and the like into human counterparts you would certainly hear many cries of "racist". But I beg to differ. These characters are not picking out cultural and racial traits in order to draw distinction of which race is better, which is what the definition of racism is, but are instead drawing on them to show the differences in the characters so that they are relatable in their own sense.
In the end I think old cartoons did have a racist element, always putting whites on top of blacks, and while todays cartoons also take from the same cultural, social, and racial pools they do not fall under racism because of clever uses of non human characters as well as no ill will towards any of the ones they create.
As a society we are sensitive to calling out anyone based on their social, racial or cultural characteristics because we don't want to risk a confrontation or conflict. Whether this is too sensitive is not the point of this article, what I would like to point out is how caricature, although sometimes bordering on racism, is still alive and well in todays cartoons and is not necessarily a bad thing.
Todays cartoons do something that has been going on since the smurfs, removing the human element from the characters. Who is to tell if Wilt from forsters home for imaginary friends is black or white (Because he's red) even though sterotypically he shares many common traits with the stereotypes of a black person. Todays society casts a wide net over what is racism, and if you were to turn all of the characters in Foster's home for imaginary friends, my little pony friendship is magic, transformers, chowder and the like into human counterparts you would certainly hear many cries of "racist". But I beg to differ. These characters are not picking out cultural and racial traits in order to draw distinction of which race is better, which is what the definition of racism is, but are instead drawing on them to show the differences in the characters so that they are relatable in their own sense.
In the end I think old cartoons did have a racist element, always putting whites on top of blacks, and while todays cartoons also take from the same cultural, social, and racial pools they do not fall under racism because of clever uses of non human characters as well as no ill will towards any of the ones they create.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Blog post #2 Whatever happened to Robot Jones?
In this blog post I will be discussing some theories I have about why the cartoons on the three major networks (Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney) have been seen to have a steady decline in quality during the past decade.
1. Hey you kids, get off my lawn!
This is probably my weakest argument, but one that I have heard in defending modern cartoons. Cartoons are made for kids, and when I was a kid I liked them and now I don't so it must be my fault for getting old. Gosh how dare I? But there is an important part to this. Fans got old. New cartoonists wanted to make things they found funny and so they made adult cartoons. Family Guy, Robot Chicken, Boondocks, shows that are all better than what I have seen on Nickelodeon lately.
I still argue the point that it's not because I'm old. Phineas and Ferb on Disney, Chowder and Adventure time on Cartoon Network. These shows are great examples of where cartooning has to go to be funny and yet thoughtful. Standing up next to greats like Samurai Jack and Hey Arnold they stand as tall in depth and in surface interest.
2. Money where your art is.
So why have cartoons declined? Why do I not get the same amount of joy out of Flapjack, Magical World of Gumball, Ben 10, the new spongebobs, mighty B, and whatever is a cartoon on Disney now? One answer I propose is that it is movies. Animated movies are where the money is, it is where the millions are. Why would a talented cartoonist or cartoon writer do a cartoon when an animated movie can support them much better? Genndy Tartokovsky is a great example, who stopped doing Samurai Jack so that he may work with Star Wars, which has lead him to even bigger and better things since then, but never back to the small screen.
3. Live Action? Little Satisfaction.
I'm looking at you Disney and Nickelodeon. You have spurned your cartoons in order to make way for "live action shows". Maybe kids like these? I don't know. In my opinion they lack the level of depth that Craig McCracken's cartoons do, like the Beatles themed episode of the Powerpuff girls which works on the level of satire, a story in itself and on parody.
4. Cartoon Cartoons v Nicktoons
Competition makes a good market. During the 90's Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon started to make their own universes where all of their characters interacted and got together. Children had arguments over which network had better Universes. Nickelodeon gave up on that for live action, and the lack of competition has shown.
5. Credits
Well that's it. You read it all. Good job.
1. Hey you kids, get off my lawn!
This is probably my weakest argument, but one that I have heard in defending modern cartoons. Cartoons are made for kids, and when I was a kid I liked them and now I don't so it must be my fault for getting old. Gosh how dare I? But there is an important part to this. Fans got old. New cartoonists wanted to make things they found funny and so they made adult cartoons. Family Guy, Robot Chicken, Boondocks, shows that are all better than what I have seen on Nickelodeon lately.
I still argue the point that it's not because I'm old. Phineas and Ferb on Disney, Chowder and Adventure time on Cartoon Network. These shows are great examples of where cartooning has to go to be funny and yet thoughtful. Standing up next to greats like Samurai Jack and Hey Arnold they stand as tall in depth and in surface interest.
2. Money where your art is.
So why have cartoons declined? Why do I not get the same amount of joy out of Flapjack, Magical World of Gumball, Ben 10, the new spongebobs, mighty B, and whatever is a cartoon on Disney now? One answer I propose is that it is movies. Animated movies are where the money is, it is where the millions are. Why would a talented cartoonist or cartoon writer do a cartoon when an animated movie can support them much better? Genndy Tartokovsky is a great example, who stopped doing Samurai Jack so that he may work with Star Wars, which has lead him to even bigger and better things since then, but never back to the small screen.
3. Live Action? Little Satisfaction.
I'm looking at you Disney and Nickelodeon. You have spurned your cartoons in order to make way for "live action shows". Maybe kids like these? I don't know. In my opinion they lack the level of depth that Craig McCracken's cartoons do, like the Beatles themed episode of the Powerpuff girls which works on the level of satire, a story in itself and on parody.
4. Cartoon Cartoons v Nicktoons
Competition makes a good market. During the 90's Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon started to make their own universes where all of their characters interacted and got together. Children had arguments over which network had better Universes. Nickelodeon gave up on that for live action, and the lack of competition has shown.
5. Credits
Well that's it. You read it all. Good job.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Animation and the Awards show
During my History of Animation class last tuesday I realized a few odd things about the award nominated, animated, shorts we watched. The first oddity that I noticed was that they were both almost silent. I am almost positive there are plenty of talented animators out there who had worthy additions to the field, so I sought to determine why these two shorts "The Lady and The Reaper" and "The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore" between what I have seen in typical animation.
The most obvious difference between these shorts than what I normally see is the dialogue, mainly that there is none. Besides a few "humms" and "grrs" many of the characters make no sound at all. The second thing I noticed within the differences was a similarity. Most, if not all, of the text was in English, with a few spots of French in the flying books. This is especially important to mention in "The Lady and the Reaper" which is a Spanish film.
So why? Why are the "silent" movies so successful where plenty of animations with great voice actors are out there. Accessibility and clarity. Without voices, without the vocal cues and tones the stories are forced to stand on their own accord. This provides a strong clarity of purpose within the story telling that is impossible to hide with the complex world of dialogue. Accessibility to award shows, I mean audiences, is the second reason. Most of the big award shows are here in the US, and unless you want to ruin your chances completely you need to make the show accessible to an american audience.
The most obvious difference between these shorts than what I normally see is the dialogue, mainly that there is none. Besides a few "humms" and "grrs" many of the characters make no sound at all. The second thing I noticed within the differences was a similarity. Most, if not all, of the text was in English, with a few spots of French in the flying books. This is especially important to mention in "The Lady and the Reaper" which is a Spanish film.
So why? Why are the "silent" movies so successful where plenty of animations with great voice actors are out there. Accessibility and clarity. Without voices, without the vocal cues and tones the stories are forced to stand on their own accord. This provides a strong clarity of purpose within the story telling that is impossible to hide with the complex world of dialogue. Accessibility to award shows, I mean audiences, is the second reason. Most of the big award shows are here in the US, and unless you want to ruin your chances completely you need to make the show accessible to an american audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)