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.
Time For Hugs Banner
Monday, February 27, 2012
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)