[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
animation vs. the real thing
I don't have a whole lot to say on this, but...
> > Well, I think it (animation) is superior because
it involves
> creating something from
> > nothing.
Does that really make it superior? It certainly
doesn't make it more difficult.
There are sooooo many elements in a live action film
that don't come in to play at all in animation. Fer
instance cinematography. If you're doing animation
and you want a certain look with shadows and whatnot,
by doggies you just draw it in or use your computer.
If you're Roger Deacons, you have to work with natural
and artificial lighting and other elements that may or
may not be easily controlled.
Theres also the acting. Yep. It's such a little
thing, but a couple of films are still using it these
days. :)
Sure, you can talk about Robin Williams in 'Aladdin'
or Jodi Benson in 'The Little Mermaid' or Mike Myers
in 'Shrek' and I suppose they did okay, but only a
live action film can give us Timothy Hutton in
'Ordinary People' or Alfre Woodard in 'Crosscreek' or
Geraldine Page in 'The Trip to Bountiful'.
Y'wanna make a cartoon character look nervous or
happy, you do it with body motions or facial
expressions. If a real actor uses those it's called
indicating and that's bad. It means that their
character is just played on a surface level. In
'Ordinary People' there's a scene in which the Jarrett
Family is having dinner. It reeks of tension and
interpersonal conflict. Conrad's fidgeting is just an
outpouring of what's going on internally. Can't get
that with a cartoon.
Jessica Rabbit: "I'm not really bad. I'm just drawn
that way."
Nuff said.
Kelvin
=====
What if the hokey-pokey really IS what it's all about?!?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
http://greetings.yahoo.com/
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups:
References: