tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post115486926233656077..comments2023-12-31T01:23:39.943-05:00Comments on Mayerson on Animation: DefinitionsMark Mayersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00065971589878678848noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-1154972391432536252006-08-07T13:39:00.000-04:002006-08-07T13:39:00.000-04:00I hate to say it, but I still think of Scanner Dar...I hate to say it, but I still think of Scanner Darkly as animation. However, I'm not sure MoCap fits into my definition of animation: Frame by frame manipulation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-1154960098389362732006-08-07T10:14:00.000-04:002006-08-07T10:14:00.000-04:00I think everyone can agree that A Scanner Darkly i...I think everyone can agree that A Scanner Darkly isn't animated, but after that it gets less definitive. How about Snow White...Prince Charming...Cinderella... and a host of other tightly roto-scoped Disney characters up through the most recent films?<BR/>Do these fit the vague definition of animated or do they fall into the same category as Gollum and Monster House.<BR/>Or is it because some people still believe some of the old Disney animators claims that "They were used for reference only...we only looked at them casually and never tightly roto-scoped" that those characters are more sacred then others?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-1154953311303707042006-08-07T08:21:00.000-04:002006-08-07T08:21:00.000-04:00Michael, as I said there are gray areas. For me, ...Michael, as I said there are gray areas. For me, however, when Koko is Dave Fleischer, he's not animated. When Dick Huemer or somebody else is creating the clown, Koko is animated.<BR/><BR/>Koko is just like Monster House, where real animation is combined with things that look animated but aren't. The fact that the design approach attempts to blend the two doesn't change what they are.Mark Mayersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065971589878678848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-1154952590938404042006-08-07T08:09:00.000-04:002006-08-07T08:09:00.000-04:00The one flaw in your definition, I think, is Koko ...The one flaw in your definition, I think, is Koko the Clown. Is it animated? By any definition other than yours it is. But like A Scanner Darkly it's rotoscoped, and it closely hues to the rotoscoped drawings. It loooks like Dave Fleischer in a clown suit, flattened. <BR/>There are moments of distortion that don't exist in real life, but the same is true of A Scanner Darkly expecially those invisible suits they wore. <BR/>To me animation has to do with frame by frame manipulation. Rotoscope involves a frame by frame manipulation; I don't think motion capture does - except by choice (I'm not proficient in the medium so I can't vouch for my words).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-1154951924383490162006-08-07T07:58:00.000-04:002006-08-07T07:58:00.000-04:00I agree that A SCANNER DARKLY is not animated. I w...I agree that A SCANNER DARKLY is not animated. I would describe it as a live action film with extensive modification by special effect.<BR/>An animator creates the performance of a character, whether that character is a stop motion puppet, cgi or hand drawn one. The puppet/character appears to live and move indepedently from any human agency in the finished film. The animated performance is prerecorded and constant and only exists through the medium of projection. Hand puppets and marionettes are not animated--they work in real time, are never the same twice, and are simply a different medium.<BR/><BR/>MONSTER HOUSE is a live action movie with special effects that also contains fully animated segments. One of my students was a lead on the 'house' and he assured me that they used no reference whatever for it; it was entirely keyframed. Good for him.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe Andy Serkis is an animated character. Rotoscope models aren't starred in Disney pictures, and their performances are considerably modified by the animators. I've never used it even when it was made available; the human actors were simply too earthbound.<BR/>LOTR and KING KONG simply used a modified performance of an actor who was top-billed on the film. He was no more animated than Davy Jones in DEAD MAN'S CHEST.<BR/>What this is is a merging of two media--but the basis is still live action.<BR/>The actor and not the animator creates the performance. I'd use that as a determining factor in all cases.Nancyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03559138404570089435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-1154886466810707182006-08-06T13:47:00.000-04:002006-08-06T13:47:00.000-04:00I admit that in some cases there is a gray area an...I admit that in some cases there is a gray area and it may be impossible to define those cases without detailed knowledge of how the performances were created.<BR/><BR/>Looking at the character of Gulliver in the Fleischer version of Gulliver's Travels, it appears that rotoscope dominates the performance.<BR/><BR/>At Disney, things are more murky. Animators like Natwick and Babbitt have stated that they looked at the rotoscope footage as reference, but created the performance themselves. Perhaps they were exaggerating their contributions, but without a side by side comparison of the live action and their animation, it's unfair to draw any conclusions. Is there anybody here who has seen the live action footage who would care to comment?<BR/><BR/>I'm behind the curve on Andy Serkis. I'll be researching Gollum and Kong in the next few months for my Masters thesis. While I'm interested to find out what he and the animation team have to say about their relative contributions, there's always the danger that Hollywood's need for hype will distort the truth for the sake of a good story. I suspect that I'll revisit this once I've looked over the print, DVD and internet material that's available.Mark Mayersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065971589878678848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-1154883428078495622006-08-06T12:57:00.000-04:002006-08-06T12:57:00.000-04:00While I agree that A Scanner Darkley doesn't quali...While I agree that A Scanner Darkley doesn't qualify as animation I'm not so sure about Monster House. <BR/>By your definition of animation I assume that you wouldn't call Gollum or King Kong animated characters? And as voting member of the Acaademy I argued that they couldn't put the actor up who they motion captured up for a Best Actor Award because that would've dilluted the role of all the animators that help to create that role - unless they were willing to have the actor and the charcater lead animator accept the award together. Which I'm sure would never happen.<BR/>Now that were on this very slippery slope what do you consider all the rotoscoping that Disney and others have done over the years?...it seems to fit closer to your definition of Monster House than true animation...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-1154879550638527212006-08-06T11:52:00.000-04:002006-08-06T11:52:00.000-04:00I suppose if you went with the loose definition of...I suppose if you went with the loose definition of 'giving the illusion of movement to drawings, models or inanimate objects' then the element of 'time' is irrelevant. Puppetry is giving the illusion of movement to an inanimate object. The puppeteer animates the puppet. As you've said though, most people wouldn't consider it animation. It's semantics.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05213866618922724603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-1154877034919621942006-08-06T11:10:00.000-04:002006-08-06T11:10:00.000-04:00As the motion of puppets exists in real time, I do...As the motion of puppets exists in real time, I don't think that it qualifies as animation.Mark Mayersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065971589878678848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27501132.post-1154874679550137852006-08-06T10:31:00.000-04:002006-08-06T10:31:00.000-04:00I guess there is also the issue of digital effects...I guess there is also the issue of digital effects. Take the Star Wars films as example and you see that it's as much animation as it is live action...<BR/><BR/>Britannica says that animation is the "Process of giving the illusion of movement to drawings, models, or inanimate objects."<BR/><BR/>Would live action puppets be considered a form of animation?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05213866618922724603noreply@blogger.com