Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts Tres

[the.dreamfinder]

When HMF makes the comment that Disney is guilty of "the abandonment of Traditional Animation." because they no longer use the 'traditional' methods and instead use newer tools.

To which I replied "Did people 'abandon' the traditional coachmaking when they switched from wood to steel?"

The quality of a animation product not about the tools used - but the film itself. A guy who has to animate something digitally is still going through all the same analysis and gauging of what looks good or not as the guy who was attempting with pencil and eraser.

To be fair, traditional is just another way to say hand drawn animation.

 

[The Mom]

... because that fits so well in the context of talking about commercial film studios and consumer products. Oh yeah.. totally the same principles and appreciations!

I appreciate well made, hand made products over a comparable mass - produced one. Unfortunately, that personal touch is expensive, so for most everyday products I go for mass-produced. But I value those produced by a master craftsman more.

And I think the disagreement is over whether an animated film is ONLY a commercial consumer product, or is it art? Should filmmakers consider their work a product, or should they consider it art? I think that there is room for both, and both points of view. Sometimes we just want a couple of hours of distraction. But by eliminating a traditional method of production, the chances of it being the rare film that is also a piece of art is reduced. At least in my opinion - I think that the farther away from a finished product an artist may be, the harder it is for him/her to inject his/her own artistic "soul" into it.

Some people are OK with this, and others are not. Looking at it from a strictly commercial standpoint, it makes sense to make things as quickly and inexpensively as possible - especially if it is possible to get an end product that is just as good, or even better, if the technology produces something that is more beautiful in the eye of the beholder.

The same arguments can be made for any "product" that is considered artistic. Is music a commercial product? Of course. But I would still hate to see the older methods eliminated because of new technology - which is happening if you look at the number of symphony orchestras today versus 50 years ago.

 

[RSoxNo1]

do you get the cajun fries? love five guys..little pricey though

I've had both, neither are good IMO. Admittedly I'm picky about fries. They're a little too thick and not crisp enough. Fenway Park used to have awesome cajun fries and they replaced them with some soggy crap.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Well if that guy on Micechat is to be believed. Autopia and innoventions is about to get bulldozed for a major expansion and Jim Hill claims Star Wars land is being announced at D23 to be open by Summer 2015. So I'm starting to feel alot better about the American parks.

They can't just let Universal keep stealing customers away can they?

Jim recorded that show on 6/19, before MiceChat's news.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Make sure to ask for animal style fries. That option isn't on the menu but they'll know what you're talking about.

Explain... immediately.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Great post Mom. There is certainly room for art at a company that makes a BILLION dollars annually on toy cars. Remember Miramax?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Fenway Park used to have awesome cajun fries and they replaced them with some soggy crap.

Aramark strikes again??

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I have come to actually dislike computer animation in the manner that Pixar and now Disney is using. I feel it cheapens the experience and looks artistically worse. I don't hate it because of the way it was made because I still love the animation in movies that were traditionally animated but done so with the help of better computer tools (and i love computers in general being a bit of a tech geek). But I dislike it because I find that it just looks plain bad artistically compared to traditionally hand drawn animation. There are only a couple of rare exceptions to this, such as Gollum's motion capture in LOTR/Hobbit (though that too is likely going to age badly from a visual perspective, it's Andy Serkis' fantastic performance that is so great about that, not the tech itself).

BTW for the record, I felt this way even as a young child. I was born in 1988 and grew up during an era when hand drawn and CGI was sort of shared and there was a fair mix of both. Even back then with the likes of Toy Story (which I saw when it first came out), there was something that felt off and ugly about the visuals of the movie. While technically impressive and new at the time, the animation to me lacks any of the charm and artistic value that movies like Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame and all the others have. Mind you i'm certainly not bashing the movies themselves (Toy Story is a wonderful movie), but I really dislike the animation. And while the tech has improved over time, my opinion of the animation is still unchanged for the most part.

To put it into better perspective, I didn't used to go to many movies in theaters as a young kid, but I believe Lion King was the first one my mom took me to (previously only watched movies on TV or VHS). The animation utterly flabbergasted me, I remember being absolutely amazed and filled with wonder and excitement seeing what they accomplished there. I was about 6 years old at the time if I recall and even then I knew what I was watching was art. I went to see Toy Story a year later (I think my second theater experience at the time). While I adored the movie's story and characters, the visuals did not elicit any sort of excitement. I continued to be floored by the animation in movies like Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Tarzan and others. But CGI continued to not impress me. Before I even attended Lion King or Toy Story, I had also watched Aladdin at an even younger age, which had some small elements of CGI in places. I felt even then that they stood out like a sore thumb against the rest of the movie (the rest of which looked awesome).

I can't express how horribly disappointed I was to hear that Iger had killed off hand drawn animation AGAIN (ironic considering bringing it back was something that got a lot of fans excited for his regime early on after Eisner killed it off the first time). I thank heaven that there's still Studio Ghibli to continue traditional animation (even their worst movies still have stunning art).

My dislike for CGI elements is similar in nature to my dislike for the overuse of simulator type rides that use projected elements as a poor man's replacement crutch instead of actual physical sets and animatronic elements. Projections are ok if used extremely conservatively (like how classic Epcot rides did things), but you cannot replace having tangible show scenes and robotic characters with something that could pass for a mediocre video game (looking at you Toy Story Mania).

 

[flynnibus]

To be fair, traditional is just another way to say hand drawn animation.

Which is a way of trying to dismiss newer methods as something "less" or unforming. Do these modern film guys not animate? Do they not have to deal with the same core principles of what makes animation look natural or fluid? Which is why my original analogy rings too... is something 'less' when we use a newer, more sturdy, material that does everything the old does, but can do even more? People dismiss computer generated images as if they are something less.. as if it comes automatically or takes less artistic effort to create than making the images by hand.

Now certainly there is a talent involved with drawing by hand.. but that drawing talent of an individual isn't what makes or breaks these films... just like Walt being just an average drawer himself did not keep him from creating great stories and characters.

People that get hung up on the tools involved clamoring for 'the old ways' are simply hindering themselves. The art, the creativity, the storytelling - all of these are independent of the means of production.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Explain... immediately.

You've never heard of In-N-Out's "secret" menu?

Animal style fries. Fries with cheese and loaded with their spread and grilled onions. Perfection.

Cheese fries:

Animal style burger (with mustard sauce and grilled onions):

3X3 (three patties and three slices of cheese):

4X4:

100X100 (highest you can go now is just four):

Protein style:

Flying Dutchman (burger with no bun):

Cold Cheese:

Grilled cheese:

Neapolitan shake:

Root beer float:

None of these items are listed on the menu.

 

[choco choco]

Not really - I'm saying that judging a film simply because of the toolset used is asinine. Its a kin to saying Disney jumped the shark by using CAPS and abandoning the previously established ways of ink and paint.

Ok. But Disney just threw away an entire toolset. And it was a unique toolset, they being the only ones around who had it. And it was a trusty toolset, sturdy and reliable. And it was a beloved toolset, with a history of doing great work. And then one day, for no particular reason, this toolset was given the heave-ho.

No reason given, no reason at all! Not "It was outdated" or "The tools no longer could do the job" or "A new set so shiny and pretty came along and I just couldn't resist" but because...well, I guess we'll never know. Why, we cry, why would anybody reduce the kinds of work they can do, lessen the collective skills they can offer, by giving up such a toolset?

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

If ever it was possible to die from high cholesterol just from reading a post on a forum, that one would do it...

 

[flynnibus]

And I think the disagreement is over whether an animated film is ONLY a commercial consumer product, or is it art? Should filmmakers consider their work a product, or should they consider it art? I think that there is room for both, and both points of view

Most consider their work art.. it's not a job for them but a passion. But that said, they know they are creating a commercial product that must be sold if they are to be able to keep making their art. That was my point before about not being based on 'grant of personal wealth'.

Certainly there are scores of artists that would love to work for Disney and just create their magnum opus... and if all of these are purely for the art... how long before the company runs out of money? When producing these commercial films... they know somehow has to pay the bills.

But by eliminating a traditional method of production, the chances of it being the rare film that is also a piece of art is reduced. At least in my opinion - I think that the farther away from a finished product an artist may be, the harder it is for him/her to inject his/her own artistic "soul" into it.

but I think this line of thinking is predicated on that this new method of production somehow reduces or is inferior. When a lighting director got new studio lights that were more predictable, more reliable, and put off less heat... was the art reduced? Or when a director got new cameras that were small enough they didn't require a mobile cart to support... was the art reduced?

This is like saying this piece of wood furniture is less artsy because the guy used a power drill to make the holes instead of a true hand-cranked drill. My point is.. you can have improvements in technology, and even replace entire skills/needs, without reducing the art.

In all of these cases, the new 'method of production' made the old methods undesirable.. from time, cost, burden, etc. They were accepted as IMPROVEMENTS. But here, there is this predisposition that these new 'methods of production' are a reduction in art.. so if you don't embrace them, something is lost.

The same arguments can be made for any "product" that is considered artistic. Is music a commercial product? Of course. But I would still hate to see the older methods eliminated because of new technology - which is happening if you look at the number of symphony orchestras today versus 50 years ago.

Remember when big projection systems actually used three color tubes? It truly was an ART to have a technician that could adjust the tubes so that multiple sets actually looked the same (hence the adage.. NTSC really meant 'Never The Same Color'). Once we went to designs that allowed one light source for all three colors... the art it took to the same matching effect was no longer needed. Those skilled in the art have been lost to age.. and the skill hasn't been passed on. While we all appreciate the effort it took in the past to get the same effect... no one morns the loss of having deal with it.

Some 'arts' and skillsets are retired.. and rightfully so.

 

[RSoxNo1]

You've never heard of In-N-Out's "secret" menu?

Animal style fries. Fries with cheese and loaded with their spread and grilled onions. Perfection.

Is this at In and out or Five guys?

At this point though, If it's 5 guys, the fries themselves would still be lousy they're just loaded with other stuff so you don't notice. It's like a baked potato, nobody likes the potato part, they like all the crap you put on the potato.

I believe we are now 165 conversations removed from the point of this thread.

 

[flynnibus]

Ok. But Disney just threw away an entire toolset. And it was a unique toolset, they being the only ones around who had it. And it was a trusty toolset, sturdy and reliable. And it was a beloved toolset, with a history of doing great work. And then one day, for no particular reason, this toolset was given the heave-ho.

Imagine yourself as the TV Antenna installer. You had a unique toolset and skillset, you were the only guy in town with it, it was a trustly toolset, your skills were reliable and your work loved and appreciated. And then one day, the technology shifted, your customers gave you the heave-ho, and no one called you for jobs.

Should everyone keep installing TV Antennas just because that's how it was done in the past?

No reason given, no reason at all! Not "It was outdated" or "The tools no longer could do the job" or "A new set so shiny and pretty came along and I just couldn't resist" but because...well, I guess we'll never know. Why, we cry, why would anybody reduce the kinds of work they can do, lessen the collective skills they can offer, by giving up such a toolset?

Wow.. nice way to conveniently overlook all the negatives associated with trying to produce a full length animated film by hand.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Is this at In and out or Five guys?

At this point though, If it's 5 guys, the fries themselves would still be lousy they're just loaded with other stuff so you don't notice. It's like a baked potato, nobody likes the potato part, they like all the crap you put on the potato.

I believe we are now 165 conversations removed from the point of this thread.

In-N-Out. All of those pictures I posted are from In-N-Out.

I don't like Five Guys' fries.

 

[WDWFigment]

In-N-Out. All of those pictures I posted are from In-N-Out.

I don't like Five Guys' fries.

Missed photographing a stellar sunset in San Fran earlier this year because I stopped for In-N-Out. It was worth it. Risked missing a flight in San Jose for some In-N-Out. It would've been worth it.

Animal Style is glorious. Part of me thinks it would even make their shakes better.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Missed photographing a stellar sunset in San Fran earlier this year because I stopped for In-N-Out. It was worth it. Risked missing a flight in San Jose for some In-N-Out. It would've been worth it.

Animal Style is glorious. Part of me thinks it would even make their shakes better.

I lived away from home for a few months in 2011 and hadn't had In-N-Out during the time. When I got back home, I had In-N-Out fives time in one week.

Animal style is really the way to go... Never thought about the shakes. Might have to try that next time.

 

[nytimez]

Shhhh... too many people know about the secret menu already...

 

[doctornick]

Jim recorded that show on 6/19, before MiceChat's news.

So, you are saying that Jim Hill's info about Star Wars info being announced at D23 is probably outdated, no?