DVDizzy Forum

Super Aurora wrote:whatever you're smoking i want some.

haha why? I know Cowboy Bebop is more adult story-wise, but design wise it's still fairly similar to the "typical" anime look. You don't think so?

what links? I didn't provide any links nor did I make any sarcastic remark to you.

Sorry, I meant the post with all the videos. And the remarks you made in that post were pretty sarcastic, and referred back to some of the things I said I didn't like about Japanese animation, which is why I thought those remarks were directed at me.

I don't know what you were angry with me to begin with lol.

I wasn't angry at you, but you seemed pretty angry, calling some of my opinions stupid. But if neither of us were angry then great! We're all good.

SWillie! wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:whatever you're smoking i want some.

haha why? I know Cowboy Bebop is more adult story-wise, but design wise it's still fairly similar to the "typical" anime look. You don't think so?

Beside Vicious(anime bishie look) and mmaaaaayybe Faye.... in some scenes. I don't see it much to any of the others. At least not in the stereotypical anime look. If I have to categorize Cowboy Bebop, i'd put under hyper-realism in sense of "though it anime and sort of fictional look, it can pass in well in the real world." Cowboy Bebop one of those anime that could pass as an American style.

dollover wrote:

what links? I didn't provide any links nor did I make any sarcastic remark to you.

Sorry, I meant the post with all the videos.

I didn't post those. Neal did.

dollover wrote:And the remarks you made in that post were pretty sarcastic, and referred back to some of the things I said I didn't like about Japanese animation, which is why I thought those remarks were directed at me.

Which post? Are you confusing me with one of the other members?

dollover wrote: I wasn't angry at you, but you seemed pretty angry, calling some of my opinions stupid. But if neither of us were angry then great! We're all good.

Oh I'm barely ever angry. lol I just have a very cynical and crude way of addressing things, but i'm really friendly guy. Ask Disneyboy2022 or Disney Duster. They'd tell you same thing since they know me more.

Super Aurora wrote:Beside Vicious(anime bishie look) and mmaaaaayybe Faye.... in some scenes. I don't see it much to any of the others. At least not in the stereotypical anime look. If I have to categorize Cowboy Bebop, i'd put under hyper-realism in sense of "though it anime and sort of fictional look, it can pass in well in the real world." Cowboy Bebop one of those anime that could pass as an American style.

Fair enough, I should have prefaced my post by saying that I know very very little about anime. I just knew that CB is a fairly popular anime in America. Maybe that example shouldn't have been included to make my point - but you get the point I was making anyways.

This conversation is making me want to check out a few of the animes that I've been told to check out and never got around to.

SWillie! wrote: This conversation is making me want to check out a few of the animes that I've been told to check out and never got around to.

Check out Baccano. I guarantee you, you're gonna love it. Just the Opening theme alone it makes you wanna get into it:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Msg8ypnLqaw" frameborder="0"></iframe>

dollover wrote:

what links? I didn't provide any links nor did I make any sarcastic remark to you.

Sorry, I meant the post with all the videos.

I didn't post those. Neal did.

dollover wrote:And the remarks you made in that post were pretty sarcastic, and referred back to some of the things I said I didn't like about Japanese animation, which is why I thought those remarks were directed at me.

Which post? Are you confusing me with one of the other members?

Oh gosh, both you and Neal sounded similarly angry so I didn't pay attention and thought you were the same person. Sorry about that. If any of my responses to you don't make sense, I was probably responding to Neal. His remarks in his post with the videos were sarcastic.

dollover wrote:I just watched every single one of those and they just prove my view that Japanese animation is not as fluid. Which one was supposed to show that it's just as smooth as Disney animation now? I was also only talking about hand drawn animation but if you wanted to make a point about Japanese CGI, you should have posted CGI cut scenes from Final Fantasy games or something because that last one Oblivian Island has vastly inferior CGI to Pixar and Disney.

You keep talking about 'fluidity' but fail to define what you mean by 'fluid' or convince me why Disney is supposedly so 'fluid.'

I find that a lot of people raised on a Disney animation diet with little independent or foreign animation become these drones about how perfect Disney animation is. It is far from perfect.

Disney is the American animation studio. It is one of our oldest media companies and today is one of the largest media companies. Yet, what about their output these days is exciting, innovative, experimental? Nothing. ('Paperman' being a rare exception)

Sure, Disney films are still nice. I loved "Wreck-It Ralph" ... but it's all very formula these days. Once upon a time this company had some real game changers. "Fantasia" and "Bambi" come to mind. What are they creating today that is a game changer? "Tangled," "Winnie the Pooh," "The Princess and the Frog" - they are all nice films, but nothing that set the world on fire.

Every attempt to innovate at Disney is shot down. Glean Keane wanted to make his 'Rapunzel' look like a painting. Chris Sanders wanted his 'American Dog' to be a quirky road comedy. Henry Selick was making a dark, mature stop-motion film with 'Shadow King.' Every attempt at sophistication and originality at Disney is quickly killed and the films that could have been game changers for Disney are molded to the traditional formula.

I'm sorry, but Disney really is not the almighty animation company it once was. I might even call them irrelevant if their films weren't still enjoyable. But is enjoyable enough?

And where is Disney's nationalism? For being such a core American company - why don't they create more features about America and our culture? Almost all of India's output is based upon their legends. French animated films feel very French. Ireland produced "The Secret of Kells." Studio Ghibli recently produced "From Up on Poppy Hill" and "The Wind Rises" - two films set in Japan with distinct Japanese culture permeating the film.

Tell me where that is in Disney films? Even "The Princess and the Frog" was hardly a send-up of New Orleans considering that half the film takes place in the bayou. The majority of Disney films take place in European or fantasy settings.

All I'm saying is that as someone who spends time researching animation and owns just about every book ever written on the animated feature film (an easy task considering there aren't many books on the subject) - and owns nearly 500 animated feature films dating back to 1926 and from dozens of countries, my eyes have been opened significantly.

When someone says "I've seen a lot of European and Japanese animation" I have a hard time believing it. Have you seen any films that weren't released in the U.S.? Have you sought out any animated films that are not dubbed into English, only subtitled - or even not subtitled at all? If all you have seen is what is released here at film festivals and onto DVD by American distribution companies, you have hardly been exposed to the richness of foreign animation. U.S. distribution companies only release the most American styled foreign animation - they don't take risks with anything avant-garde or distinctly cultural. Too many people think they understand French animation because they have seen "The Illusionist" and "Triplets of Belleville" but fail to name a single other French animated feature from the last 10 years. You know, it's like people who say they are current on world news - yet only watch CNN and ABC. I'll believe you are current on world news when you add BBC, Al-Jazeera, China Daily and such to your repertoire. How can anyone claim to understand another culture when their only exposure is what is filtered to them by U.S. media conglomerates? Only marketable films are brought over. I purchase many foreign films that are not Region 1 or NTSC and must use a special DVD/Blu-ray player. I use translators to navigate on non-English retailers and buy films even if there is not an English language subtitle or dub track just to enjoy the art of the film.

Disney films increasingly all look the same to me. Same color palettes, the characters all have the same eyes. For God's sakes, they even updated Christopher Robin to have the 'Disney eyes' rather than stick to the style used in the original Pooh film. Anna in "Frozen" looks nearly identical to Rapunzel in "Tangled."

I am not trying to be a snob. I call myself 'the animation activist' because I simply want to share how varied and amazing animated feature films are. Too many people are drunk on the Disney kool-aid. Disney is bad for animation. I believe Disney's abandonment of hand-drawn is why it died across the whole USA. To this day too many producers still say to directors that their animated film must be more 'Disney' in style. Because Disney is so profitable, it influences other animation studios - often at the cost of originality or uniqueness. I could go further into it but over the years, Disney has crushed many films better than their own from becoming relevant simply because they have more money and better marketing.

As for some of the videos I posted on the previous page. Let's look at "Redline" again:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S3hggcC10Ks" frameborder="0"></iframe>

This film was created over a period of seven years and has over 100,000 hand-drawn frames. Explain to me what about this is not 'fluid'? I ask that earnestly. When you talk about lacking fluidity, I think about animated films that did not have in-betweeners so they key animation flickers and characters move from one position to another jerkily without transitional animation. That's lacking fluidity. A lack of fluidity exists in budget films where they skip frames of animation to save money. I see no such flickers or stutters in the above clip. Plus look at the beautiful use of black. This film uses a distinct pitch black shading technique. I agree with Super Aurora that Disney films lack a lot of really basic art techniques in their styling, and overall have pretty simplistic design that allows for them to spend more time on in-between animation.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QceQqiAHR80" frameborder="0"></iframe>

This film, "The Legend of Sirius" also called "Sea Prince and the Fire Child" could be mistaken for a Disney film. The character design, the soft color palette, the simple love story, the orchestral score - this is a very Disney influenced animation. Again, please explain to me the lack of fluidity that you perceive here?

As for "Oblivion Island" - yes, the Final Fantasy films have much more realistic CGI (I'm not a fan) - but to call this 'vastly' inferior is an overestimation. This is vastly inferior to Pixar:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/np0AmM6MG-4" frameborder="0"></iframe>

... Oblivion Island, for being one of only a few Japanese CGI features, has perfectly pleasant animation. Additionally there is a neat technique used. When Haruka enters the fantasy world, the backgrounds are hand drawn while characters and foreground elements are CGI. I have not seen this technique before. It is very subtle and easy to miss, but I think it meshes amazingly. I cannot recall another CGI film to use hand drawn backgrounds.

Sorry this post is getting so long, but I want to share a few recent films from other countries that I think exemplify how to elevate an animated film to the realm of 'high art.'

The first is "The Tragedy of Man." This film was just completed in 2011 and has been animated since 1988. That's 23 years! And the studio, Pannonia Film (Hungary) funded the director from beginning to end. This film not only tackles a huge story - taking us from the Garden of Eden to a post-apocalyptic earth and a dozen time periods in between, it also utilizes a distinct art style for every time period that is reflective of that time period's culture.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0eSdOPcHum8" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Next, sorry to keep returning to Japan, but this 2008 feature, "Genius Party Beyond" was made at Studio 4° C. The Studio chose five of Japan's top animation directors to make short films. Each short had a budget, but no other limiting criteria. The directors were not given a theme and were not told what to do in any way. Complete creative freedom. The result was an anthology of five short films, each with a unique story and animation style not connected to the rest:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qPYnzVdY2Q0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Or this film from 2007, "De Profundis" - this is a film where yes, I would agree there is not that 'fluidity.' However, the film was made independently by one artist over four years and he even addresses this on his website:

'Traditional animation is made possible by a process of simplification and adjusting to an industry scheme. The key issue is many different artists give up their own styles to draw so that the animation becomes indistinguishable in each successive frame of a movie. The drawing should be as uncomplicated as possible and synthetic, falling to the contours and lines necessary for the correct interpretation of the images. The color of all the moving parts of the image has to be "flat" - without shades or textures - or any other characteristic that will hinder the process of repetition. With this technique were achieved brilliant masterpieces, but the formula sacrifices the artistic values ​​of the images - drawn or painted.'

This film oozes with the 'painterly' style we hoped for in "Tangled."

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vyhakiu4ftE" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Finally, a film that accurately depicts the flair and lifestyle of a country (Cuba), this 2010 film "Chico & Rita":

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t82kD4oEoZU" frameborder="0"></iframe>


... all in all, I think that people need to take off the Disney rose-colored glasses. I like Disney animation - it is fun and they create great characters, but there is also much to be desired. I would love it if Disney would fund a director for 23 years to create an epic like "The Tragedy of Man." Or if they would fund five of their greatest animators to create personal short films, no rules or restrictions like with "Genius Party." Or if they would create a distinctly American film - no fantasy, no talking animals or princesses - just a culturally accurate representation of our country from any time period in the way "Chico & Rita" is representative of 1940s Cuba. Or if they would spend seven years on a hand drawn film, because each frame is so highly detailed/stylized like "Redline."

The director of "De Profundis" hit the nail on the head. Industrialized animated films are masterpieces because they are so consistent with their style, but that consistency sacrifices the artistic integrity of the film. Disney's style leaves much to be desired - hatching, shading, use of different mediums such as oil pastels, charcoal, watercolors. Disney's animation methods have much more in common with McDonald's than they do a five-star, chef owned restaurant. That fact is made even worse considering that Disney is one of the richest companies now (and ever) and could afford to do whatever they wanted - to take risks and be experimental, to re-invent animation and be huge innovators - yet they prefer to keep the money rolling in so they stick to the formula that guarantees profit.

qindarka wrote:

PatrickvD wrote: I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. In case you aren't, please get out of my aura. You could have constructed a simple 'I disagree' instead of resorting to questioning my Disney fandom.

Makes me long for some kind of dislike button.

I'm sorry. Was joking but they do tend t get lost in translation over text.

Oh good. No harm done then.

Neal wrote: As for some of the videos I posted on the previous page. Let's look at "Redline" again:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S3hggcC10Ks" frameborder="0"></iframe>

This film was created over a period of seven years and has over 100,000 hand-drawn frames. Explain to me what about this is not 'fluid'? I ask that earnestly. When you talk about lacking fluidity, I think about animated films that did not have in-betweeners so they key animation flickers and characters move from one position to another jerkily without transitional animation. That's lacking fluidity. A lack of fluidity exists in budget films where they skip frames of animation to save money. I see no such flickers or stutters in the above clip. Plus look at the beautiful use of black. This film uses a distinct pitch black shading technique. I agree with Super Aurora that Disney films lack a lot of really basic art techniques in their styling, and overall have pretty simplistic design that allows for them to spend more time on in-between animation.

REDLINE is fucking awesome. I love that anime.

Huh, I have a question I'm curious about. I was looking at Lilo & Stitch's grosses and its worldwide total was about the same as The Princess and the Frog. I know Frog cost about $20 million more and there were higher expectations for it, but it seems odd for Stitch to be labelled a hit and Frog a disappointment, when they made about the same. There has be some other reason.

Of course, with this, shouldn't the answer be slightly lower budgets and marketing and films aimed at both demographics? I mean, Stitch cost $80 million and looks beautiful. If they make another movie similar to it, they could make a bundle.

estefan wrote:Huh, I have a question I'm curious about. I was looking at Lilo & Stitch's grosses and its worldwide total was about the same as The Princess and the Frog. I know Frog cost about $20 million more and there were higher expectations for it, but it seems odd for Stitch to be labelled a hit and Frog a disappointment, when they made about the same. There has be some other reason.

Of course, with this, shouldn't the answer be slightly lower budgets and marketing and films aimed at both demographics? I mean, Stitch cost $80 million and looks beautiful. If they make another movie similar to it, they could make a bundle.

That's a very good point, estefan.

estefan wrote:Huh, I have a question I'm curious about. I was looking at Lilo & Stitch's grosses and its worldwide total was about the same as The Princess and the Frog. I know Frog cost about $20 million more and there were higher expectations for it, but it seems odd for Stitch to be labelled a hit and Frog a disappointment, when they made about the same. There has be some other reason.

7 years inflation decreasing the value of said dollars (which also mean less people saw it) and the difference in domestic/foreign split. Lilo got more in the US where Disney collects a higher % of sales revenue.

That and the lower budget, as you said.

Found this interview with John Musker, where he adresses what Disney is doing with hand-drawn animation at the moment.

Why is Disney not planning more classical, pen and paper animation?

First of all, Disney is not abandoning classical animation. The decision of what types of animation to employ is based on evaluating each film’s needs. Hand-drawn animation does have a less certain future now because Computer Graphic (CG) animation has come so far and is performing in ways it could not before. For example, there was a time when animators used to say that human characters are better hand drawn, but that is no longer the case.

John Lasseter, the Chief Creative Office at Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios, still believes (according to John) that drawing skills are essential to any type of animation. Skills that John Musker identified as transferrable from classical animation to modern CG animation are: visual development, storyboarding and character design.

John also pointed out that there continue to be more hand drawn animated films produced in Europe than there are now in America. He also said that when he was training in animation there were hardly any feature animated films, and yet he graduated to have a long and successful career in animation. This year, 50% of the top box office hits were animated, so there is definitely a bigger market for animators now, though there is also more competition.

Thanks for sharing. It's too bad that he isn't yet in a position where he can talk more specifically about what he's working on at the moment.

Nice find, estefan.

John Musker wrote:For example, there was a time when animators used to say that human characters are better hand drawn, but that is no longer the case.

I'll have to disagree with Mr. Musker. Character designs almost never translate as well in CG, especially when it comes to human characters.

Sotiris wrote:I'll have to disagree with Mr. Musker. Character designs almost never translate as well in CG, especially when it comes to human characters.

Agreed, although we're certainly getting there. Wreck-it Ralph and Paperman were more appealing than Tangled was more appealing than Bolt was more appealing than Meet the Robinsons, when it comes to character design translation to CG.

Of course, there will still always be personal preference.

First of all, I'm glad Disney is not abandoning traditional animation. That really make me feel better about that. Second of all, I think John Musker just say that because he is now being coward for not doing hand drawn animation. Come on, Disney! Are you Disney or.....what do you think, Dipper Pines?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-XHkkactBY

You keep talking about 'fluidity' but fail to define what you mean by 'fluid' or convince me why Disney is supposedly so 'fluid.'
I find that a lot of people raised on a Disney animation diet with little independent or foreign animation become these drones about how perfect Disney animation is. It is far from perfect.

I never claimed Disney animation was perfect, I only said I did not like the Japanese animation style as much. I find Disney animation much more pleasing to the eye and to watch than Japanese animation. And I define fluidity exactly as you define it. Sorry the Redline clip you posted still looks relatively jerky to me, and even highlights other things that annoy me about Japanese animation, like how often when characters talk, the only part of their face that moves is the mouth while the rest of the face is frozen. I also watched Sea Prince and Fire Child in its entirety when I was little and while I thought it was lovely, the animation still was not as smooth or graceful as Disney's, and I thought so even back then. Or perhaps another way to put it is, I find Disney characters' movements to look more natural and realistic than Japanese animated characters' movements.

Disney is the American animation studio. It is one of our oldest media companies and today is one of the largest media companies. Yet, what about their output these days is exciting, innovative, experimental? Nothing. ('Paperman' being a rare exception)
Sure, Disney films are still nice. I loved "Wreck-It Ralph" ... but it's all very formula these days. Once upon a time this company had some real game changers. "Fantasia" and "Bambi" come to mind. What are they creating today that is a game changer? "Tangled," "Winnie the Pooh," "The Princess and the Frog" - they are all nice films, but nothing that set the world on fire.

Again, I was mostly talking about the animation style between Disney and Japanese animation, but what was game changing about Bambi? I didn't really like Princess and Frog but loved Wreck it Ralph. I'm ok with formula as well as it's well done and entertaining. The majority of films fit into one type of formula or another. Many movies that don't seem to still do once you think about it. And doesn't Paperman show that Disney is in fact experimenting with new forms of animation? Perhaps they haven't shown it in their feature films yet, but that doesn't mean they're stagnant. Hopefully it's true that Ron and John's new feature will indeed have a new look different from anything seen before.

And where is Disney's nationalism? For being such a core American company - why don't they create more features about America and our culture? Almost all of India's output is based upon their legends. French animated films feel very French. Ireland produced "The Secret of Kells." Studio Ghibli recently produced "From Up on Poppy Hill" and "The Wind Rises" - two films set in Japan with distinct Japanese culture permeating the film.
Tell me where that is in Disney films? Even "The Princess and the Frog" was hardly a send-up of New Orleans considering that half the film takes place in the bayou. The majority of Disney films take place in European or fantasy settings.

I personally don't care where a film takes place as long as it fits the story. And they have done quite a few shorts pertaining to American culture- Johnny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, John Henry, etc. I suppose you don't count these because they're shorts. That bayou is still in America, and the film has many things that reference New Orleans culture. Pocahontas also took place in America. On a related note, maybe Japanese animation has many films that include their own culture, but I've seen very few Japanese animated characters who actually look Japanese.

When someone says "I've seen a lot of European and Japanese animation" I have a hard time believing it. Have you seen any films that weren't released in the U.S.? Have you sought out any animated films that are not dubbed into English, only subtitled - or even not subtitled at all? If all you have seen is what is released here at film festivals and onto DVD by American distribution companies, you have hardly been exposed to the richness of foreign animation. U.S. distribution companies only release the most American styled foreign animation - they don't take risks with anything avant-garde or distinctly cultural. Too many people think they understand French animation because they have seen "The Illusionist" and "Triplets of Belleville" but fail to name a single other French animated feature from the last 10 years.

I don't know much about European animation, but never claimed to nor did I ever mention it. I have watched Triplets and thought it was ok. I also thought Secret of Kells was very visually interesting at first until the lack of depth started to bug me. I know the look of the film was based off the look of the actual pictures in the book, and that is a very neat idea, but it was still hard on my eyes.

Disney films increasingly all look the same to me. Same color palettes, the characters all have the same eyes. For God's sakes, they even updated Christopher Robin to have the 'Disney eyes' rather than stick to the style used in the original Pooh film. Anna in "Frozen" looks nearly identical to Rapunzel in "Tangled."

I don't like this either. I wish they varied style like they sometimes used to. Perhaps part of the reason is because when they've tried different styles, it just tends to be not as successful. Pocahontas, Hercules, and Hunchback all varied from the Mermaid/Beauty/Aladdin look and were not viewed as great successes. Same thing when they've tried to do different types of stories, like Atlantis and Treasure Planet. The lesser success of these movies was of course due to more than just their look or type of story but those were the most obvious and superficial differences between the megahits and the hohum grossers. Just like how Frog was just an ok grosser while Tangled was a big hit, and bam, oh it must be because Tangled was CGI and Frog was handdrawn so from now on we'll no longer make handrawn (that and the stupid boy tricking title thing). Well, that seems to be the recent vibe anyways, I hope it's not the case.

This film oozes with the 'painterly' style we hoped for in "Tangled."

I would have loved to see Tangled in it's originally conceived painterly style- but not if it looked like this.

The director of "De Profundis" hit the nail on the head. Industrialized animated films are masterpieces because they are so consistent with their style, but that consistency sacrifices the artistic integrity of the film. Disney's style leaves much to be desired - hatching, shading, use of different mediums such as oil pastels, charcoal, watercolors. Disney's animation methods have much more in common with McDonald's than they do a five-star, chef owned restaurant. That fact is made even worse considering that Disney is one of the richest companies now (and ever) and could afford to do whatever they wanted - to take risks and be experimental, to re-invent animation and be huge innovators - yet they prefer to keep the money rolling in so they stick to the formula that guarantees profit.

Uh, so he called them masterpieces? I'm sure Disney animation artists would love to hear about their hard work and artistry being compared to Mcdonalds. I know you think it's flawed but the McDonalds comparison is really stretching it. The tradeoff for fluidity keeps being mentioned, so I will say this about it: I would rather see simpler designs move with greater fluidity and grace than complicated designs moving more jerkily. That's just my personal preference.

Extremely interesting post, Neal.

Do you mind revealing some of the animation books you own? I own a few myself but they mostly deal with American animation. I'd love to read up on foreign animation.

Well, I guess Hand Drawn animated movie has to be put on hold for awhile. I think they need to find perfectly good story and trying to wait for the right time.