DVDizzy Forum

Hi, I'm sort of mixed up.
When I was young I used to consider Disney animation excellent because it always looked 'smooth' and 'fluid' unlike TV cartoons. In Disney animation there are a lot of frames per second, and the animators painstakingly animate (more or less) 24 frames per second.

But apparently 'smoothness' does not equal good animation. For example, Hayao Miyazaki's 'Spirited Away' has a very low frame rate. The movement of the characters is as good as ever BUT the animation is not fluid. (Think of Tarzan in particular). Yet it is still considered superbly animated.

In fact it has such little frames that you can see them separately. Animation is supposed to involve the illusion of motion where when the eye is presented with slightly different images, one after the other, at a fast ENOUGH speed, the last image will merge into the next image making it look smooth and showing movement.

In Spirited Away, the frame rate is too slow to allow the eye to 'merge' the frames, making the animation look sort of 'jerky'. I do not understand.

I don't have an exact answer, and I guess you shouldn't really expect one.

I'll follow up with this question:

What is good art?

Good animation does not depend on movement alone. It also depends on how well it is drawn, and if the actions are believable or not. Miyazaki's and other Japanese animation tend to have less frames and look more jerky than American animation, but their drawings also tend to be more detailed. Even in their television animation the Japanese draw more shadow in their animation and more intricate anatomy(especially in people's ear lobes). This may be why they have less frames, because they draw so much detail.

Personally, I like Disney animation the best because their characters move very smooth, while they are also drawn well, if not as detailed as Japanese characters. The characters in older Disney films are both drawn and animated very realistically, especially the princess characters like Snow White and Cinderella, and the dear in Bambi. That's what I like best. But Miyazaki's animation is good, as is Disney's. It's really all in opinion. Sometimes something is so bad, everyone thinks it isn't good animation, but because their are different styles it's hard to determine exactly what should be called good.

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:I don't have an exact answer, and I guess you shouldn't really expect one.

I'll follow up with this question:

What is good art?

Exactly. First rule of animation is emotion. How things are drawn, anatomy, weight, "squash and stretch" are all secondary to the first rule.

Good animation conveys emotion, just like any other art.

Let's put it this way, when you watch it, do you feel that you're engrossed in it, or do you feel that "you're only watching a cartoon?"

How does the scene of Simba's father dying compare to an average episode of Ed, Edd, and Eddy? (I know it's conveying comedy, but comparitively speaking it's clearly on a different level.)

I really don't have an answer, but I will tell you my judgements on the best/worst of animation.

Best I have seen so far:
Tarzan

Absolute WORST I have seen:
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (Square fingers....come on now)

Good vs. Bad Animation all comes down to personal opinion. So all you have to do is ask yourself if you like it or not.

numba1lostboy wrote:Absolute WORST I have seen:
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (Square fingers....come on now)

That's the art direction they chose to take. The animation itself (movement, believability etc...) are still top-notch, just like in any other Disney animated feature.
Personally I really don't enjoy Miyazak's work at all. While the backgrounds are simply stunning to view, the character animation itself is choppy, and for that really makes it unbelievable. I could care less how detailed they are. I was deeply disappointed when I saw Spirited Away. It seemed, to me anyway, that the only thing they were focusing on was detail, and they failed to look at the overall picture. I even have this clear image in my head of the main character running from something dnagerous with her hands in the air doing nothing, and with a facial expression that makes slapstick look serious.

numba1lostboy wrote:I really don't have an answer, but I will tell you my judgements on the best/worst of animation.

Best I have seen so far:
Tarzan

Absolute WORST I have seen:
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (Square fingers....come on now)

number1lostboy, you are a big fan of Peter Pan are you not? Well, I don't know about you, but I've never seen anybody with a chin like Captain Hook's in real-life.

The thing about animation is it lets people do things that can't be done in real-life. From talking gorillas in Tarzan, to oversized chins in Peter Pan to Square Fingers in Atlantis.

Animators have complete control of the frame - from the colours to the backgrounds to the overall stylistic design choices. Atlantis' designs were somewhat stylistic - more so than the Prince in Snow White, but not stylised as the animals in Home on the Range.

And generally speaking, the more the designs vary from real-life, the better the animation is when they appear to move naturally.

The animation in Atlantis in impressive - especially the action sequences which contain a lot of fast action and poses and movement you don't normally see.

As for what makes good animation, who knows? You could have wonderful 24fps animation of an old man snoring in an arm chair, where each frame is incredibily realistic, detailed and full of light and shadows and subtle movement, but would it be any better than the animation in Disney's Hercules, full of the most unrealistic characters and has an almost complete absense of light and shadow? (Incidently, I think Hercules has some of the best animation ever, because it fools the brain into accepting the stylised designs, even though a lot of the movement 'breaks' rules)

It the PowerPuff Girls a triumph of simplistic design, echoing some of Picasso's work, or is it just an excuse for quick cheap animation? Don't forget a short call "The Dot and the Line" won an Oscar® and that was just, well, a dot and a line being animated.

Everyone has different views on what makes good animation. Personally, when I judge animation, I put less emphasis on the technicalities, and put more on the artistic merit. So for me, although I know the PowerPuff Girls' design is rooted in saving time and money, I think they have good animation, because the environment they exist in is designed to compliment their simplistic stylised apperance. Nothing looks out of place, everything looks like it "belongs".

numba1lostboy wrote:I really don't have an answer, but I will tell you my judgements on the best/worst of animation.

Best I have seen so far:
Tarzan

Absolute WORST I have seen:
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (Square fingers....come on now)

This is difficult. But I find it hard to see why "picture realism" should be THE criterion for "good animation" (although it could be one). If fingers are "square", that's not because of a "bad animation job" - it's definitely a choice of style - like the "badly drawn" crocodiles in the original version of The Lion King.

It's TRUE about Miyazaki drawings beings very detailed. When I saw Princess Mononoke (on a region 2 disc with not one measly bonus feature) which was under the Miramax banner and not Disney (That's strange!) I could almost see every wrinkle on the characters' faces.

Princess Mononoke also seemed to have a higher frame rate than Spirited Away.

Although I really like Mulan, I think it has some of the least detailed animation I've seen in a Disney film. (Not that I mind, I like different looks in different animated films) In that the borders are rather thick and if you look at the hands, they're just, well...they're just five fingers without fingernails, creases in the skin, cuts, hairs...all the stuff you'd see on a hand drawn by Miyazaki.

But I don't mind! Actually I like it like that! And the movie is a joy to watch.

By the way, what is it that a lot of people think that Pocahontas was the first of a lot of disappointments from the studio. I don't think any of the movies after Pocahontas were 'disappointments'. (And I think Hunchback of Notre Dame is great, as opposed to all the negative reviews and peoples' opinions out there)

juliancarter wrote:By the way, what is it that a lot of people think that Pocahontas was the first of a lot of disappointments from the studio. I don't think any of the movies after Pocahontas were 'disappointments'. (And I think Hunchback of Notre Dame is great, as opposed to all the negative reviews and peoples' opinions out there)

Essentially it wasn't as financially and critically successful as hoped (aka as much as what Aladdin and The Lion King made), though it is true that it still did very well at the box office.

I am just voicing my opinion. For me, good animation is how real it looks to me and how well it's done. The Powerpuff Girls are just annoying. That's why shows like Aqua Teen Hunger Force and The Proud Family are shows that I cannot watch.

Like everyone has said already...good animation comes down to opinions.

juliancarter wrote:It's TRUE about Miyazaki drawings beings very detailed. When I saw Princess Mononoke (on a region 2 disc with not one measly bonus feature) which was under the Miramax banner and not Disney (That's strange!) I could almost see every wrinkle on the characters' faces.

Princess Mononoke also seemed to have a higher frame rate than Spirited Away.

Although I really like Mulan, I think it has some of the least detailed animation I've seen in a Disney film. (Not that I mind, I like different looks in different animated films) In that the borders are rather thick and if you look at the hands, they're just, well...they're just five fingers without fingernails, creases in the skin, cuts, hairs...all the stuff you'd see on a hand drawn by Miyazaki.

Re: Princess Mononoke. From what I understand, higher frame rates were used for the action scenes, while other scenes were shot "on the twos" (12 different frames per second) or "on the threes" (8 different frames per second). There were also some scenes in which CGI was incorporated into the hand-drawn animation: in particular, the scenes of the Night Walker and the decay of the forest.

Detailing every frame with such intricacy as Miyazaki insists upon, it's not really surprising that the few sequences of full 24 FPS would be budgeted for action scenes where motion is emphasized over overall detail.

That's why I'm not such a big Anime fan... it doesn't really give 'the illusion of life'. I want my animation to be all over the place.. like The Incredibles... that's fun to watch.

.-

PatrickvD wrote:That's why I'm not such a big Anime fan... it doesn't really give 'the illusion of life'. I want my animation to be all over the place.. like The Incredibles... that's fun to watch.

Animation was, has, and never will supposed to be about "the illusion of life." If that's the case, why not just make something live-action? Animation is about emotion, much like expressionism in painting. Animation is art. As long as the work showcases intelligent design and beautiful artwork, it gets my approval.

Prince Eric wrote:Animation was, has, and never will supposed to be about "the illusion of life." If that's the case, why not just make something live-action? Animation is about emotion, much like expressionism in painting. Animation is art. As long as the work showcases intelligent design and beautiful artwork, it gets my approval.

I know that at least some people are a bit creeped out by animation (especially 3-D CGI) that simulates life TOO well, i.e. the sort used in movies such as Final Fantasy, Polar Express, etc. The Incredibles is enjoyable, in part, because although the motions are very smooth and simulate what live action might look like, the characters are highly stylized so that it's clear that we're still watching an animated film as opposed to live action.

CGI, in the hands of the most capable artists, can allow impossible worlds to be brought to life, such as Monstropolis or an ocean of talking, playing fish. In these cases the "illusion of life" that's being achieved is that of a completely fictional world being rendered to look almost as if it were shot from life. Really, this is essentially the same thing that is done in chroma-key intensive movies such as Lord of the Rings or Sky Captain where fictional worlds and characters are "built" from the ground up by computers. This still doesn't negate the role of traditional animation whatsoever, any more than photography makes painting obsolete. Would that certain movie studio executives realize this...

Karushifa wrote: I know that at least some people are a bit creeped out by animation (especially 3-D CGI) that simulates life TOO well, i.e. the sort used in movies such as Final Fantasy, Polar Express, etc. The Incredibles is enjoyable, in part, because although the motions are very smooth and simulate what live action might look like, the characters are highly stylized so that it's clear that we're still watching an animated film as opposed to live action....

I wholeheartedly agree. Karushifa, you mentioned 'The Polar Express'. I have not seen it, but have seen some trailers and it looks ultra realistic.

That's what puts me off in CGI. I don't want the animation to be ultra-realistic. It's not necessary. The emotion it conveys is far more important.

You liked The Incredibles, and I agree. I does have cartoonish movement which makes up for the utter crisp look of CGI.

Although Chicken Little may have a few shortcomings, I think it's the only CGI movie I've ever seen which seems to suggest 2D animation in 3D animation. I know Pixar's animation is a bit more refined, but I was very impressed with the visual style of Chicken Little. It's unlike anything I've ever seen in a CGI cartoon, and I think the movie, which has been plagued by critics, deserves at least that compliment.

What is considered good animation? Well, my favorite piece of animation ever made is the Fleischer's Snow White with Betty Boop. In reality the animation is quite poor considering:

1) Betty's animation changed every single cartoon.
2) The key scene with Cab Calloway is rotoscope
3) It is black 'n white

However, because it so surreal with Cab Calloway ghost/bottle of booze, I love the cartoon.

Prince Eric wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:That's why I'm not such a big Anime fan... it doesn't really give 'the illusion of life'. I want my animation to be all over the place.. like The Incredibles... that's fun to watch.

Animation was, has, and never will supposed to be about "the illusion of life." If that's the case, why not just make something live-action? Animation is about emotion, much like expressionism in painting. Animation is art. As long as the work showcases intelligent design and beautiful artwork, it gets my approval.

I know what animation is, I study it, as well as illustration. Doesn't mean we all look at animation in the same way.

I never said animation isn't about emotion and expressionism. When I said animation is supposed to represent the illusion of life for me I mean everything that 'life' includes. all kinds of emotions and forms of beauty. The motion in American animation and some European animation to me brings to life more emotion. Anime (not ALL anime, like not ALL american stuff) does not really succeed for me.

Again, I do love some anime. Spirited Away definitely brought across a whole lot of emotion for me. Great film. But again, my personal opinion is for animation to be all over the place. I just love stuff like The Incredibles, The Genie in Aladdin, Hercules or Tarzan.