DVDizzy Forum

I just read a little more about the latest, and probably last, movie from Hayao Miyazaki; How Do You Live?, based on a novel of the same name:

"It follows a 15 year old boy named Junichi Honda, nicknamed Koperu, and his uncle as the youth deals with spiritual growth, poverty, and the overall experience as human beings."

Couldn't that just as well have been done as live action? Just like Grave of the Fireflies, which exist as both live action and animation.

I assume animation gives some opportunities regarding style, atmosphere and camera angles and so on, that is difficult or hard to do in live action. But the story would more or less be the same.

There are no rules that says what animation is supposed to be about, but in general they are about things that wouldn't be possible in the real world. Which is one of the reasons like like them. In certain genres and movies, like Fast & Furious, I think I would prefer live action. And animated features dealing with drama are movies I probably wouldn't even have watched as live action, and far less as animation. Or the other way around; I prefer the original animated versions over the live action remakes of Disney's classics.

The main difference between an animated and live action movie is that the budget will probably be more or less the same for a hand-drawn no matter what genre you're doing (in CGI-movies new software and such can increase the costs), while the budget in a live action will increase the more effects and spectacular action scenes you have. So if you are going to do something animated, one could use the chance to do something that woulnd't be possible if you were doing live action.

It's not meant as criticism, I just find the choice a bit strange.

I just read an article on Miyazaki's new film (https://movieweb.com/amp/how-do-you-liv ... ki-update/) and it mentions a spiritual change in his mental makeup; that made me think of Inside Out in a way; maybe they'll animate what's going on inside the boy's brain? Even if not, animation is a style choice, like black + white vs color, or photograph vs painting...

Now, when you said some movies can be live action instead of animated, are you taking no animation at all, no CGI/VFX?

Out of the DAC, using prosthetics and maybe trained animals, and practical effects for magic, Snow White, Pinocchio, some package film shorts, Cinderella, Alice, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty (with a real prop dragon), The Black Cauldron, TLM, Aladdin, Pocahontas, THOND, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Atlantis (I need to get ready for work, but you get the idea!) could be made in live action w/o CGI, but since animation is my favorite to watch, I think it adds magic and amazement for me and is beautiful, I'm glad these are animated.

With Robin Hood or Oliver + Co., for example, we didn't need an animated movie with animals, but I love that they have animals...it's an artistic choice. And some stories have animals based on the source material, but The Rescuers or The Great Mouse detective, for example, could be told with people...

On paper, "The Wind Rises" would seem suited to live-action, especially since it was based on a real person. However, Miyazaki used the animation to really heighten the main character's love of airplanes.

I think animation is just as capable as live-action in telling realistic and down-to-earth stories. One of my favourite animated films is Sylvain Chomet's "The Illusionist", which was based on a unproduced screenplay by French director Jacques Tati. Chomet could have done it in live-action, but I think the animation adds a beauty to the film.

blackcauldron85 wrote:Now, when you said some movies can be live action instead of animated, are you taking no animation at all, no CGI/VFX?

Out of the DAC, using prosthetics and maybe trained animals, and practical effects for magic, Snow White, Pinocchio, some package film shorts, Cinderella, Alice, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty (with a real prop dragon), The Black Cauldron, TLM, Aladdin, Pocahontas, THOND, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Atlantis (I need to get ready for work, but you get the idea!) could be made in live action w/o CGI, but since animation is my favorite to watch, I think it adds magic and amazement for me and is beautiful, I'm glad these are animated.

With Robin Hood or Oliver + Co., for example, we didn't need an animated movie with animals, but I love that they have animals...it's an artistic choice. And some stories have animals based on the source material, but The Rescuers or The Great Mouse detective, for example, could be told with people...

They are putting a lot of time and effort into it. But I'm not sure if they are going to use some Inside Out concept.

Of course there can be special effects and CGI, but the more there is, the more expensive it becomes. When you just have simple drama, like Kramer vs. Kramer, I can imagine it is much faster and easier to just use live action.

When I watch animation, I usually expect something out of the ordinary, so for me personally I would have been disappointed if I was only exposed to everyday scenes.

With Robin Hood or Oliver + Co., for example, we didn't need an animated movie with animals, but I love that they have animals...it's an artistic choice. And some stories have animals based on the source material, but The Rescuers or The Great Mouse detective, for example, could be told with people...

A couple of the movies have anthropomorphic animals, while they are actual animals in the others. The stories could have been told with humans, but it wouldn't have been the same movie. The kid inside me would have preferred animation. Excluding the new photorealistic type of animation that we saw in the Lion King remake.

estefan wrote:On paper, "The Wind Rises" would seem suited to live-action, especially since it was based on a real person. However, Miyazaki used the animation to really heighten the main character's love of airplanes.

I think animation is just as capable as live-action in telling realistic and down-to-earth stories. One of my favourite animated films is Sylvain Chomet's "The Illusionist", which was based on a unproduced screenplay by French director Jacques Tati. Chomet could have done it in live-action, but I think the animation adds a beauty to the film.

The Wind Rises would have been very expensive to make as live action. It would have been easier to make it the way they made The Mandalorian if you didn't do it was animation.

It's not that animation can't do the same as live action, the question is why some chose to use animation when live action could work just as well.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:It's not that animation can't do the same as live action, the question is why some chose to use animation when live action could work just as well.

The thing it's not "just as well". Animation is better. In all seriousness, it's really a matter of aesthetics. With animation you get a different feel and look than live-action. It depends on what the filmmakers' vision is and what they want to accomplish. Any type of story regardless of genre or tone can be told in animation. Animation is a highly adaptable and versatile medium and you can do anything you set your mind to.

There's also the issue of budgeting and technical difficulties. For example, if you want to make a war movie it's easier and cheaper to make it in animation than spend all that money and effort into finding locations, getting a hold of weapons, making costumes and dealing with all the bureaucracy surrounding that.

I know the reason we never got Aida as a Disney animated film is because John Lasseter felt it was too live-action for his taste and not suited for animation. Otherwise Aida would have been the first (and most likely only) black Disney Princess since Lasseter only turned to The Princess and the Frog to fulfill that need as well as his own desire to make a film in New Orleans. A pity because I adore Aida and we could have gotten two African princesses with Aida and Amneris both.

Sotiris wrote:There's also the issue of budgeting and technical difficulties. For example, if you want to make a war movie it's easier and cheaper to make it in animation than spend all that money and effort into finding locations, getting a hold of weapons, making costumes and dealing with all the bureaucracy surrounding that.

I pointed out something similar in my previous point. And sometimes even better; if Howard the Duck had been made as animation, as it was originally intended to, instead of live action, it would probably have done it better at the box office. But if you are going to spend many years on a movie which wouldn't have been slower or more expensive as live action, and it's just some ordinary social realism, it is in my eyes a lost opportunity when you imagine what the budget, time and talent could have made instead that would have been difficult or perhaps even impossible to do as live action.

JeanGreyForever wrote:I know the reason we never got Aida as a Disney animated film is because John Lasseter felt it was too live-action for his taste and not suited for animation. Otherwise Aida would have been the first (and most likely only) black Disney Princess since Lasseter only turned to The Princess and the Frog to fulfill that need as well as his own desire to make a film in New Orleans. A pity because I adore Aida and we could have gotten two African princesses with Aida and Amneris both.

I have never seen Aida, so I can't say anything about it. But as you are aware, Disney have two such movies; Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Which is perhaps they decided to add elements like animal sidekicks and the ancestor trees, or the gargoyles in The Hunchback (the and goat sidekick).

I sometimes cringe at certain shots or moments throughout old animated films that feel like they might as well be live-action, they're so boring. A lot of The Hunchback of Notre Dame feels that way, particularly the opening shot. 3D animation in general inspires this reaction from me, except when the characters are very stylized like in something like The Incredibles.