Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the June 26 article: Why I Do What I Do and Kvetch at the Same Time at <a href="News-ID210100.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID210100.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By Jim Wow! Double-Wow! Rhett, you've mentioned this before in various posts, and I'm so glad you developed it here. You are SO right about everything you've said. I recently watched CINDERELLA and THE ARISTOCATS, and it occured to me that they are in many ways very different from the new stuff coming from Disney. I say that as a BIG fan of the new stuff, but the kind of character and situation creativity that sparkles in those older films are not there in new Disney films (except for LILO). I love POCAHONTAS because it's animal antics are all visual . . . but after that, I've come to see how verbal Disney humor has become--Eddie Murphy in MULAN, James Woods in HERCULES, Rosie O'Donnel in TARZAN, and so on. I also say that has one who has written and continues to write. When I write plays, they are very verbal oriented. Screenplays are the same way. Animation is visual and requires a visual approach. Thanks for speaking so clearly on this topic! Let's hope someone with an MBA hears it!
Originally Posted By arstogas Well, I am a screenwriter, working mostly in the live-action domain, who once upon a time was heavily involved in animation and also theater. And Rhett's observations are absolutely, 100 percent correct, perfectly articulated, and balanced in approach. If anything, he's being kind. Most people writing for animation today only get half the picture - they might secretly WANT to create some brilliant bit of visual business that perfectly illustrates character, but most screenwriters come from an appreciation of the written and spoken WORD, and their first impulse is not to build meaning from images, but to communicate and build emotional context from situations developed by words. Thank you for a very articulate analysis of where things broke down, Rhett. I've been griping about this to anyone who would listen for years. I might just copy this and e-mail it to a few people I know who are writing right now in the industry... some quite successfully, who also have something of an arrogant presumption where it comes to animation.
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations Rhett, Thank you for expressing your point of view in such a well thought out and well defended manner. I'm not sure it matters where an animated movie's story comes from as long as a story artist is involved, at some point, in bringing it to the screen. If Disney was to stop using story artist then animated films would be in BIG trouble. Thanks for writing, Lee
Originally Posted By basil fan >but I still say that the charm of >animation is the obvious appearance of >it. It’s a drawing come to life. And >the living drawing is the charm of it. >It always has been, no matter how >elaborate you can make it. Animation >stands alone. Great Scott, he's hit the nail on the head!! I'm not qualified to comment on a lot of this article; I just don't have the savvy. But I disagree with the assessment that Pixar films look like living drawings. I wish they did, but they don't, & therefore lack the essential charm that makes animation great in a way live-action can never achieve. IMO Disney Villains <a href="http://www15.brinkster.com/wtstsgalor/villain/villain.html" target="_blank">http://www15.brinkster.com/wts tsgalor/villain/villain.html</a>
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Perhaps I chose my words poorly, Basil. If you’ll indulge me I’d like to clarify or at least expound a bit on my point. I truly believe that Bill Peet's observation is applicable because Pixar characters look like illustrations brought to life -that is drawings, caricatures or renderings that do not attempt to mirror nature but instead interpret it, reflect it, or reshape it as something fantastical and other than as found in nature. They are "obvious" to my eye as animated characters. This as opposed to the "uber life like" appearance of say Fiona in SHREK or any of the characters in FINAL FANTASY or even the dragon in DRAGON SLAYER or the dinosaurs in DINOSAUR which are all attempts to get us to believe them to be of our world. In fact, for me, this is one of the primary reasons DINOSAUR is such a disappointment. Pixar characters seem to me to be of another world, and a world quite obviously animated. While they are not the literal "moving drawings" as are the obvious source of the reference Bill Peet makes, I believe that the design and the quality of the animation in Pixar's work is analogous with "a living drawing" and thus I feel they are just as charming – using the definition as I interpret it from what Bill Peet said. Yes, a rendering in pencil or pen and ink has a unique charm. I think that charm extends to the animation from Pixar. In that interpretation I didn't intend to discount a master's observation about the medium with which he was most familiar, nor did I seek to fuel a debate over the validity of one method of illustration or animation versus another. I simply meant to underscore the success of characters brought to life as only animation can manage - regardless of the tool used to animate - and I interpreted Mr. Peet's comment to apply accordingly to Pixar’s efforts. AFA
Originally Posted By basil fan It is my opinion that the characters in Dinosaur are far too realistic. Because dinosaurs are so ponderous, the more realistic the dinos the more visually boring the film. Compare them to the vigorous dinosaurs in Fantasia to see what I mean. Donald Duck's Family Tree <a href="http://www15.brinkster.com/wtstsgalor/donald.html" target="_blank">http://www15.brinkster.com/wts tsgalor/donald.html</a>
Originally Posted By u k fan I agree with your point basil fan, but the Dinosaurs in Fantasia could slip me into a coma!!!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>This as opposed to the "uber life like" appearance of say Fiona in SHREK<< I always found her to be vaguely disturbing to look at for some reason. Maybe it's that lifelike, but not lifelike enough look, I dunno.
