<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on Wall-E</title>
	<link>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542</link>
	<description>A site to feature the art, animation, work and some of the thoughts of the  artists working at Michael Sporn Animation.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Ricardo Cantoral</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-59330</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:32:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-59330</guid>
					<description>As for CGI in general, it has a long way to go. The only thing that has improved was how much detail you can make in an enviroment of character, neither seems organic. I find it to be more like animatronic puppetry done on computers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As for CGI in general, it has a long way to go. The only thing that has improved was how much detail you can make in an enviroment of character, neither seems organic. I find it to be more like animatronic puppetry done on computers.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Ricardo Cantoral</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-59322</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-59322</guid>
					<description>I agree with Thad on this one. Pixar's only innovations have been in technical aspects. I think the closest thing Pixar has done with developing more complex characters was THE INCREDIBLES, the main villian having fairly dark and vengeful motivations and the protagonist character struggling to conform to society. Maybe it wasn't a phenomenal character piece but it was some glimmer of hope of better things to come. Unfortunetly after that film, Pixar has fallen into cliches and WALL-E is how low they have gotten. They have the talent, they just need to apply themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Thad on this one. Pixar&#8217;s only innovations have been in technical aspects. I think the closest thing Pixar has done with developing more complex characters was THE INCREDIBLES, the main villian having fairly dark and vengeful motivations and the protagonist character struggling to conform to society. Maybe it wasn&#8217;t a phenomenal character piece but it was some glimmer of hope of better things to come. Unfortunetly after that film, Pixar has fallen into cliches and WALL-E is how low they have gotten. They have the talent, they just need to apply themselves.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Daryl</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-59237</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:09:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-59237</guid>
					<description>It's not only the acting but, also the stories that either are not analyzed completed or rejected outright at the beginning as derivative.

I get bored when I realize that I've seen this before either in a Star Wars flick or something like  Spiderman. The Incredibles comes to mind as one Pixar film that does this.

With a team of highly talented minds, such as those at Pixar, shouldn't we be seeing not only technical advancement but, also stories that expand the medium?

Animation whether drawn or computer generated is a fantastic medium for the imagination of the artist. I don't see any limitations! Yet, most of what reaches my local theater screens often disappoints me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not only the acting but, also the stories that either are not analyzed completed or rejected outright at the beginning as derivative.</p>
<p>I get bored when I realize that I&#8217;ve seen this before either in a Star Wars flick or something like  Spiderman. The Incredibles comes to mind as one Pixar film that does this.</p>
<p>With a team of highly talented minds, such as those at Pixar, shouldn&#8217;t we be seeing not only technical advancement but, also stories that expand the medium?</p>
<p>Animation whether drawn or computer generated is a fantastic medium for the imagination of the artist. I don&#8217;t see any limitations! Yet, most of what reaches my local theater screens often disappoints me.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-59080</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-59080</guid>
					<description>Ricky, if you read carefully, I said that Pixar is pushing the technology beyond anyone's expectations. What they aren't pushing is good acting. The characters don't act as well as past 2D animation did; they move smoothly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ricky, if you read carefully, I said that Pixar is pushing the technology beyond anyone&#8217;s expectations. What they aren&#8217;t pushing is good acting. The characters don&#8217;t act as well as past 2D animation did; they move smoothly.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Ricky</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-59068</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:06:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-59068</guid>
					<description>You all sound so tired. Don't just say Toy Story is better than Wall E. Say WHY you think it is. 

Personally I find that Pixar is pushing Animation far beyond what has been achieved in the past. Sure the old Disney films are beautiful, but the medium has clearly peaked. It's a shame yes, but look what is now growing from it's strong foundations. I don't talk about other studios, but Pixar is always trying new things. It seems highly unfair to bitch about this not being as good as 2d. That's YOUR personal preference. What Pixar is doing is pushing the medium forwards and trying new ways of telling stories. They know their limitations and each film cleverly tackles what would have been impossible before. How is this any different to Disney and his team inventing new techniques such as the Multiplane Camera, Xeroxing, or using Rotoscoping? Without the Multiplane Camera we would never have seen the fantastic opening sequence from Pinocchio - and without the aid of the Computer we would have never had the rich insight into the world of Scary Monsters in Monsters Inc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You all sound so tired. Don&#8217;t just say Toy Story is better than Wall E. Say WHY you think it is. </p>
<p>Personally I find that Pixar is pushing Animation far beyond what has been achieved in the past. Sure the old Disney films are beautiful, but the medium has clearly peaked. It&#8217;s a shame yes, but look what is now growing from it&#8217;s strong foundations. I don&#8217;t talk about other studios, but Pixar is always trying new things. It seems highly unfair to bitch about this not being as good as 2d. That&#8217;s YOUR personal preference. What Pixar is doing is pushing the medium forwards and trying new ways of telling stories. They know their limitations and each film cleverly tackles what would have been impossible before. How is this any different to Disney and his team inventing new techniques such as the Multiplane Camera, Xeroxing, or using Rotoscoping? Without the Multiplane Camera we would never have seen the fantastic opening sequence from Pinocchio - and without the aid of the Computer we would have never had the rich insight into the world of Scary Monsters in Monsters Inc.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: David Nethery</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-58887</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-58887</guid>
					<description>Kellie, thank you for the link to the post by David Apatoff.

In his post he quotes illustrator Austin Briggs who offered the following wisdom about the benefits of working with the restrictions imposed by line:

&lt;i&gt;"Line ... is the most limited medium.... [I]t's necessary to know the limitation one is dealing with in order to use its positive qualities to the fullest advantage....[O]nce we know what drawing cannot do, we are on the way toward expressing [a subject] in the marvelously simple way a line can function....[I]ts real shape reveals itself because we must speak with such limited means."&lt;/i&gt;

This expresses exactly why I love hand-drawn animation and always will. 

On the other hand I disagree with the idea that "the animation of machines  is only special effects animation"  as applied to films like Wall-E .  I thought the character animation in Wall-E was excellent.   I have some problems with the overall story structure, but let's not dump on the great animators at Pixar who are excellent at bringing all kinds of characters and objects to life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kellie, thank you for the link to the post by David Apatoff.</p>
<p>In his post he quotes illustrator Austin Briggs who offered the following wisdom about the benefits of working with the restrictions imposed by line:</p>
<p><i>&#8220;Line &#8230; is the most limited medium&#8230;. [I]t&#8217;s necessary to know the limitation one is dealing with in order to use its positive qualities to the fullest advantage&#8230;.[O]nce we know what drawing cannot do, we are on the way toward expressing [a subject] in the marvelously simple way a line can function&#8230;.[I]ts real shape reveals itself because we must speak with such limited means.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>This expresses exactly why I love hand-drawn animation and always will. </p>
<p>On the other hand I disagree with the idea that &#8220;the animation of machines  is only special effects animation&#8221;  as applied to films like Wall-E .  I thought the character animation in Wall-E was excellent.   I have some problems with the overall story structure, but let&#8217;s not dump on the great animators at Pixar who are excellent at bringing all kinds of characters and objects to life.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Kellie Strøm</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-58878</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-58878</guid>
					<description>I had in mind a longer comment in agreement with your feelings on this, Michael, where I wanted to explore why we have this response - but I haven't had time to organise my thoughts! &lt;a href="http://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-lovely-drawing-part-20.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;This post&lt;/a&gt; by David Apatoff seemed relevant however. In it he compares the highly rendered caricatures of Arthur Szyk with the bold drawings of Mort Drucker, and though he loves both, he finds Drucker more engaging.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had in mind a longer comment in agreement with your feelings on this, Michael, where I wanted to explore why we have this response - but I haven&#8217;t had time to organise my thoughts! <a href="http://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-lovely-drawing-part-20.html" rel="nofollow">This post</a> by David Apatoff seemed relevant however. In it he compares the highly rendered caricatures of Arthur Szyk with the bold drawings of Mort Drucker, and though he loves both, he finds Drucker more engaging.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-58718</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-58718</guid>
					<description>Your comment was clear, Thad, and I'm embarrassed to say that I share your preference. Watching any animation lately has become a chore; it's so infrequent that it soars.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your comment was clear, Thad, and I&#8217;m embarrassed to say that I share your preference. Watching any animation lately has become a chore; it&#8217;s so infrequent that it soars.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Thad</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-58715</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:17:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-58715</guid>
					<description>My comment isn't that clear (as usual) upon rereading.  It should read "And why do I find that I would rather watch those crude cartoons than these features?"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My comment isn&#8217;t that clear (as usual) upon rereading.  It should read &#8220;And why do I find that I would rather watch those crude cartoons than these features?&#8221;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Thad</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-58710</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:26:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1542#comment-58710</guid>
					<description>The Disney studio evolved from its crudest Alice and Julius shorts to Snow White in fifteen years.  It's been twelve years since the first Toy Story... where's the evolution, other than technically?  And why would I rather watch those crude cartoons rather than these features?  Baffling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Disney studio evolved from its crudest Alice and Julius shorts to Snow White in fifteen years.  It&#8217;s been twelve years since the first Toy Story&#8230; where&#8217;s the evolution, other than technically?  And why would I rather watch those crude cartoons rather than these features?  Baffling.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
