Commentary 10 Mar 2012 06:26 am
Hrrumph
And talking about Animated Features, did I mention our Kickstarter Campaign to get POE in motion? Well, not today, yet. I promised to get it into the next couple of week’s posts the way Gail Collins is name dropping Mitt Romney‘s tying his dog to the roof of his car and driving to Canada.
Many thanks if you’ve been able to contribute anything. Many thanks for just paying attention. As I said, if you can get the word out to friends and friends of friends, maybe it’ll work. I’m a hoping.
- I saw THE LORAX. What can I say? It’s the biggest piece of crap this side of 2012. This is further proof to me that CGI is not animation but bad puppetry done with machines. At least that’s what it felt like. The characters just kept moving – pop, move – pop, move – pop, move – until they stopped in any given scene. Those movements were all tied to some of the worst VO shouting, screaming, racket I’ve heard in a while. It’s like they kept trying to wake me up, but they had a mini story that spoke about nothing. Only an idiot like Lou Dobbs could attack this as “Liberal.”
I’m not sure the performances always felt bad, but the manipulation, choices, cutting of those tracks and combined with the gloopy colors and continual, non-centered movement. ECH! I was shouted down for what felt like two hours – I know, it was actually only 86 minutes, but that’s a big chunk of my life that’s gone, and it felt like two hours. (Actually there were a couople of dance moves the Ed Helms character had that were clean, but that’s about all that I saw.)
This was the #1 film in the country last week. No doubt this is the same country that is buying into the robocall Republicans accusing women of everything under the sun and trying to set the clock back to 1962. I’ve got to clear my palette. We’ll see if this miniscule but LOUD film can beat out the legions backing John Carter.
- I keep going back to ARRIETTY, but I have to say I think back on that as a style that didn’t quite work for me. It felt a bit pinched. I’d have preferred a looser design more like Spirited Away or Ponyo, Very Anime in many ways.
However, the character animation, I think, is some of the best we’ve seen from Ghibli. On all of the principal characters (with the exception of the annoying mother character), I found the motion of the characters really trying hard to be part of character development. I think specifically of a number of scenes.
There’s a small scene where Haru (the Carol Burnett dubbed character – and I was surprised at how great a job Ms. Burnett did) stands over a small table. She is going through a simple, and basic action, but she loses her balance for a millemeter of a second and recovers. This is not something done by the books. It’s purely a motion that is put into the context of the scene she’s in, and it gives some credence to the odd character. I wish I had a dvd of the film, so I could show off some frame grabs detailing what I’ve seen.
Eventually.
There, I feel better. I can block out that American Crap, now.
A.O.Scott kinda half liked it in his NYTimes review:
- Directed by the Pixar fixture Andrew Stanton (“Finding Nemo,†“Wall-Eâ€) and based on a 1912 magazine serial by Edgar Rice Burroughs, it is a potpourri of arcane and familiar genres. “Mash-up†doesn’t begin to capture this hectic hybrid; it’s more like a paintball fight.
- “John Carter†tries to evoke, to reanimate, a fondly recalled universe of B-movies, pulp novels and boys’ adventure magazines. But it pursues this modest goal according to blockbuster logic, which buries the easy, scrappy pleasures of the old stuff in expensive excess. A bad movie should not look this good.
Lou Leminick of the NYPost wrote in his ONE STAR review:
- Interminably long, dull and incomprehensible, “John Carter’’ evokes pretty much every sci-fi classic from the past 50 years without having any real personality of its own.
You could say much the same about the title character, as uncharismatically played by the unfortunately named Taylor Kitsch of TV’s “Friday Night Lights.’’ Even in 3-D, he’s barely one-dimensional
and
Joe Neumaier of the Daily News wrote:
- ‘John Carter’: Silly sci-fi fantasy isn’t out of this world, but it can be playful and down-to-Earth.
- There’s little here that hasn’t been seen before, which to some people is sorta the point. Stanton, a co-founder of Pixar and director of the unassailable “Wall-E,†lets “John Carter†wear its heart on its loincloth, and he never lets the often clunky-looking effects — essentially they’re “Dune†done well — overwhelm the humans.
Those humans, though, do feel like they were cast from the backlot of a miniseries set in Rome. The aptly named Kitsch is never dull and lunkheaded like similar movie warriors Sam Worthington and Jason Momoa, but neither does his sinewy grunge look mix with the late-19th-century earthly story or the sandy alien landscapes.
I have a screening I can attend of the film this coming Tuesday. After I do, I’ll let you know what I think (not that my opinion on this kinda stuff really matters.)
I actually have been so deeply into Spirited Away that I was going to write at length about that film. I can’t tell you how much time I’ve spent with the movie. It just keeps getting deeper for me. The animation is all serviceable and some of it is excellent; I see Ghibli really going through animation changes on this film and upcoming ones. We seem to have nothing comparable happening in the US just now, everything’s gotten so tiny here. The Brits are still doing some wonderful work, and the French have some remarkable animation. I keep watching.
Anyway, I haven’t really spilt my mouth with the Spirited Away in me. Miyazaki is just a force for me to watch. I’ve gone back to see some of his earlier features, and watch how they’ve reinforced and helped realize future works. Something like Kiki’s Delivery Service is a bit flat for me, but the story’s character development is the center of the film for Miyazaki, so I understand its place in his history.
I’ve got to watch Totoro again. It’s such a simple, lovely film. Maybe later today. I remember, years ago, someone introducing himself to me at an Ottawa Animation Festival and giving me a copy of the DVD telling me it was his favorite film, and he wanted to share it with me. It wasn’t a copied DVD; it was an unopened, store-bought copy.
That film was an enlightening discovery. (Unfortunately, I don’t know who that who gave me the DVD. Please to reveal yourself if you read this. I’m enormously grateful.)
That is a gem of a movie. There’s the inspiration.
- Jenny Lerew, on her blog, The Blackwing Diaries, has an excellent post about character and story. She has been a principal in many a theatrical film’s story development, and she knows what she’s talking about. It’s a good read, and I encourage you to take a look.
This post actually adds to one she reworked in the past week. It’s a look into some of the later Disney features (pre Beauty & the Beast) where character took precedent over story. (Jungle Book, anyone?). If you have interest in story development, in this day of bad story writing, you should read both.
on 10 Mar 2012 at 8:12 am 1.Elliot Cowan said …
My boy is 18 months old and we thought he’d enjoy a cinema experience.
He was a very good boy through the trailers (was particularly taken with the one for Laika’s Paranorman) and made it through about 40 minutes of The Lorax before he got cranky and wanted to leave.
The Lorax made me cranky and want to leave after about 35 seconds.
It’s a giant pile of unbearable crap.
This coupled with some truly idiotic comments from the film makers I read (self congratulatory back patting about how they were keeping the Seuss legacy alive for future generations) made it one of the worst movie going experiences I’ve ever had.
Hugo found it diverting, but he’s also into Tangled and Toy Story 3 so clearly has questionable taste.
on 10 Mar 2012 at 9:01 am 2.Michael said …
Keep him away from the CGI and he’ll be ok.
on 10 Mar 2012 at 9:28 am 3.Mark Mayerson said …
I weep because bad cgi movies are tainting a wonderful medium. It’s just in the wrong hands.
on 10 Mar 2012 at 10:20 am 4.Michael said …
I spent a bit of time watching The Lorax’ mustache. They couldn’t decide where it was attached. Sometimes it moved from the top, sometimes from the bottom. Most of the time it looked like it just moved. It fit perfectly with the useless non-acted Danny DeVito VO. He really is a one-note VO, and always has been.
on 10 Mar 2012 at 12:00 pm 5.Charles Brubaker said …
I have no intention of seeing the CGI Lorax, although it did made me take a look back at the 1972 special based on the book.
I consider it to be a wonderful special. Terrific design work from Maurice Noble, great voice acting, primarily by Bob Holt (he seemingly channeled Bill Thompson when voicing the Lorax), and I even like some of the animation. Hawley Pratt as a director was a great choice.
It’s probably the best cartoon DePatie-Freleng has ever done. David H. DePatie himself is proud of it.
(and technically it’s FRENCH crap. Much of the production was done over there)
on 10 Mar 2012 at 2:23 pm 6.Scott said …
A.O. Scott is wrong. John Carter looks TERRIBLE! No wonder, it’s “designed” by the likes of ian mcaig and Ryan church, who work on lots of these kinds of films. They’re more adept at manipulating photos than actually designing, and neither seem to grasp the idea of story or character.
I’m happy to say I didn’t have to PAY to see this mess, but it’s even uglier than it is boring.
on 10 Mar 2012 at 4:01 pm 7.Charles Kenny said …
I’d love to hear your thoughts on Spirited Away, Michael!
on 10 Mar 2012 at 6:54 pm 8.The Gee said …
With these Suess adaptations, I’m sure the intentions are good.
If I had to guess, there is a nostalgia angle working. That’s why it is successful so far. I can’t recall a similar effect worked with all of the other recent feature length adaptations of Suess’ works but it is really tough to expect them to be as great as the books are for most people. If they make money though, expect more, right?
on 10 Mar 2012 at 8:19 pm 9.Elliot Cowan said …
Michael – I don’t mind him watching CG so much but it is very obvious he prefers it.
CG, stop motion and puppets are things he’s very interested in.
2D animation, not at all.
Interesting stuff for study perhaps (surely someone already has).
on 11 Mar 2012 at 7:25 pm 10.Joey P. said …
One bad CGI movie =/= all CGI is terrible. I don’t understand why you and Michael Barrier keep banging this drum. I’d hardly call films like “Ratatouille” or “The Incredibles” “bad puppetry.” You’re trying to compare two vastly different types of animation, and it doesn’t do any credit to your expertise regarding 2D animation. As Sylvain Chomet said, “Comparing them is like comparing a drawing and a photograph. … They shouldn’t be compared — they are different kinds of animation.” Barrier is an excellent animation historian, and you are a phenomenal animator (I say this having recently caught a few of the “HBO Storybook Musicals” on TV), but your comments on CG animation makes you seem less than interested in seriously examining the medium on its own merits.
on 11 Mar 2012 at 10:09 pm 11.Michael said …
You shouldn’t try to shoehorn Mike Barrier and me into the same category. We think and feel very differently about animation and cgi.
He, for example, feels that TANGLED hada some excellent animation in it. I felt that there was an approach that was too generic.
I attribute Brad Bird for some excellent animation in his two cgi features. There are definitely moments of fine animation there, but they are impossible for me to creditt from outside the complex system. I do think of cgi as an electronic system of puppetry, and feel that the medium has a way to gro before geeric individual actions can be pulled out, when simple things like distortion are near impossible.
This is all MY feeling and has nothing to do with Mike Barrier’s thoughts. CGI is a new medium and has a long way to go o move beyond he viewmaster look that all studios foster. It will, I am confident of that.
on 12 Mar 2012 at 3:57 pm 12.The Gee said …
“….simple things like distortion are near impossible.â€
That’s one thing I don’t quite understand. I haven’t worked in any area of a 3D pipeline and I havent’ seen every thing but can they break the joints, at the least?
Surely squash and stretch happens in CG stuff, like in Madascar I/II and other films that have certain characters, like ElastiGirl (?) from The Incredibles. But, given the kinds of humorous features and TV shows that are done in CG why are the limitations still there?
As for the Chomet quote: cel shading is still done, right? Not all high end CG animation is done with that Viewmaster/Rankin Bass look. It can be rendered differently but often that seems like it is done for short form animation, not long form.
Enh. Again, I haven’t seen everything and I get how visualizing/imagining/the creative end of it all can veer towards photography as opposed to graphic work (with lines to define form).I can see how distortion is geared more towards fx versus the character animation.
Hope that makes sense. Monday’s without enough coffee are long days.
on 12 Mar 2012 at 3:59 pm 13.The Gee said …
ack.
MadAGascar
on 13 Mar 2012 at 12:24 pm 14.CG_Animator said …
I’m a CG animator (who did not work on the Lorax) and I pour my heart and soul into each and every one of my shots.
And to hear the stuff I work long and hard on called mere “digital puppeteering” is quite disheartening when I put as much thought and care into my ANIMATION as any hand-drawn animator does.
I’m not a programmer or a technician or a computer nerd as is the (outdated) stereotype. I’m an artist. I tend to do a lot of planning and do a crap load of drawings before I even TOUCH the software. I’m an animator, not a puppeteer.
on 13 Mar 2012 at 5:58 pm 15.Michael said …
CG ANIMATOR, I’m sure your work is excellent. Of course, you feel obligated to give yourself an anonymous name. You should take full credit for whatever you do, including writing this comment. I don’t know who you are, what work you’ve done, what your abilities are. But I assume you are at the top of the game. Why shouldn’t you be?
Because I happen to prefer drawn animation, doesn’t necessarily make me right, but it is my right to prefer what I know. Just as it is your right and talent to do what it is you do. We have no argument there, and I’m sorry that it felt as if I were denigrating your work. I didn’t mean to.
on 13 Mar 2012 at 6:57 pm 16.CG_Animator said …
It’s alright Michael. I have the upmost respect for your work and your blog is a goldmine of reference and inspiration to me.
I just find it kind of sad and frustrating that CG is still seen as the bastard child of hand-drawn animation by a lot of traditional folks. A lot of assumptions are made about how CG is done. I’ve heard everything from “they just push a button and it’s there!” to CG animation being “easy to do” and even “lazy” by some people.
Yeah, I can see why a lot of people are upset that Disney and Dreamworks abandoned traditional animation in favor of CG only. I’m upset about that too. I LOVE traditional animation. But I feel like a lot of the time people take out their frustration on the medium itself instead of the idiots who made the bad choices.
To me, CG is just another way to do animation and give a performance. Just like stop motion or hand-drawn. Neither is better then the other. Each is unique and has their own strengths and weaknesses. It’s not a competition to me.
on 30 Mar 2024 at 12:13 pm 17.Cruz Keats said …
Lovely stuff. With thanks.