Sonic Unleashed?

[Neo]

You better be.

You take your hand out of Kogen's pants and proofread your posts. [/quote].

<comic book cover>

Sonic feels so high, he can shoot lasers out of his feet!

Thing that bugs me, though:

INSIDE: An exclusive message by YUJI NAKA, the Sonic game creator

You know, that is still the piece of bull that's hardest to swallow for me. Especially the fact that they managed to make everyone buy it.

I doubt the same could be said if Sonic ran about a world crowded with other blue hedgehogs.

A few years back, that'd sound like a complete absurdity. But now that you have a black hedgehog, a silver hedgehog and a crystal smoky hedgehog with no nose? Seems like the next logical step.

I love how this went from confusing criticism of Pixar character designs, to being pedantic about which species made up the supporting cast, to finally heading full steam in the direction of the classic xenophobic "no new characters ever" conclusion.

This entire topic stemmed from a trademark registration.

Guys, don't sling feces!

[Radrappy]

I mean, I LIKED the Incredibles, but the designs are merely "functional". They're better than what was in Toy Story, but that's it. They're bland.

The human designs in the Incredibles were extremely pushed and were in no way generic. I think you should take a good long look at the unique shapes that define every single character in that movie. I mean, the film is pretty much credited with introducing such pushed character designs to CG animation in the first place.

Not to mention they've used pretty much the same human designs in Ratatouille and Wall-E,

You're joking right? If memory serves, the humans in Wall-e were blobs in hover chairs. I really don't see the connection here.

crappy humans with identical Cal Arts eyes!

You goddamn son of a bitch.

[hedgepig]

There were cities in Sonic 1...

As I said: they're in the background.

[Kogen]

So this is a work of art with unique shapes and not some lame movie for kids?

[FlashTHD, let me know if my post is acceptable; thanks in advance!]

[Radrappy]

I was about to respond seriously and then remembered that you havent even seen the film.

[Esrever]

I think some of you guys have been drinking a bit too much of John K's Kool Aid.

That said, Pixar's movies are undeniably exercises in incredibly skillful execution of conservative, established formulas. There's nothing especially innovative or boundary-pushing about their stories, visuals, or characters. But their execution of the reliable old standards is top notch.. and that's such a novelty in modern American animation that it's kind of admirable in and of itself.

[Zeta]

Oh god, don't even get me started on John K. Being both full of yourself and possessing almost no taste takes a really special combination.

And Pixar's films look a lot better IN MOTION as opposed to stills and promo shots.

[Esrever]

They do, but it's true that their art direction, and especially their character design, is very "safe." It's nothing you haven't seen before. Even the Incredibles, which boasted a wildly new look for CG animation, was only wildly new in the sense that it was the first 3D movie to use the style of cartoon humans used in pretty much every 2D Disney movie for the last 30 years.

But that was still quite an achievement! Sometimes I think being conservative with design and animation is almost a necessity with CG films, just because it's still a very new medium and the tools used to create it are still pretty inflexible.

[Zeta]

I dunno, I think a good story can save bad art, but great art can't save a shitty story. I think the Incredibles in particular wasn't even that safe. It had more focus on death than most adult superhero movies. It was criticized at the time for it, too.

[Esrever]

A good story shouldn't have to save bad art! Bad art shouldn't exist in major commercial animation. There are too many talented animators out there.

But I don't think Incredibles had bad art. The humans in Shrek... now that's bad art. But the Incredibles had well-executed, technically solid designs. They were just very conservative, very traditional... like you'll find in all of Brad Bird's films.

[Senbei]

It may be worth mentioning that the cast of the Incredibles is meant to be an everyman, suburban, 2.5 kids family and that the design reflects that.

Zeta points out that Pixar films look better in motion. If we're getting into a discussion about good artwork, then one should keep in mind that animation isn't meant to look good in stills. There's a reason the Incredibles, Shrek, Samurai Jack, Aladdin, etc. (and hey, while we're at it, Sonic and company too!) have such simple designs and it's because they're easy to animate and fun to watch in motion. I have some serious qualms with the quality of lots of new anime as character costumes become more elaborate or artists insert their zany trademark art styles into the animation because it usually ends up looking confusing and shitty. Funnily enough, WALL-E is probably one of the most elaborate characters in 3D animation history but his movements are still completely comprehensible.

[Wombatwarlord777]

You must admit that, even though Pixar's humans aren't radically stylized, they are technically very well done, as Esrever said. And in the digital media, everything, human and non-human, is difficult to get even technically correct. I remember reading a magazine article (probably Time or some other newstand periodical) in which somebody at Pixar complained that they were having trouble preventing Violet's (a character in The Incredibles) hair from passing through her body. And yet, in the end, the animators managed to get her hair corrected, as well as making everything else look convincing. And they've done great, solid art in pretty much all their movies. And we must remember that it's so easy to go for the lower standard in difficult things such as digital animation...


Okay... I'll admit I never went to see Hunting Season...

Also, who cares if the humans in Pixar movies don't necessarily have novel designs?!? That's why you have all of those lively toys, kooky monsters, talking vehicles, and personable robots! If you want innovative design, just look beyond the humans, especially in Monsters Inc. and Wall-E!

[Rob-Bert]

Most Pixar movies don't put emphasis on the human characters. Whenever they do, they're usually stylized enough to be captivating. Take the humans in WALL-E for example. They're all big fat blobs that actually degenerated from ordinary-looking, live action humans. In that case the cartoonishness of the humans serves as a reflection for movie's running message. Didn't really want to sound like a snooty film snob, but that's the way it is.

For the record, as someone who's looking to pursue a character in animation myself, the amount of shit that Kogen's flinging around is really sticking in my craw. Good thing I can hold back.

[DackAttac]

I think the Incredibles in particular wasn't even that safe. It had more focus on death than most adult superhero movies. It was criticized at the time for it, too.

The thing a friend of mine pointed out about the "saying everybody's special is the same as saying no one is" thesis of The Incredibles is that it's just a massive, "Fuck you, you're awful parents/teachers/whatevers" to everyone who's ever forced a little league game to not keep score. So I also give it a lot of points for having a message that some would also consider unsafe.

And I also thought the visuals were bland at first, but it allowed for comfortable viewing and tracking what was going on when the action picked up. Otherwise it would have turned out like the first two action scenes of the most recent Bond movie. Shitty editing, too fast, too many close-ups; just terrible filmmaking in general, really. Thank God it calmed down, otherwise I was going to get a headache.

I can understanding finding fault in Pixar since they've been heralded as some kind of Messiah, but nitpicking the hell out of them (especially showing stills and saying "If you don't see what's wrong with it, you're an idiot")... your inner child is dead. Dead. Just an FYI. Everyone looks back at the things in their childhood with rose tinted shades, but it's nice to have quality entertainment that really engrosses you as a youth. And I know that by the time I finally getting around to having kids, Pixar will be run over by a bunch of greedy corner-cutting fatcats and will look something like Disney does now.

[M.C.Dillinger]

Either that or they become horrible filmmakers like DreamWorks pictures.

[Zeta]

Shrek I and 2 and Kung Fu Panda were pretty damn fantastic movies.

The rest of their stuff has all be shit, though, yes.

[Esrever]

Pixar's human characters have come a long way since the Incredibles. The facial-feature animation in the "Presto" short before Wall-E was amazing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SCbCE4AT6UE

Just watch how magician's lips, browline, and cheeks, and how they bend, fold and stretch. CG has a tendency to make everyone and everything on screen look like it's made out of solid plastic, like action figures, and it was because they understood this limitation that Pixar waited so long before tackling a movie with an all-human cast. But now, they have come closer than anyone else to making their characters' faces as soft, natural and flexible as they were in 2D animation.

It's leaps and bounds ahead of everything else out there... including the human character animation in Wall-E. But there's still lots of room for improvement. The fact that we're only just figuring out how to do this now is a solid reminder of how inflexible CG still is and how far it has to go.

[Crowbar]

The human designs in the Incredibles were extremely pushed and were in no way generic. I think you should take a good long look at the unique shapes that define every single character in that movie. I mean, the film is pretty much credited with introducing such pushed character designs to CG animation in the first place.

If you really, truly, seriously believe this then there isn't even any point arguing with you.

@ Esrever, I suppose that's true, but that's animation, not design. I did really like Presto, though, and in general I much prefer Pixar's shorts to their features, these days.
I just checked out Geri's Game again and, even though the animation is stiffer, I think the character's actually alot better than the ones they've used since. What's up with that?

[Zeta]

I think they really tried to push boundaries with Geri. He's easily the most distinctive and recognizable out of all of their human designs I've seen.

[Shadow Hog]

Wasn't he in Toy Story 2, as that guy that fixes Woody's arm?

[Dr. BUGMAN]

I remember Knik Knak short had figurines with big tits, and they were edited out when they merged with Disney.

[Zeta]

Wasn't he in Toy Story 2, as that guy that fixes Woody's arm?

Yeah, they tend to reuse the human models from their shorts in the main movies.

[Rob-Bert]

I thought he was supposed to actually be Geri. I can't think of any other instance of them reusing the exact same human model and showing them on screen in full.

[Radrappy]

If you really, truly, seriously believe this then there isn't even any point arguing with you.

Well, then what do you like? What's good character design to you? And why the calarts hate?

[Zeta]

Well, then what do you like? What's good character design to you? And why the calarts hate?

Ren and Stimpy had great character design lulz