SF Chronicle Film Critic blasted by animation historians

[Radrappy]

I found this post on boing boing and found it to be very very interesting. As I will be attended Calarts next year for character Animation I am always concerned with the face of animation (As I'm sure many of you are).

you can find the original post on the aforementioned site but here is the summary:
Basically, newspaper critic Mick LaSalle praised the new Cg animation techniques utilized in the movie Monster House saying,

"Animated films always had the advantage of being able to go anywhere and show anything, to defy the laws of physics and follow the imagination as far as it could go. But they never had the ability to show the human face. There was never any point to a close-up in an animated film -- there was never really anything to see."

his comment is in regard to motion capture. It is worth noting that the same critique was capitivated by the soulless vessels featured in The Polar Express. he goes on to say:

"Imagine what Disney might have done with this in the creation of the Seven Dwarfs. Imagine all the things that will be done with this in the future. "Monster House" looks like the ground floor of something important."

Personally, I couldn't really care what a film critique feels about the future of animation. However I do worry about the public face of animation. Has anyone felt that in the past years, animated films have been given easier reviews than other genres? That critiques tend to go easy on the films, being for children? Over the Hedge got sparkling reviews all over. Seeing the movie though with an open mind, I was dismayed to find it to be the most unremarkable piece of uninspired mediocrity I have ever witnessed. The bar has been lowered for animation, despite the presence of animation powerhouse Pixar. Animation is expected to be unremarkable these days.

here's the link for those curious
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/archives/2006_07.html#002153

thoughts?

I just found this and I think it best says everything I want/need to.

http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2006/07/car ... sness.html

[Zeta]

3D films are a fad. Pixar's films were not successful because they were in 3D. They are successful because they actually care about the quality of their movies and put effort into writing, something that no other animated film company had done for 10 years.

[Delphine]

The internet is a fad.

[Professor Machenstein]

Apparently the problem is LaSalle praised the Monster House for its animation techniques instead of how they were used. This is the animation equivalent of praising a game for its lighting effects or water particles without regarding how they were used. Even so, technique shmechnique, such things are hardly anything to define the overall quality of a game or movie by. I won't go into detail what defines the overall quality of what, you get the idea.

Also, I second Zeta. Just for one time I would like someone to come out of nowhere with a 2D movie, it could even be an anime, it really doesn't matter now. Like with video games, we can't be picky anymore; if you want true 2D gameplay, sorry, you will have to resort to handhelds or settle for 3D trying to be 2D. If you want a 2D movie in the vein of Aladdin or Lion King, no can do, you will either have to settle for anime or cel-shaded 3D. Until then, we will have to wait for one person out of a million-thousand-hundred something to pick up 2D and build upon where it died in 1995.

[Frieza2000]

3D films are a fad.

I don't know. Unless I'm mistaken, producing a passable CG film is significantly cheaper than producing a passable animated film. If that's the case then the industry will probably do its best to make it the accepted standard. Already, there's a generation growing up with it. I can easily see old school animation being marginalized for at least the next decade.

[Esrever]

God. The facial animation is SO bad in Monster House, too. I mean excrutiatingly so. It's not quite as bad as Polar Express, but still...

Clearly this guy is only praising it because he KNOWS it is mo-capped, and mo-capping appeals to him on some sort of ideological level because it is a "real" performance. I guarantee you, if he had been told that Monster House was just regular animation he would not have been so enamoured. Because in an actual direct comparisson, the characters in Monster House and Polar Express are absolutely robotic compared even to the cast of actually animated CG films. Even the bad ones.

[Dash]

How I feel about the whole thing:

It's like saying that the Mona Lisa would have been more effective if Leonardo had had a Polaroid handy.

So much truth.

Also, I second Zeta. Just for one time I would like someone to come out of nowhere with a 2D movie, it could even be an anime, it really doesn't matter now.

Well, Disney does have one on the way thanks to some prodding by John Lassetter, whom I guess has some sort of non-official position in Disney's animation department now. What I hear is that he's policing to make sure everything is at a certain level of quality and is helping to pick wether a project should be done in 2D or 3D. This is good news, but that last part brings forth a question I've been asking for some time now: What determines weather something should be computer animated or hand drawn?

Pixar's films were not successful because they were in 3D. They are successful because they actually care about the quality of their movies and put effort into writing, something that no other animated film company had done for 10 years.

If what you say is true, shouldn't Pixar have been just as sucessful if they had used traditional animation? I'm not trying to say Pixar's films are cheapened by CG, because they aren't. They do a great job and I fully support their work. It's just... if old 2D animation is the backbone of thier design, why not use it every now and then? Is it only as simple as deciding the "feel" of the movie or is it due to technical things? Or am I just missing something else altogether?

As someone wanting to enter this industry, I think this is something I need to figure out.

[Arcade]

3D films are a fad. Pixar's films were not successful because they were in 3D. They are successful because they actually care about the quality of their movies and put effort into writing, something that no other animated film company had done for 10 years.

Totally correct, Pixar even said they where going to do some Movies in 2D...

But 3D gets more attention if the movie is good, because is different, kids get attracted to things that are different and look cool, that’s why anime is growing strong in Occident, because is different, besides really bad anime never goes out of Japan...but bad sequels go anywhere.

[Professor Machenstein]

Disney does have one on the way thanks to some prodding by John Lassetter, whom I guess has some sort of non-official position in Disney's animation department now. What I hear is that he's policing to make sure everything is at a certain level of quality and is helping to pick wether a project should be done in 2D or 3D. This is good news, but that last part brings forth a question I've been asking for some time now: What determines weather something should be computer animated or hand drawn?

It's a step in the right direction, albeit a small one, but even considering traditional animation counts for something. I just read the premise of the movie and it sounds rather questionable. Hey, being 2D alone isn't really a reason to be excited for a movie, but it is nice to have 2D back.

As for your question, I think it's the mood of the story and the art style. For example, I can't imagine Tim Burton's stop motion pictures working too well as hand drawn animation. Stop motion is usually spooky and cryptic so it works with the mood Burton portrays with his characters and stories.

[Zeta]

As for your question, I think it's the mood of the story and the art style. For example, I can't imagine Tim Burton's stop motion pictures working too well as hand drawn animation. Stop motion is usually spooky and cryptic so it works with the mood Burton portrays with his characters and stories.

Exactly. And similarly, I couldn't imagine a fantasy adventure done in 3-D CGI, because 2-D suits the mood better. 3-D's good for comedy however (because you can put a lot of details into the background and give it a sitcomish feel) and scifi (for obvious reasons).

2-D is more fluid, and tends to look more "warm". 3-D lets you work with details more, but the characters and lighting have to be more static to synch up with models.

[Dash]

Hmm. I dunno, Pixar has always been able to evoke a warm feeling. Maybe not the super fuzzy warm you get from watching Lilo and Stitch, but they've never really tried for that before. As for the details thing, you can work with the details but isn't it a lot harder because you need to model everything? Wouldn't be easier to draw all the stuff into a few backgrounds?

Good points though. I can definitly see how using a certain format could effect the feel movie(it was kinda my best guess too). In reality, what disturbs me most is this mindset that CG animation is like, the same kind of innovation as adding color. As in, who would want to go back to Black&White/Traditional 2D? I kid you not, someone working on Chicken Little made this exact statement. It was like a punch in the gut to me. Since I was a kid I've always dreamed of being part of some great hand drawn film, but when he said that(combined with the closing of Disney's main animation studio) it felt like Disney, one of the masters of 2D, was casting it aside completely. I felt forlorn... unwanted... other emo things.

Of course, I got past that pretty quick by calling him a douchebag and other such things. It still kinda bugs me though.

While we're having a rousing animation disscusion I guess I'll get this off my chest: Anyone notice the lack of rounded animation these days? It's like if it's 2D it must be flat or extremly stylized. As much as I like Genndy Tartakovsky's and Craig McCracken's art direction, it doesn't mean EVERYBODY has to use it. It has a lot of impact but it's starting to wear thin. Just about every new series uses a variation of it. Billy and Mandy, Danny Phantom, My Life as a Teenage Robot, Farily Odd Parents, Jake fuckingoddamnsonofabitch Long:American Dragon... It's getting pretty saturated. Bold lines are not the answer for everything. Hell, McCraken doesn't even use them any more(Foster's). I'm not about to get completly anal about it like John K. does, but seeing something new done is a more classic style, such as Animaniacs or Ducktales, would be nice. I'm told Eric Goldberg(Lead animator for Genie, Raphsody in Blue portion of Fantasia 2000) is heading up some animated shorts at Disney. Hopefully these will bring some variety to the table.

You can tell I don't get much of a chance to talk about this stuff=P

[Ngangbius]

As much as I like Genndy Tartakovsky's and Craig McCracken's art direction, it doesn't mean EVERYBODY has to use it. It has a lot of impact but it's starting to wear thin. Just about every new series uses a variation of it. Billy and Mandy, Danny Phantom, My Life as a Teenage Robot, Farily Odd Parents, Jake fuckingoddamnsonofabitch Long:American Dragon... It's getting pretty saturated.

That certain art direction has been around long before Tartakovsky and McCracken. IIRC, that simplistic style was first used by UPA and was then carried over by Hanna-Barbera for their televised animated programs.

[Tsuyoshi-kun]

And that's exactly what makes animation not fun to watch today. What made 1940s cartoons great was that every major animation studio and each director from it had his own animation style. Friz Freleng, Robert McKimson, Chuck Jones, Tex Avery, (early) Walt Disney, Max Fleshier...each one had a different look to his works. Now it's all heavy inked characters in bland-looking environments. Sort of like in one of Japan's most popular arcade series, pop'n music;



And if that don't work, ape anime art. Or Flash art. Or Jhonen Vasqeuz's art.

It's like cartoonists are going back to the dark ages of animation, aka the 1970s and 1980s. You know, the age made up almost entirely of soulless, joyless, poorly animated drivel like Care Bears and Yogi's Space Race. Modern-day anime is even worse, replacing things like frame rates with flashy colors with no zero animation and terrible CG.

We need another fresh, 2-D, GOOD looking series a la Ren & Stimpy or Rocko's Modern Life, and we need it NOW.

[Dash]

That certain art direction has been around long before Tartakovsky and McCracken. IIRC, that simplistic style was first used by UPA and was then carried over by Hanna-Barbera for their televised animated programs.

This is true and I didn't mean to dismiss that. I just meant to say that the success of Dexter's Lab and Powerpuff Girls is probably what ushered in the widespread use of the style we're seeing now.

[Zeta]

As much as I like Genndy Tartakovsky's and Craig McCracken's art direction, it doesn't mean EVERYBODY has to use it. It has a lot of impact but it's starting to wear thin. Just about every new series uses a variation of it. Billy and Mandy, Danny Phantom, My Life as a Teenage Robot, Farily Odd Parents, Jake fuckingoddamnsonofabitch Long:American Dragon... It's getting pretty saturated.

Sadly, it is a budget thing, as flat, Sout Park/PPG artstyles can be made easily in Flash, without the aid of cells.

[Ngangbius]

Modern-day anime is even worse, replacing things like frame rates with flashy colors with no zero animation and terrible CG.

The flashy colors could be blamed on the fact that no animation studio in the world anymore use the traditional cel-coloring by hand technique. All of it is colored by computer and that goes for both Eastern and Western animation. Personally, I think they have improved that technique today compared to the several years ago. You thought the flashy colors were bright now, hoo boy, you should have seen the bright, cheap looking technique AIC and Bandai/Sunrise used for the majority of their anime. Ugh.

We need another fresh, 2-D, GOOD looking series a la Ren & Stimpy or Rocko's Modern Life, and we need it NOW.

Well, there is Squirrel Boy, Camp Lazlo, and Brandy and Mr. Whiskers if you are looking for shows that don't emulate flash, anime, or the UPA-style. However, all three are not really entertaining. At least I can actually enjoy Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, older seasons of Fairly Odd Parents and Avatar: The Last Airbender.

[manaleak34]

On motion capture, as far as I know about the technology basicly the actor performs the role with all these little green balls on him. That infomation recorded is sent to the computer and is plastered on a model. And then tada! You got your animation.

So, isn't that just being lazy on the animation part? I mean if you want realitic facial expressions so bad, make a live action movie you dolts.

But yeah as of now theres really not much animated stuff I can really get into. I don't even care about style all too much. The shows...are just not good

Or maybe I'm lazy too.

[Double-S-]

Yeah... I'm pretty sure most people here know what motion capture is. However, you are pretty right on the fact that most animated shows nowadays have scripts that just suck, regardless of animation quality.

[CE]

We need another fresh, 2-D, GOOD looking series a la Ren & Stimpy or Rocko's Modern Life, and we need it NOW.

Well, there is Squirrel Boy, Camp Lazlo, and Brandy and Mr. Whiskers if you are looking for shows that don't emulate flash, anime, or the UPA-style. However, all three are not really entertaining. At least I can actually enjoy Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, older seasons of Fairly Odd Parents and Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Amen to that!

The quality of the average American cartoon has gone down the tubes. I can overlook bad animation, if the show is inspirational. Look at Rocky and Bullwinkle; the animation was ass-tacular (even for its time), but the script and voices were so well done that it didn't matter at all.

[Grant]

..

[Tsuyoshi-kun]

Rocky and Bullwinkle was poorly animated on purpose. When Jay Ward started doing cartoons for television consumption in 1949, he invented a minimal art technique in which only the characters' feet would move across the screen, so as to save time on animating the characters differently for each frame.

A weak script can make up for bad art; Rocky and Bullwinkle, as well to a lesser extent South Park and the first seven seasons of The Simpsons (never thought it was particularly high budget animation), prove that fresh, funny humor more than makes up for lame art. Rocky and Bullwinkle is still one of the funniest, wittiest cartoons ever made even 47 years later after its debut, and was one of the first cartoons that combined child and adult humor, a tradition carried on today in Pixar's works. And good art can make up for bad scripts as well. I don't think Invader Zim is particularly well-written, but it has globs of well-detailed (or at least cool-looking) scenery, as well as atmosphere, that makes up for it in my opinion. I just think it's fun just to watch it, although many of you will probably disagree with that.

With the exception of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and Avatar, most shows today have neither good scripts or good art. Television animation has never been that great, but now it's just depressing. Something's wrong when Homestar Runner cartoons are visualy more appealing than stuff on cable TV.

[M.C.Dillinger]

I don't think Invader Zim is particularly well-written, but it has globs of well-detailed (or at least cool-looking) scenery, as well as atmosphere, that makes up for it in my opinion. I just think it's fun just to watch it, although many of you will probably disagree with that.

I do disagree
between Zim's idiocy, G.I.R in general, meat, rubber pigs, moose, Dib's huge head and everyone's lack of common sense there's always something funny!

That was my squeezing arm. They took my squeezing arm! Why my squeezing arm?! AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!

[Tsuyoshi-kun]

Invader Zim is a funny show, and GIT is a riot, though the dialogue, at times, seems like it was written by someone really bored, or 10 years old. It does get a ittle tiring seeing ZIM yell out his lines after a while, regardless of whether or not it's his trademark way of talking to people for the most part. I'ts still a great series, though.

[Luckett X]

http://www.scifi.com/amazingscrewonhead/

http://youtube.com/results?search_query ... ew+on+head

Funniest new animation I have seen since Zim, based on Mike Mignola's one shoot 'The Amazing Screw-On Head'. It is criminal this pilot is not assured a full series yet, but another 26 episodes of UTTER BILGE like Biker Mice From Mars is.

I really dont like 3d animation at all, other than exceptional stylised stuff such as the Incredibles (and even then i would have preferred a 2d film sticking to the highly stylised concept art show in the credits), it strikes me as soulless and cheap. Its puppetry really, not animation. 2d animation every cel is unique, the artist can do whatever they want. 3d animation its a 3d model thats script to do certain things with certain effects.

I personally am trying to start a career of animation, so I feel pretty passionate about such topics. Single handedly making an animation is soul destroying, but the pay-off is euphoric.

[Popcorn]

I really dont like 3d animation at all, other than exceptional stylised stuff such as the Incredibles (

Speaking of The Incredibles (which is oft-cited for its evasion of the Uncanny Valley) I saw Cars a couple of days ago. My God-- that thing is entrenched well and truly in the deep dark Valley of the Uncanny. Cars should not have tongues.