Week 9: Freezing over

It's getting tight with this animation project, but with my plans set in stone and my goals secured, I can promise myself to get this done in time.

I really liked getting time over the weekend to plan my music out. So far I just need to record and I've got the animation soundtrack set.

Flash is killing me with these freezes through working. Do newer versions have a fix for this?

This week I learned to really think less on the grand scale and use smaller means of artistic employment. Basically, don't draw so detailed and focus on the key motions of the animations.

I think I wanna learn how to, not cut corners per se, but find better shortcuts for the huge movements I try to do.

To close off, I'd like to give a more comical approach with AADudley's "Toons These Days." A three minute animation series about knocking on modern day animations!

Mental connections through Film and Animation

Autism certainly isn't a fun time. With the varying level suffered, autism effects communication and social skills especially in people, making raising a child pretty difficult. My cousin just so happens to have it. But autism does not have to be a debilitating shackle. A parent writes about how animation, specifically the film Frankenweenie had quite the influence on his son.

-Gabe's speech and vocabulary was improved. His excitement from the movies promotion didn't go unnoticed by his parents, and he started to speak words and phrases from the movie's ads. New words began to be compounded into a constantly expanding wealth of vocab, and even physical action got a hold of him. New ideas and actions all inspired.

-Groundbreaking evidence of feelings. What Gabriel's parents were told is that many autistics cannot express or comprehend empathy, let alone grasp the concept of other beings outside oneself, but this idea was completely broken in front of the family's eyes as Gabe expressed a very saddened emotional reaction in a tragic moment of the film.

-Gabriel had an overall breakthrough in mental development through the movie, to which his parents were both amazed by. If one movie had this kind of effect on Gabriel, many autistic children could be soon to follow in a similar fashion through their own experiences in entertainment.

I was very intrigued with this article having a pretty minor understanding of autism, but the evidence presented really speaks to me. If digital media can go to this lengths of inspiration, one could only imagine what kind of breakthroughs can be made in the future.

I do think the hype and advertisements were a major player for Gabriel's enthusiasm for the movie, and I have a feeling it wouldn't be as incredible an experience for his family had the film not been exposed as much.

Would Gabriel had made the same progress through a different movie?

The Future of TVs: A Bigger Computer Screen.

As absorbed as I am in the massive spectrum of media we're dealt a hand with in modern society, television has never been a big player in my life, and now that I think about it, I haven't turned mine on in close to a year, unless you count using it as a big screen to run movies from my laptop. Well, yeah I guess that counts, BUT point being television is a very dormant form of entertainment in my world. Back when I was like six, my parents got a satellite and the works. I had every cool channel at my disposal, and you'd bet I spent a good amount of my time glued to the tube. Well come the following years, my parents decided television wasn't something worth the investment, so they switched to a third party satellite provider, and eventually to $8 ultra basic cable. That's no understatement. We had about 19 channels. And any kid flipping through the first 19 channels you have on cable is sure to be disappointed. This became a bigger problem when I started homeschooling (and I did this for 5 years!) as between lessons I would spend my free time eating and trying to watch TV. Keyword "trying." I had to resort to sitcom reruns, and not even the good stuff like Seinfeld. Yes, I did this for nearly five years (during my elementary school years mind you), and was only brought to stop when I began to understand the internet. That's enough exposition for now though, what I'm getting to is that TV is pretty limiting, even if you have the 5000 channel package. Thus, the internet seems to have found success through that flaw.

-The audience is already there, and it's huge. TV took some time to catch on given the price of investing in a television set back in the 50s, and there were about 3 channels. As for the internet? The expansion was at a similar rate, though for different causes. However in the end, due to how widely it gained connection, when entertainment began to be submitted through, there was already an audience willing to watch. This applies for what's coming in the future. Home computers are being purchased at increasing rates, and the internet is being spread to nearly every home, just like TVs. It's a new wave, and with this audience, entertainment exclusively made for the internet has a dominating market to begin with.

-Production cost and elements are best value. Getting a spot on TV is very hard and expensive to do unless you go on public access or invited to a talk show like Ellen or the O'Reilly Factor. Stations want ratings, and it's a hard game to play. Conversely on the internet, you don't have a business commanding your every step for an astronomical cost. Production can still cost a bit of money, but your space is free. You don't have to beg to get a spot!

-Playing the name game. Famous actors and musicians seem to be opting out for online entertainment. They see this new outlet and are interested in taking hold of it. And with these faces comes a good number of fans, all rabid to see their favorite people perform without having to sit through ten minutes of commercials or buy tickets to a movie. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a favorite example for me. Currently he's constructed his own web show that's built on the creations of ordinary people, like short music clips or animation. How would television networks even hope to compete with a media that promotes viewer interaction beyond texting to vote?

Do I believe this increasing media form will kill television? No. Networks always find a way to hook viewers, and as of now, it's still easier and more available to get a TV and provider than a computer with functioning internet. There will always be an audience.

I do believe though that this may usher in a new type of revolution. One where media is brought closer to the same level as the rest of us. Media where we can interact to some degree and have an influence. It's pretty amazing.

My only question is, will the internet ever become more widely available and more popular of an entertainment form than television? I have doubt, but not too much.

Update: Active Link for the Junk Head video.

Here you go kiddies! Ten minutes of fantastic stop motion action!

Week... 8? Really? 8 weeks?

Man I love this freedom. Just breaking down the walls and doing my own thing is about the best thing ever for an artist.

What I loved this week was getting experimental. I tried all sorts of new poses and camera angles I never thought of before, and stuff I've never even tried in regular art.

I was a little irritated by my slow pace, even if I've already knocked 36 seconds down. I'm planning this to be a minute and a half if all goes to plan. Gotta kick it into overdrive!

What I learned is that any time not spent animating is time that needs to be spent planning. I need to know what I'll do next or it grinds to a halt.

I do want to learn to synch my music to specific actions of the animation, but of course that's something I gotta practice myself.

I found something really cool this week, and I mean REALLY COOL. This Japanese dude spent 4 years making a stop motion film called Junk Head 1. Here's the 10 minute version. The full is coming in a few months!

http://youtu.be/vc2i4pFlqYo

Editing: Making that Perfect Cut

If we had no editing, probably a good majority movies we love would be absolutely terrible. Probably. But, say we're making our own movie. Say we're wrapping up production and now just need to spend time with the computer boys cutting up the tape to get that exact runtime and rating we're aiming for. While still maintaining the story and atmosphere.

-Know the film before you make it. Plan the scenes. When are they gonna happen? Will there be enough time? Can they exist while preserving the other important parts of the movie? These are all questions you'll need to ask in an editing room. If you can't time that explosion right so the climactic kiss will happen exactly 3.8 seconds after to where a voice-over will give the final exposition before the credits roll, well pal, you're out of a job. But we're not in an editing room, we're in a bedroom with time on our hands! So take time to plan. Be strategic! If you can do it ahead of time, you save everyone a lot of trouble.

-First isn't last. If your first draft is the best, you might be brilliant. Problem is, so is Stephen Spielberg, but even he rewrites his work. Like above, you're gonna need to make sure you've got all the contents right where they need to be, but you gotta pass it through the filter if you want it done. Give it another write and compare.

-This isn't about winning. You're putting on a show first and foremost. We're in entertainment, remember? So you're gonna have to make sure your boss is on board and you don't lose your cool. It's easy to do that too, so be careful. If there's an edit your boss says needs to be made, don't be stupid. Listen to him. Your word isn't the only voice of reason. And if you stay in the game without issue, you'll have a result you'll still be happy with along with a good majority of everyone else. I can't guarantee everyone though.

I think editing is quite underrated if you ask me, and it's why a good number of films couldn't perform what they tried to. You're getting these ideas to hit a prime. There's no other way to do that but to get tearing down and rebuilding.

It's a huge issue with ego too. You gotta learn to accept that it won't be perfect no matter what you do and people will tell you what to improve. Take the criticism. It does help usually.

So here's a bit of an open ended question. What movies would benefit the most from better editing? I'll actually try and come back with an answer for that.

How To Write Your Own Award Winning Screenplay!

I'm a pretty instinctive writer if it wasn't already apparent, so I took this article pretty deep in the head. Want to pitch a movie and back it to be visually appealing? You gotta have some of these elements:

-Complexity. Okay Joel, that's a given, but let me elaborate. Your characters can't be 1 dimensional. They need to have a motive, but they need to have realistic (not too much now) reactions and not be based on two or three models of expression. On top of that, this applies to the plot as well. You need multiple issues to solve. A movie with a single obvious goal just won't cut  it.

-Break the mold. Be creative with how you sequence everything. Do all songs have the same structure? Sure, many follow a formula, but there's a countless number of others that are unique. Same with movies. Don't make it expected. Keep your actions and events fresh and engaging without tying it to perfectly come to a close. That's what your generic movies do, and they don't win the awards.

-The setting sets it up for the kill. You know what made the Lord of the Rings work the most as a movie? The setting. Middle earth is a setting you can only get from one place, and Tolkien pretty much made us all know what fantasy literature is, so it can knock out the genre too. Your setting is responsible for what the characters can do and how dramatic the story can be. Don't limit it!

As I absolutely love analyzing movies, what does it for me most is when I see things that weren't anticipated, or structures that break normality. I watched L.A. Confidential last Friday. Excellent film. Had a couple cliches, but it made up with the fantastic amount of originality the writers used. The structure was dynamic and unpredictable, and the twists came out of nowhere. That's quality filming.

We need way more of this theory in our movies too, including low budget or indie movies. It shouldn't be divided over a line with "Famed director legendary score epic masterpiece" and "Cliche cop drama with romance subplot."

Are there any hidden gems that may hold this idea of film making yet to be uncovered by IMDb? I'll have to check back on that.

Week 7: Wait, how is this only week seven? It feels like I've been doing this way longer..

It feels good when you can translate reality to paper. I've definitely learned a lot this week. Maybe more than those prior.

What I loved the most was getting to really put creative freedom in my exercises of physics. When you know how to use the software, it's pretty great to go at more leisure and have a little fun.

Frame by frame has become love hate for me now. Which is actually good considering it was all hate earlier. I think I just need a little more conditioning. 

I learned that to keep moving at a good pace I need to keep fresh with ideas and concepts. I know the skills required, but if I don't have an idea to test them with, I'm holding myself back. 

I definitely want to learn how to effectively bend physics in animations. Doing something with distortion of gravity, or landscapes would be pretty schweet. 

So what do we have to show for a video? How about an independent dude who's got some noticeable talent in using Flash! Even better is he knows the troubles we go through with it. He knows them all too well as seen here. There may be an explanation as to why. 

New Old Cartoons: Just Like Back in 'Nam

Creativity is far from uncommon over at Disney studios, but an idea like their new Mickey Mouse short "Get a Horse" isn't something you actually see people try to pull off. Sure, it's cool, but when you think about it, how would they really get it to work? It's kind of like a back massaging Snuggie. 

So, here's how they did it. 

-Seeing is pretty much believing. 

The whole basis behind this short is illusion. The animators are tricking the viewer into believing that this short is, just short of a century old. How do they do this? What do you think of when you think of old animations? Rougher quality? Film grain? Stained film? Well it's all here, more or less. It's through these visual tricks that the animation does its job into making a grand illusion.

-Even your ears are fooled. 

Old audio is something that's not all too difficult to fake. I mean, there's a boatload of bands that go for a retro style in their music and make you feel like you're in the 60's. It's just a little different here though. Engineers basically copy and paste sound effects from the true old films and throw them in the new one. And what if you don't have audio for a certain one? You go straight to the actual tools that made them! This method took a bit more resource, but in the entire scheme, you get impressive results. 

-Correct aging is most recommended. 

The staff needed the right music. The right colors. The right actions. This all had to be time period specific, which required a lot of studying. You want those arcs to come out smooth? You gotta get your hands on the source material. All said and done, they stuck to the original work most impressively. 

I think this may honestly be one of Disney's most original ideas to come to the screen. To see an idea like this put into action is really inspiring. 

Going back to the old stuff really should give Disney a new viewpoint though. I truly hope it helps them with future works and maybe even giving a little homage to what started it all. 

But animation is only one option of many in media. We've seen things like this done with video games and movies too. Can we expect any new surprises to take a retro look?

VFX: The Field That Keeps Expanding

The visual effects industry has been with us in more or less some form since we first started performing plays, operas, and musicals. The transition into film and animation would be a clear one, but this transition changed VFX as much as it changed movies. This is of course a field of practice that is held deep in the arts, and therefore one must be somewhat in tune with their artistic side to get proficient, but as years progress, this is less and less the case as new innovations and implementations bring the artist closer to the technician. The result? An explosion of new ideas and career opportunities.

-Film was only the beginning.
Back when movies were one of the only few peaks of visual entertainment, VFX was a smaller and more concentrated department, mostly due to the fact that good movies required the best. This left opportunities extremely slim for those wanting to get involved. Not so as we've moved to the modern age. Movies still require an impressive job of effects, but now we've got a lot more people at the helm, and not just artists! But on top of that we've moved into using VFX more extensively for television, and now making insane progress, video games.

-The work is very demanding, but getting in isn't nearly as impossible as one might think.
To put it in a realistic lens, not everyone can do VFX. This is a field that still requires people who can do all and do more. You need passion like no other and dedication for excellence. This is a job to get because it's the job you want. But that's a bit dramatic considering how it's not extremely difficult to gain the skills required for such a career. Technical and artistic values are key, but you need not be an expert at either to get somewhere. If you can carry yourself well in one or both, you've just made the first step. The challenge comes from how hard you're willing to push yourself.

-There's a lot of options once you're in.
The involvement of tech and art varies, but there's elements of both for the wide selection of jobs you can take part in from just entering the professional zone. The deal is these jobs must work together. Lighting, color, editing, final touches, and digital enhancements all work together. And that's not even close to summarizing all the individual positions.

As far as animation and effects go, I'm happy entertainment coexists with the industry. However, I do feel the intensity of this field is partially due to how much today's media relies on it.

On top of this, while I do love the amazing career openings happening as a result of this industry's gradual expansion, it's a bit of a shame that the skillsets needed for it are a bit narrow. I feel like there's still room for other talents outside of art and technology.

Are we ever going to really see the end of visual effects?

Week Six: Oh God What Have I Done

I guess the appropriate name would have been Hell Week. But hey, it's over!

What I enjoyed this week it getting some bit of an ease in work. The rotoscoping was indeed tedious, but we didn't have to do anything different! It was pretty great in that aspect!

My dislike stems from not having access to the tablets on Thursday, given I was too stupid to remember to bring mine.

I learned that there's really no shortcut to this kind of work and you just need to shut off your brain and get down to it. Motivating huh?

What I would like to learn is more about the kind of effects you can pull off with this style. I'm creatively drawing blanks as to what I can do.

Capping another solid week off, I've got some funky psychedelic jams from another favorite band of mine, Tame Impala. This video features absolutely trippy hand drawn animations and styles sure to inspire. Have a good night broskis. 

Bigger and Bolder: Complexity in Digital Animation Effects

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2 apparently caught some professional eyes, and it's not just because of its leading box office score.
What we're seeing here is some major leaps in what people can do with digital animation, and if you didn't notice, here are a few to look back at again.

-Nonphysical physics? This sounds like something that could easily kill a robot, computer, or any AI, but somehow Sony did it. The film uses many simulations to gain the effects you see, but these simulations are grounded in real life physics, and the movie? Yeah, not so much. What you have here is in a sense, bending reality. You'd think a person would have to have a degree in quantum engineering to pull that off, but it seems that's not so when you've got the right software!

-Fluid effects that are more technical than they appear. What you see here is animators taking real life water simulations and modifying them to a cartoony style. Real life is far from the style the movie presents, so of course a little breaking of the rules is involved. The crew at Sony established that the highest importance was making the shots look good. From that basis they modified how the water acted and how the gravity functioned. Do it enough, and you've got movie quality gold.

-Multicharacter juggernaut. There's a big scene featured in this film. It involves 1000 frames, and many, many characters all doing their own thing with the world interacting to each individual. Your home computer would have already crashed, and I don't care how many numbers your Nvidia GPU has. In complex acts like these, the animators considered it a nightmare, but with the end result? Totally worth it.

I think pushing the boundaries like this is a must if we are to keep pioneering digital animation. We need to push ourselves and our technology to the limit to learn the most we can. There's always room to improve.

In cases like this though, it's a little disheartening to me how much computer intensive this becomes. Compared to doing something like this in a 2d style animation (I.E. suicide) the 3d seems to take away just a slight amount of the impressiveness of these feats. But just a slight.

That's all I can really say on the topic. Would you suspect the other major studios to be pushing the envelope too? (I have a fear Pixar is starting to ease up.)

Still Relevant: Traditional Special Effects

I unfortunately don't have such a gratuitous amount of time to write tonight, so I'm unfortunately going to have to cut my observations a bit short this week. My apologies, but try to enjoy anyway!

I love me some good old fashioned effects, and while it does seem like the movie world is being killed by CG, you'd be surprised to see how much we still rely on pure talent to make some more-than-believeable faces and monsters. 

-Special effects has been a high tech field for quite some time. Sure back in the black and white days we were a bit limited with what we could do, but the second robotics and prosthetics hit, we turned right to them. These advances have become so widely used in effects that it's very rare to find those who go without. 

-Artists still needed. As high quality renderings are easily cranked out by today's computers, we still need artists to get the true touch. Realistic effects require people with an understanding of applying it. Especially in the third dimension. Thus, artists will never go unneeded. 

-Constant expansion. Like said before, special effects have used advanced materials right when they became available, and as the art evolves, there needs to be a feed on what new tech emerges. Technology goes hand in hand with this field, and without it, you get a very lacking end result.

I haven't stated this much myself, but I absolutely love seeing a good application of traditional effects, and especially in horror films. It makes me feel assured that our artists don't have to sit behind a desktop all day and really get to engage in their work.

I think while it does get a good amount of use in today's film, traditional effects do need to be better understood and appreciated by audiences. It takes a massive amount of work for just one movie, and in what many consider a CG dominated environment, I believe a human touch is required to bring the audience closer. 

Facts and opinions settled, there was one mention in the article that caught my eye. We use high definition cameras as a standard now, but the old lover def cameras worked great in older horror movies to aid in the atmosphere. Why don't we try to use them more?

Week Five: Late Night with Joel Congi

Have I ever mentioned I do these at the nearly last minute? I always seem to perform better under pressure.

Rotoscoping intrigues me to no end. The way it delves into the uncanny valley is something magical. You're making the perfect combination of real life and art. Just plain cool.

What I dislike is the obvious. Repetitiveness and onward droning of drawing individual frames. I think my eyes are turning inside out every hour I stare at the screen. Also that little mistake where I somehow got the final to still be 24 fps. Ah well, at least the quality will show.

I did learn that being a perfectionist really isn't all to necessary if you want a cool product. I tend to keep every other frame smooth, but get a little careless with those between. Really makes the animation breath.

What I'd like to learn is how I can figure this out with something like Autodesk Sketchbook Pro. There's some cool techniques I'd love to employ.

So for a special treat, I'm going to offer a music video from one of my favorite bands, The Features. I had the pleasure of meeting these guys in person last spring. One of the coolest groups no doubt. This video here features an excellent mix different animation techniques over one really catchy tune. Have fun.

The Living Dead in Our Culture

Since Romero successfully broke the concept into the mainstream during the late 60s, zombies have invaded popular culture and have only exponentially increased in popularity. Movies, novels, graphic novels, and yes, even music can't escape from their influence. I myself have never really been all to caught up in the craze, but I can't deny how big of an impact the living dead have had in our culture. Why is that?

-Symbolism! Zombies are more than they physically appear. Take a second to think about their aspects. What groups in society can you apply them to? If you answered anything you're right. Consumerism, communism, world religions, they can be used as a metaphor for many things, and it's effective. Dawn of The Dead wasn't set in a mall just because of the size. In that movie Romero wanted the zombies to stand in as the mindless drones you see shuffling in the mall every day.

-Easy enemies. We always need something to hate. Something to blame. Something to satisfy our violent thoughts and intentions (it's human nature. Don't say you've never had them). Zombies fill that need. In media they're killed in various gruesome manners, they're central enemies. That's a universal filler that's hard to find elsewhere!

-Even more symbolism! Our society under the influence of growing technology is something to marvel at and worry about. We do tend to use tech as a crutch in many aspects, and most commonly, to think for us. And it's accessible to a huge number of us. Sounds like zombies. We have no brain of our own, and come in many numbers. Well, to exaggerate.

If there's one thing I love about zombies, all the the rules of civility are thrown out the window. You can imagine the most horrible thing you can do to another human. But when that human is a zombie, it's perfectly acceptable! Think about it, you're basically judge jury and executioner!

I really doubt we'll see much a decrease in media presence from zombies in the future. There always seems to be at least one zombie film for each year. I don't find this good or bad. It's like romantic comedies. They're just going to be with us forever no matter what we do.

But there's one question I do have. We've thrown a lot of ideas with zombies around, and many are just about the same. Where do we go from here to revolutionize the genre?

The Unshakable Aspect

I've noticed it myself, but I've never thought all too much about it. Female characters in animation are constantly held behind the lens that we call "pretty". Really, this is present in all forms of visual art (most especially video games), but does the point hold water? Well over at Disney it appears there's been quite some controversy started over the matter. It even brought upon a sub-argument on the difficulty of animating women vs men. No matter if the causing statement was misinterpreted or not, here are the facts.

-Animation of male and female figures both pose challenges, but there isn't really a greater or lesser among the two. This is kind of obvious. Yes, men and women will display different mannerisms in movement, but under animation, both exist on nearly the same skeleton. You have the same basics of movement and the same anatomical limits. It's a little ignorant to argue one is harder when both are almost identical by core, and only minor in difference externally. On top of that, these traits aren't necessarily exclusive to either sex.

-Realism should still apply to some degree. No one looks good every single second, but when you're moving a hand drawn and rendered character around, you can pass that rule of reality. But should you? Humans are defined by imperfections, and when you have, so to say, a visually perfect character, it takes away a lot of that humanity. It is feared in the industry that the "pretty" image animators strive for is taken above all which can sacrifice any real human quality a character could possess. 

-Cookie cutter designs. It may be subjective, but the comparisons are uncanny. When you strive to make a very "pretty" character, you'll tend to pull yourself into an ideal image. When it comes to recent Disney animations, a creative GIF can give you all the evidence you need. Without imperfections, you will find yourself having the same features. Facial shapes trend, and eventually it's left to eye color and hair. At that point individuality is nearly lost. 

I found this a tougher article to analyze honestly, but just the same, I do have a couple opinions.

Like the third point, I really do feel we're seeing too little variance in female characters presented in visual arts. I do mostly blame this on the pursuit of attractiveness over individuality. It actually ties into one of my favorite tropes, the Six Faces http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnlySixFaces

And that issue with the creative duty shift for Brave; I couldn't agree more with the original designer. That update was just cliche. It offended everything that the original established. You had something unique at first, but the update just made it into a product. Something to sell on shelves. And it's sad that we see this all too much. 

I hope we can overcome this creative rut at some point. Why do we stick to these age old ideals anyway? Is an attractive character really going to make us see a good movie any more than we would in the first place? Well, sure there's going to be the shallow few who only care about who the leads are and how they look, but them aside, does it make a difference to the rest of us moviegoers? 

Week Four: Takin' Care of Business

These blogs, so many words! But I can't write enough!

I take it back, I'm starting to love working in Flash. Finishing those tutorials shed a lot of light on the app and I have been enlightened! 

Very sad news though, and I was hit hard by it this week. The legendary writer Tom Clancy has passed on. I became a huge fan of his works two years ago and haven't stopped reading his books since. It hurts to lose the guy who makes what you love.

I learned the difference between motion tweening and shape tweening is pretty darn big. Like, the difference between your animation being technically impressive or a huge acid trip.

What I want to learn is how I'm going to make multiple tweens interact. Like two objects crashing into eachother and then how they individually react. Complex stuff to think about this early, but I'm that kind of guy. 

Alright we'll finish with a favorite producer of mine. Jaltoid! And what do you know, these guys use Flash too! Very relevant with what we're currently doing no doubt. Their videos are pretty funny indirect commentary on common internet instances, on top of just funny nonsensiscal things, like Batmin! Enjoy!

Counter-productivity in The World of Animation

Heheh, Sausage Party. 

In all honesty though, from reading about Seth Rogen's and Evan Goldberg's upcoming "adult" animated comedy, I'm not getting much of a hope for greatness generated. To start out, this is very far from the point I made in the last blog. What these comedy regulars intend to do is produce an animated comedy with tons of raunchy jokes and I can only assume an endless slur of profanity with Danny McBride involved. 

I'm not against it. That's just to clarify, but what I don't like is that they're not improving the image of animation with this idea. Lets analyze the premise here: The main characters a sausages. It's an adult comedy. We can clearly see where this leads. Now what we've discussed before is that animation needs expansion into more mature audiences. But are we talking the same mature here? Some see it as more of an excuse to use elements that would be most unwarranted in polite company, but maturity has a big stem in understanding complexity. And we want more complex animations. Movies with bigger messages. Deeper elements. Does Sausage Party have this? So far it doesn't look that way. Lets face it. What we're seeing here is stuff that your average 12 year old will still be entertained by. There's nothing revealed that would give a second thought, and until there is, I don't have much hope this film will be bringing much expansion of audience to the medium of animation. To say as the title does, counter-productive. 

Those are my cold thoughts on it. Now with who's involved I don't believe this movie is going to be bad per-se, but it certainly doesn't sound forward moving. 

Barriers That Should Not Be

I love movies. I love watching them, I love reviewing them, I love ranting on them, and I'm really not picky on what genre they are as long as they're well written. (Keyword WELL WRITTEN). But there's one thing that I'm definitely not the only person to notice: Animated films are being labeled by their medium rather than their purpose. Or rather, this is how they're being produced. Let's round up some facts!

-A very large majority of animated films play the same role in what they provide. That is, comedy and general entertainment for kids, and maybe a few laughs or the rare deeper message for adults. But think about it; what animated film of the last five, even tens years that you've seen hasn't fallen under this ideal? And the Simpsons Movie doesn't count because we all know it still did the same thing. 

-Film industry categorizes animation into genre more than medium. This banks off the last one a bit too. We've got the kids' comedy with some maturely appreciated tones. But isn't that a genre? As definition dictates, genre is determined by theme. But animated movies seem to all share the same theme. Not the end moral mind you, there's a lot of different ones there, but how that movie works and plays out. Meanwhile, animation really is just another way to make films. Now it is more flexible. You can do more comedy based ideas in the realm of animation and make scenes that would just cost way too much in real life to pull off, but the bottom line remains, it's a filming process. 

-There are in fact animated films that break these boundaries, but not many. Beowulf is one of my favorite examples. Point here being though, there's not a significant amount that can warrant the movie makers to do more with animation. When you only see kid comedies with maturely appreciated undertones under the big screen that overshadow everything else, that's all you're going to see.

Like said earlier, there are films that break the boundaries, but I think we need more to make a point. Did you know the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were like one of the darkest comics imagined? (And I'm talking Watchmen dark.) Not to say where they went today is bad (because TMNT will always be cool as long as Michael Bay doesn't touch it), but there is more room to cover. We need audience expansion!

With this, I think we need animations that push the envelope. Not extreme, but enough to make people realize that "oh man, we can still make a compelling drama with drawings and voice actors!". 

So when will this generalization start to change? I hope soon honestly. Animation is a serious medium if you ask me and needs expansion as soon as possible. 

It's true! TV is brainwashing you!.. Kind of...

So you've got Walter White. Main character of breaking bad. Your first thought is likely "how can anyone side themselves with and promote the escapades of a terminally ill insane man who creates super high quality crystal meth and then runs a super tight business to sell and distribute it?" Well, maybe not with as many big words, but then your second thought may be something like "oh wait, terminally ill? Maybe there's more to this guy than my first uneducated assumption led me to conclude." Once again, probably not as many big words. But that's how they get you! Sympathy through logical and visual means! But how do the bad boys at AMC get it done?

-Point of view in film was pioneered by this Russian film maker and then mastered by Alfred Hitchcock. That's not necessarily important info, but here is some: It gets you into the character's head. Show the character, their face better yet, and show what they're interacting with or examining in that environment. Now cut back to their face and see what their ultimate expression is. That's where it hits. Through a visual reaction you can understand that character's logical thoughts.

Hold on though, we're already in pretty deep. Let's backtrack to a more surfaced reason.

-Initial sympathy. How do you make people feel bad for you, or conversely? Now this question of course has many answers, but pretty much all of them are correct, and that's what's used in film. You've got Walter White, normal guy, chemistry teacher, has a wife, a kid, and another one coming. Typical american household. Nothing special. Hold on, let's have it so he's diagnosed with terminal cancer. Well, that's pretty awful isn't it? Feeling bad for him yet? Let's have his child suffer from cerebral palsy. And now you get it. Backing. A starting point to understand a character's position. Good shows and movies use this all the time.

And to dive into the deep end again-

-Expression. You need good old acting. Lets face it; you can't get anywhere in terms of emotion if the main character can't convey it themselves. Really, how far did you think fancy camera work would get you?

But now for opinions:
I think everything has the hardest impact when it's subtle. If something horrible happens and the character has a predictably acted reaction you've lost all connection. But what if you go deeper? What if you give a more complex reaction? One where they aren't processing all the information, or are just awestruck. Something to study if you ask me.

Along with this, I do think narration of thought doesn't belong a whole lot in drama and more complex film genres. Now that's not to say it's not needed in any. Comedy is an excellent genre to use it in because of the trope status thought narration has gained.

So what about acting? I only touched lightly on that subject, but what does an actor need to specifically do to compliment these techniques? Well, maybe we'll find out if I start studying theater sometime.

Week Three Comments: Just Getting Started

You know It feels like these weeks are starting to move by faster...

Anyways, welcome back to my weekly bantering! In this episode:

I enjoyed my more natural progression with learning Flash compared to how Illustrator started out for me. The drawing tools still go a bit against my personal methods, but if it's so widely used I clearly have some more learning to do.

Condensed work is always a bad spot for me. Not to say the work in this class specifically has been overwhelming (and in fact it's actually been a lot more bearable than last year's clusterfudge of AP work), but school is certainly taking over in terms of my free time.

What I have learned is that layers seem to be an important theme in a good majority of Adobe programs, and Flash is definitely going to have some good habits to learn using them.

It's a little specific, but whenever I think to the future of how my work is going to look, I keep coming to lip syncing and general mouth movements as well as change of emotions. Given, I've done stuff like this before, although not to the kind of tune you'd find in flash.

And as always, I'd like to share some cool relevant material: This week features an awesome animated feature chronicling the epic legacy of everyone's favorite toy (and most hated to step on), the Lego brick:

The Lords of Entertainment: Conquest of Disney and Henson

Two things: The Muppets are still hilarious, and Jim Henson seems to have quite a lot more to do with Walt Disney than I thought prior to reading this article. http://blogs.indiewire.com/animationscoop/walt-disney-and-jim-henson-so-similar-so-different

They are most certainly comparable guys considering the scope of what they did and their success, but it turns out they had a comparable share of differences.

-Origins. Or more specifically, they both started their lives in comparable small towns. They didn't have a luxurious, though nor poverty stricken life, but were in such a state where they could be appreciative of simple pleasures. On top of this, both had some considerable fantasy influence. Snow White did it for Walt, and The Wizard of Oz did it for Jim.

-Character was highly present in both their works and their lives. But it did work at an inverse. Walt was more of a socially conservative guy who didn't get very wild in his daily life, however Jim always tried to reach for high class. Fine dining and other luxurious elements were favored by him. Of course you have their lead characters Kermit and Mickey who both share quite a similar disposition and attitude.

-Progressive work and ideas. Both Disney and Henson ignited a revolution in entertainment, but impressively they did so with using much of the same technology. Both were fully engaged in employing animatronics, special effects, and whatever future technology appeared to soon become a massive thing.

What I think about these two is that they really secured bigger domains in their time than they may have realized. Their companies are the biggest names in what they do after all!
On top of this, they accomplished more in their lives than most companies can in a few generations, and even more after their own lives. To say in the least, they did a good job leaving their respective legacies.

While Jim Henson isn't a name associated with animation, could there still be something to lean from him that would apply to the medium? My guess would be yes, but that'll be some more studying to do.

Professional Advice from our friends at Dreamworks.

Whenever I think of animation and comics, storyboarding is always that one step I forget about. When my thought process starts I'm already motivated to get down to the actual process of making the actual product. It's not unlike how I write music, which in that case is a perfectly acceptable method, but that's just one media. Combining motion, art, and possibly sound is usually best done with some planning ahead. So once again, we have the storyboard. What can our friend Ben Caldwell teach us about them?

-Use dimension. Even 2d animations still have a sense of depth to them. It may just be pen(cil) and paper, but the characters and elements in that scene are still imposed in a three dimensional world. Caldwell recommends using grids firsthand. They imply the presence of a ground with a better sense of angle. When it comes to the final shots, depth is a vital element, and it's best to get that as early as possible.

-Give purpose to actions. You know how in horror movies especially there are all kind of odd camera angles at some points? These all have a purpose. They build an atmosphere and can develop a sense of fear or helplessness. But this also applies to character actions. It's all logically an action and reaction basis. Something happens, character responds. If your character is in the middle of a run cycle but appears to have no explanation as to why, the animation loses any emotion or feeling developed. 

-Connect both your characters and environments. Many already know the theory of foreground, middle ground, and background. This still applies in animation. In your storyboard you need to have a presence of all three or you're stuck to a true 2d platform which severely limits actions you can take. Camera angles and dynamic shots require basis in this theory if you want depth. As for characters: KEEP TRACK OF THEM. Sure it may sound like an obvious tip, but if you have individual scenes for each, it's pretty easy to confuse them when they haven't been very defined at this point. 

What I myself can tell you is that a storyboard should be thought of like a really simplistic comic. You connect the key poses and dialogue points in each scene. What the animation does is connect these key points with movement. It's a basic thesis for me at least. 

Secondly: Never get too deep into it. Remember this is only one step in the process, and taking your sweet time to make a masterpiece is counterproductive to making the final piece. That being said, storyboards are an excellent template to work off sequential art with, but that's a different topic.

Now how about a question? When did the storyboard process start? In animations earliest moments it seems nonexistent, although Disney appears to have used it very early on.

Bottom line is I'm definitely going to look deeper into how I storyboard from now on. My initial idea of it being like a precursor comic wasn't too far off the mark, but I still have to develop these key ideas. Hopefully we'll see some progress in the future! 

Week Two Comments: We've got progress!

I'm still liking this class so there's a positive!

I think what I've enjoyed most is getting more room to become familiar with Illustrator on top of experimenting with a new art style that work with vector imagery. I actually like it!

My only negative is that it takes FOR-E-VER (as in the pronunciation you hear in The Sandlot.) At least for how I draw. This final work has like 70 individual shapes.

I have learned more about the color tab though. Rather than guessing and clicking a random point on the color block I can use the Color Guide to be more defined in shade. Very helpful tool. 10/10 would recommend to a friend.

What I want to do now is try to get 3D vector work going. When I look close enough at my character I can see a 3D figure! It's crazy and I want to make it real!

So to cap it off, I give you one of my favorite non-professional animators Harry Partridge. A lot of his stuff is far from school appropriate, but in this case there's no worry. His Saturday morning cartoon versions of Mass Effect and Watchmen are just plain hilarious! And he does this all himself. Frames color and voices. Inspiring.

Musical Mind Games

Being a musician, I can always have some serious appreciation for a good movie soundtrack. Ambient sounds and moving symphonies really make the difference in a movie, video game, or even television shows. Music influences us so heavily that we have to put it directly through our ear canals now. It's no wonder movies make good use of it. So what are the secrets?

-You're already preparing for an experience when you walk into that cinema. You know there's gonna be a nice comfortable seat waiting for you, impressive surround sound, and if you're rich, a massive IMAX screen to surround you. At this point, the music is just manipulating your already immersed self. You're already so into this movie before it even starts. Now you're at the will of the composer should you be saddened, excited, or terrified.

-Unnatural sounds have a primal root in the human mind. Now your alarm clock probably won't send you cowering, but what you find in nature that doesn't routinely happen in nature can make anyone worry. It's instantly associated with fear and survival. Like how the Emergency Alert System can be unnerving: It's rarely heard, but designed to warn of massive danger. So of course when you hear that digital chirp, you snap to attention. The movies mimic this stuff in nature. Warning cries from animals that are otherwise usually placid. With some well placed string instruments and effects, you get a faithful reproduction.

-Infrasound? Interesting word. It's a sub-bass tone which we can not hear but are still effected by. You can sense, but not entirely. And that really sounds like a lot of good old fashioned horror ideas. Ghosts, monsters of all sorts. We fear the unknown, and when that's exploited through our limited senses, you can start to see why scary movies are scary.

My thoughts on this?
Horror movies these days seem to be getting a poorer reception compared to the golden era of them in the 70s and 80s. But what makes the difference between classics like The Shining, The Thing, or The Changeling and newer flicks like The Last Exorcism, and The Blair Witch Project? Well, effects are one thing, but that's another opinion. Acting? Well that's subjective, though I'd say yes partially, but overall it's music. The scores dictate the end. Music makes that final connection that every other element can't.

While a lot of music effects have become tropes in film, there's still much more room to explore. I think people don't understand there's more to discover and rather try to bank off what is established. But that's what makes movies stale. You need to keep feeding new ideas.

So I'm wondering, what's the difference in use of music from movies 2000 and past compared to those from the 20th century? I would guess there has to be some kind of difference in use.

Maybe we'll see. But hopefully we keep the art of music in movies for a long time to come.

Alternative Advertisement

Ah yes, the confused and diverse world of advertisement. Let's start of honest here: I'm about as leaned in this topic as just about any other average Joe. I'm the guy who says "let's just put in some new indie garage rock band and some robots and then show the product at the end!" Not the most sophisticated thought process.

So we have Chipotle, and.. Well I've noticed you don't see very many ads for them. They're just kind of there. Anyway, they release this ad. An animated one starring a scarecrow character. With just a bit of controversial elements they managed to rustle some major jimmies it appears.

-Any publicity is good publicity seems to be a recurring idea with many companies. And that's a major one with this. Chipotle wanted to strike with a more lasting message than your average advertisement (though three minutes seems like a very generous slot. Even for an online ad.) This both works, and doesn't. Take T-Mobile and Nokia who spend the whole ad pointing out the competition until finally giving a two second mention to their own phone. By that time people are on a thought tangent about the Galaxy and iPhone.

-Again on the issue of ignoring the product, this kind of advertisement usually falls flat for emphasis on that reason. Chipotle has barely any advertisements, if even slightly memorable at all. We don't really know what they're all about until we go there, so when they're making an ad emphasizing a message that we can't directly link to them, you get a lost audience. "Cause marketing" is the term, and here it fails as usual.

-They tried to go for a viral video approach. While that's a noble effort, it's not the proper media for advertisement. When a video becomes viral people only care about the video. The connection to the company becomes a minor relation and really helps very little in business recognition. And if this video garners a negative attitude? Well then you've defeated your own cause.

Opinion time!

I'd much prefer to cut the sentimental deeper message stuff and get straight to the main course (pun intended if you want). Chipotle sells food. You go there to eat. SHOW THEM THE FOOD! It's counterproductive to give a huge narrative if your company has little advertisement presence to begin with. Start small and make a name!

Always incorporate the name at every given chance. Every second you don't let the audience know who you are is one slowly mounting failure. This is always the biggest issue. Identification. If I don't know it's a commercial for Chipotle and it's going on forever, chances are I'm gonna flip to another page or channel before I find out.

So, my final inquiry: Why did they go through all of this to promote an iOS game? Like, this could be their big break into advertisement of their business, but then they put all this controversy on an ad for a game with Chipotle pasted quickly at the end.

Makes me wonder.
                                                                                 

Week One Comments: In The Beginning, There Was Joel

So, the first true week of school, and I've been kickstarted into animation. Wow.

What I'm liking so far is that what was initially a nervous start with Adobe Illustrator became second nature within a couple days. It's a great application to use and I'm definitely looking into getting a copy for myself.

I'll admit, while I honestly have no problem with the OS and hardware, I dislike that I still can't get very comfortable with the iMac. I did grow up using Windows, but hopefully I can expand soon enough.

I learned that vector drawing really takes some effort to create a pleasing finished product, although the end result is very rewarding. I've never seen lines and colors both that sharp and smooth. It's really something new to me.

I do want to learn how to get more advanced with colors soon. As much art as I make, coloring has always been a weak point.

So let's end it with a favorite band, favorite video, and favorite childhood toy! (Best combo ever). This White Stripes music video was done entirely in stop motion in LEGO. Got pretty famous when it came out in 2002. Now animating music videos is something I wanna try soon!

WOW! THAT'S A LOW PRICE!

Affordable DIY movie effects that look like the real thing? I think I'm definitely interested.
Here's the rundown of what I'm seeing:
http://vashivisuals.com/visual-effects-low-budget-filmmaking/

-Miniatures. Now why doesn't this come up as an idea more often? With an insane fraction of the cost you get from the real thing  (in Speilberg's case, an entire tanker in the middle of the desert), on top of an accurate recreation of color and shape, miniature models are probably one of the smartest choices in budget filming. Given, it's not always easy to pull off, and that brings me to the second lesson I learned.

-Camera effects are something people seem to always overlook. Of course we live in a society where instant higher quality images aren't too hard to take, but you'll need a little more than those filters that come pre-installed on your iPhone. Legitimate camera lenses, like fish eye lenses and wide lenses are super useful in distorting the visuals to, as mentioned above, impose reality on models. Now good lenses can still cost a considerable amount of cash, but in the long run of producing a film, it pays off to the nth degree,

-On location filming isn't always practical. Deserts and tropics aren't always within reach, but you'd be surprised how you can improvise with your local environment. California especially is shown as a wide variety of environments to film with. Now New York is just a bit more limited, but you still have a good set of options. Farmland, woodland areas, beaches, and even the Adirondack mountains if you're willing to take a drive are all within a reasonable distance.

So, I personally think movies with bigger budgets should certainly still use small ideas like these. Sure, you've got the money to do it all for real, but saving time and a considerable amount of the budget is always a wise choice.

Secondly, there are tons of people out there who want to make their own movies. Of course they don't belong to any media guild in Hollywood, so big budget is out of there. With these ideas in their heads, they'll be able to possibly realize their dreams and create awesome films that people will love and create new directing legends. Maybe I'm fantasizing a bit, but it's possible.

So, what other secrets are there? Surely there's more to learn!
Either way, that's my analysis on the subject. Until next time, this has been your bearded guitar dude, Joel.

Animated Movies: More eye candy than feature film it seems.

Would you look at that! The LA Times agrees with me! http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fi-ct-animation-20130820,0,2186903,full.story

Despite my opinion that we're being overloaded with an increasingly narrowing spectrum of animated movies, it's fact that since Toy Story was brought to the silver screen, we've witnessed an industry expansion that's near rivaled that of live action films themselves. What exactly shows this though?

-75. 75 animated movies have been released since 2008, and there's another 13 yet to come from now. Think about this: In a full year of films, you'll usually only have about 10-12 at most really catch your eye. Imagine the influence 75 animated films is gonna have on that, or 15 per year for the correct perspective (maybe 8-10 that are really advertised well).

-Animated films are making box office numbers that many live action films can't touch. Insane. Now I'm not saying this shouldn't be happening, but to live in a time where movies like Monster's University and Despicable Me 2 can compete in the box office with something like Les Miserables? It's pretty shocking.

-The sheer concentration of animated movies being put out in one season is believed to be a major reason why movies like Rise of  the Guardians and Turbo performed much less than satisfactory for Dreamworks.

Like I said before, I think the film companies like Dreamworks are going too heavy into animated film production. Nearly to the point where they're practically a dollar a dozen. When you have a major success like Shrek (which has now been milked dry by excessive sequels), and How to Train Your Dragon, the first course of action should be to dial it back and get into deep planning once again. You can't assume your next film will be great just because the prior was. You need to treat them individually. This leads me to my next opinion.

Animated films are still films. We go to the movies primarily to see something entertaining, be it through a good story, well developed characters, and impressive cast performances, (and yes, even mostly the festival of special effects). The deal I feel with the more incoming films is the producers are using the animated aspect for compensation to the rest of the movie. The important cinema elements appear to in many cases take a back seat to emphasis on visuals.

Are movie producers ignoring these issues and continuing on just to gamble on their proposed next big hit? Or are they simply unaware of the connections present?

Either way, I believe there's some rethinking and sorting out to be done. That's my two cents on this. Thanks for reading!
                        Joel Congi - Apparently now some sort of professional media commentator.

First Impressions

To dodge all the finer elements of having a blog, I'm just going to keep things as straightforward as possible. No fancy text, no personal feelings, just cool art and animation stuff, and of course the occasional cool video. Joel Congi has spoken. You may go now in peace.