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.