The Home Stretch

Well, we're nearing the end guys, but I've still got my weekly comments as usual. Let's kick it in. 

Working with voice acting off a script is a new experience for me, and I love it. I think I'm going to have to do more of this in my future with animating. 

I don't know what I did to deserve it, but for some reason my Mac thought it would be a great time to force update when I was in the middle of lip syncing. Lost a bit of important stuff, but nothing too valuable wasted. 

I learned more about being conservative in my art. There's just not enough time to be detailed, and I'm finally maximizing output with visual appeal. 

I'd like to learn some more advanced mouth movements in lip sync that involve the facial shape and jaw. It'd really give that extra punch in the animation I think. 

Short Film Cliches or What I'd like to see less of from stupid "artsy" directors

Short films don't give you a lot of time to develop your setting and characters, which leads to the movie makers going for easy to understand bases and ideas. Unfortunately this gives us a lot of similar ideas as a result, which means a lot of repetitiveness and eventual disinterest.

-Lets get down to drama. Quick, we need to get a gripping tale started and addressed as soon as possible. What do we do?! Did you say post-apocalypse setting? Well if I was making a short film you'd be fired (yes my current animation has that setting too. No I'm not going to apologize.) Going for a dramatic setting is one thing, but if you're going to rely on a cliched environment it's likely you've got some elements that are lacking beyond setting.

-Lets go retro! For some reason people think it's cool to try silent films and black and white because of the unique vibe the give. They are cool, but nonetheless still overplayed. It's in many cases an example that the crew is lacking in something and using these ideas as filler. Don't do that. Use retro concepts with moderation.

-Mind blowing. Ha, more like money blowing. Because I blew my money on the ticket to... ahh screw it. Look, it's understandable people want to make a movie that makes you think. Honestly I don't think we have enough intellectual movies out these days, but good lord will you please not take ordinary ideas and people and try to explode them into something deeper than they are? It's like a biology major writing an essay in his first semester. A lot of it is just overblown words for simple stuff.

Cliches aren't necessarily bad, but overuse certainly isn't good. I love many of these concepts that have become cliche, and wish for the sake of future directors that people try to have other ideas first.

Many people take themselves all too seriously, and as a result will often produce this kind of stuff. Don't ever take yourself too serious in your work. If you can't have fun with it, you'll have tons of trouble being creative with it.

Will these cliches change over time? I feel some will, but there's no telling really. Let's hope for all our sake.

Wait, they're making different styles of 3D now?

3D animation is of course kind of limited in the sense of artistic freedom and expression you really have. Not to say you have to abide by specific rules, but do you really see much variation in how Pixar and Dreamworks present their films? Sure you can be a bit different with how you render. Vector style 3D is one of my favorites, and you can get creative with texturing, but what else is there you can really do? Well Pixar has addressed this and is now developing ways to really let the ideas flow into polygons through different base styles.

-Putting in the personal touch. They're setting it up to where an artist can employ their own individual style into a 3D model and environment. Different linework, paint strokes, you name it. This is all overlain the polygonal structures and presented as the outer skin. On top of that, with just a few frames manually done, the computer can then replicate that style for the remainder of the frames automatically. Convenient.

-Photorealism isn't a style. When we watch cartoons, it's easy to tell each apart by art style. It's incredibly easy to pick apart a Hanna Barbara work from a Warner Brothers production. You see specific nuances and accents that the other guys don't use. In 3D? Not exactly. Sure you can render in different engines and softwares, but there's not too much that differentiates 3D filmmakers in terms of appearance. This is why people constantly think Pixar did Frozen. Now with these new ideas being employed, we may be able to see these same differences in style and execution come to fruition again, and really make movies and shows stand out among the rest.

-Is it really an advancement? In terms of what we're doing with our technology, not exactly. It's kind of an unspoken rule in 3D that it's more superior tech if the output is more representational of reality. When you go to hand-drawn styles, it's kind of going backwards considering the less realistic you get, the more differences in interpretation there are. In the end though, it's certainly a step out there.

I'm really happy to hear about this development and think it's awesome Pixar is doing a push towards the unique abilities of individual artists in comparison to simply trying to look more advanced. We'll be seeing more unique works, and likely be more motivated to see them.

I feel 3D animation has especially stagnated as of late when you really look at all the movies launched. Sure, there's difference in style, but it's not as significant as back in the 2 dimensional days.

My only question is how long will it take until we see this stuff at the movies? I can't wait!