Should animation only be reserved for certain things?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Is this valid criticism?
Should animation only be reserved for certain things?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
No? One of the things I found impressive about anomalasia is how natural the animation felt and how I honestly enjoyed that it could’ve been live action and lost very little. Though I didn’t realize this was out, has anyone seen it? How was it
Animation is superior to live action.
I felt that way during Motion Capture animated movie craze of the early 2010's.
Animation means it's for children
There should be an exception for painted and stop-motion
Okay Yidsney.
Walt did his best.
It's not his fault nobody wanted to watch Fantasia.
His name is disney spelled backwards.
It doesn’t take a genius to see why twitter is pushing movies like Spider-Verse, Nimona and nu-TMNT for awards, but NOT this one.
it's in Polish rather than English?
You could just as easily turn this question around and ask why something should be live action. Why go to the painstaking effort of creating something tangibly in front of a camera in a way compatible with screen actors who can be expensive and difficult to work with? Why not just make what you want on screen directly instead of coordinating stunts, sets, props, costumes, locations, post-processing effects, cinematography, etc?
If an episode of a live action sitcom wants to send a character to a foreign country it greatly increases the budget. If King of the Hill wants Peggy to go on a cruise it costs the same amount of money as Peggy playing with a toy boat in the kitchen sink back in Arlen. Animation also allows you to explore themes and situations it would be dangerous or expensive to do in live action. A story about a group of orphans looking after each other in a warzone would have a lot of effects done in post and basically be half-animated anyways.
Peter Rainer is right, if there's no visible reason for the viewer exactly why it has to be an animation. it shouldn't be. It could be anything, prettiness, exaggeration, or maybe some fantastical elements. But if its just gonna like a live action painted over then it should be a live action. Otherwise it just felt gimmicky. Though in The Peasant case, their landscape paintings is a reason enough for me
Why admit live action is a default? Why not make movies that are 90% CGI like DUNE or MCU compete in the animated category instead? What's the difference between Ridley Scott thinking The Last Duel needs to be bathed in blue color grading vs The Peasants thinking the movie should look like a moving painting? Or Peter Jackson adding color that was never there to black and white footage in They Shall Not Grow Old?
the difference is that paintings have so much potential on its own, while grading is just that, grading. Treating a medium as a color filter is a waste of potential, Loving Vincent is a good movie, and it has its reason to be painterly, while The Peasant while having a lot of beautiful landscapes paintings, the majority of the movie simply looked like a recorded LA with a paint filter on it. See, with paintings they can make fantastical elements, they can try some new composition that would be impossible to do in LA, or maybe some experimental bullshit with colors and forms.
I really don't see the point of filming a standard live action movie and then creating a 1:1 painting for every frame.
If you're going to go all out and paint a movie, why even incorporate live action at all? It's a ton of effort for something that only looks slightly different from any other film.
No way in hell this was animated, let alone by hand.
Did you see Loving Vincent?
It was, they just spent an obscene amount of effort into making something that looks like an instagram filter.
Aesthetic. Personally, I don't like it, but depending on the topic, it makes sense for a stylistic choice like Loving Vincent.
It worked really well in Vincent's case, not just because of the subject matter but because they go out of their way to replicate his style of painting and what have you - it looks like a Van Gogh come to life. Saw it on the big screen, was one hell of an experience.
Their new film just looks like a filter slapped over perfectly usable footage. In a way it makes them look TOO good at their craft, but there's also no justification for the style nor is there any attempt to transform the original images in any way other than some pretty landscapes.
>It worked really well in Vincent's case, not just because of the subject matter
They're doing similar thing with Peasants
https://niezlasztuka-net.translate.goog/o-sztuce/film-chlopi-i-malarskie-inspiracje/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=pl&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Would be better if they just tried recreating the painting with live action like in Barry Lyndon instead of painting a copy that's infinitely more inferior.
Is this just video put through a filter?
It reminds me of Japanese "art" that's just digitally traced or filtered photographs.
A lot of the filmography is akin to serials/soaps from 2 decades ago.
Some of these scenes and actor movements are deliberately designed to work with filmed footage and do nothing for animation.
It's very painful when there is a static background, like the actor is on a greenscreen, and probably was. It's like a children's live action show, again from 2 decades ago, perhaps 3.
And these stories are shite
>boo hoo I'm a peasant wife and want trve love with a handsome man instead of an old violent wealthy fart
>muh fictional Vincent biography
I've never met a man who agrees with polygamy, women on the other hand... are some of the most contradictory, misogynistic beasts on this planet.
>France shits out an art piece that's dull and wank
>b- b- but Americans!
I hate them too but the frogs aren't the height of culture.
>and a weekly hand-job.
Where do I sign up?
Both just look like shitty iPhone filters. I wouldn’t even call it animation.
>I really don't see the point of filming a standard live action movie and then creating a 1:1 painting for every frame.
Because it's cool b***h.
>Because it's cool b***h.
But that's the fricking thing! Yeah it style cool, it it could be so much cooler. From what I've seen the ends don't justify the means for most of the shots, especially the conversations. Art like that get better the more you take your time and appreciate its fine details, but you don't get that chance because the scene is constantly moving. Your brain doesn't register the conversations as art pieces it just looks like a weird looking live action segment, because the artists are so good at making it look human our brain just fills in the blanks. The environmental shots are better because they can be more creative with color and you get more time to take them in.
Basically it doesn't use the medium to its fullest, it uses one artistic medium to painstakingly make another medium. But a lot of good art goes to waste animating a scene that looks like regular people doing regular things with extra steps. They should be doing things mind blowing, like talking to man whos on fire, watching a Pegasus go from the ground to the sky, seeing fantastic places that would truly benefit painting a god damn whole entire painting for one fricking frame.
I don't know why I even typed this, its 1:30 in the god damn morning and everyone has move on to calling each other troons. God I hate this board.
this is filter roto shit
might as well be ai, lmao
You could say the same for Spider-Verse, but no one does
No, no you can't, moron.
Yeah, yeah you can.
Nah, there is a line, and THE PEASANTS crosses it.
Spiderverse and Vincent is fine.
Nah Spider-Verse looks like shit, it's too busy and janky to be appreciated on a frame by frame level which means AI would do the trick and people would be none the wiser.
>Nah Spider-Verse looks like shit
sure, but it's still passes and looks like animation
The point is that its visual gimmick is something you could apply with AI to any sterile CG Disney movie (especially since they share the same character designers) and not something you have to bother animating manually, compared to e.g. Arcane which has a unique but controlled 3D look that can't be replicated by AI in motion.
content and story also matters
The Peasants looks like a normal movie they just smeared filters all over it, they try these things every once in a while, never works.. fans of animation and cinema don't crossover much and have vastly different criteria for aesthetics
Why did you put “sure” like he was correct
Spider-Verse looks like shit
Posting it again does not make you correct
cause I personally don't like Spider-verse art, I don't hate it, but I find it "try hard," for lack of a better word, like overuse of filters to cover up mediocre art
it could be worse
just say you hate Miles, you can be honest here
we al know you hate... hispanics
lmao, dumb commie troon
I think TMNT and Bad Guys look like shit too, and Puss in Boots only barely gets a pass because it's not low FPS all the time
TMNT was just ugly, viual garabge, BadGauys was okay.
The new 12fps cope by the western 3d studios seems to be trendprostitutes and suits realizing less frames is less render time, only old Pixar ever advanced 3D graphics and pushed the envelope, they like the pseudo 2d look cause it cheaper to make, imo
And that video was meant to be evidence for that? Because that looks like garbage and nothing like the movie it's meant to be imitating.
Comments love it
You're saying that as if YouTube commenters aren't some of the biggest morons on the internet.
As opposed to capeshit fans who eat up stuff like Spider-Verse?
I'm ambivalent about capeshit, I only care about Spider-Verse because of the animation. You have to be genuinely moronic and/or visually impaired if you think some AIslop filter is the same thing especially from a bunch of hacks that did that shitty rock paper scissors abortion.
Who are you to say that an AI filter version of the Peasants would look indistinguishable from the real one, whereas an AI filter version of Spider-Verse would look noticeably worse than the real one, to the audience which we already know is stupid enough to eat up the Corridor Crew slop
>Who are you to say that an AI filter version of the Peasants would look indistinguishable from the real one
I never said that but for one thing because it is quite literally overlaid live action footage, Spider-Verse is not.
Loving Vincent has enough style that it works but the Peasants looks eerie.
That Vincent one looks good, very stylized. The new one looks too close to reality. It just feels like the movie is stuttering or you're looking at it through blurry glasses.
It has its place. It's great as a technical feat but not as a movie.
The Hayao Miyzaki and Satoshi Kon films in contrast influenced live action with how they were able to fully take advantage of the medium.
American animation isn't good as live action. Live action is more nuanced. Even most "mature"/adult animated movies doesn't have the same level of maturity as live action films do. A lot of live action films have unlikable characters that are used as a vehicle to teach a lesson to everyone, but every animation fan laments at any flawed character in media. They always say:
>"WTF WHY DID X DO THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE"
instead of
>"What is the director going for with X? Are they trying to teach a lesson or theme?"
As a result a lot of "adult" animation is really dumbed down with characters acting unrealistic.
That looks really ugly, maybe it’s the colors idk
Loveing vincent had sense
this really just feels like someone use an AI oil painting filter
Loving Vincent looks tons better
I'm a library-anon and I'm surprised at how much Loving VIncent circulates.
yes
technical prowess is one of the most worthless aspects of art when all is said and done
however, it's the only thing that is immediately intelligible to midwits, so it's the only thing they praise
and yet you have outed yourself as a midwit, curious
For the most part no. The argument I can see being valid for this specific film is that its all rotoscoped from real footage anyway, so if that can't stand on its own without the animation then there is no real point. I dont believe that for regular animated films though, looking appealing or interesting should come first and even be the entire point of watching it, everything else is secondary.
That said it seems like the painterly rotoscoping IS the point of this, so I think criticizing that is moronic. Amazing that a normie critic can watch literal moving paintings and think "Why did they waste their time?" its fricking art you dipshit.
It's a valid complaint for something that's rotoscoped that doesn't try to do much outside of live action footage it's overlaid. I felt the same about Loving Vincent because the story was so uninspired and they didn't really attempt to incorporate his painting style like I hoped they would. Compare it to Waking Life, A Scanner Darkly, or Undone and you see just how utterly squandered the medium was.
I prefer the unbiased, insightful criticism.
A filter is not animation.
Why is it that other countries like France, Japan, etc understand that animation can be used to tell all kinds of stories, from whimsical and fantastical to serious and grounded, for all kinds of audiences, while Americans largely disregard animation as 'goofy kids stuff'? Even 'adult' animation isn't safe from this and is used almost entirely to deliver goofy bullshit and pop culture jokes. It's doubly odd that stop-motion seems to be the only animation outlet for Americans to tell stories that actually break out of this mold- Anomalisa, Isle of Dogs, Mad God and the like. Why on earth is this? Americans created animation as we know it, animation was GENERAL audience fare (as in for ALL audiences not just parents and kids and Disney Adults) in America for decades, so what the frick happened? Why are Americans like this?
I'd blame the Comics Code Authority for slapping such a heavy restriction onto comics, and with animation being fairly similar, it seemed to pick up the same habits. Between that and most people associating animation with Disney princess movies, and you end up with everybody in America just assuming cartoons are for kids.
Americans seem to be pretty bad at changing their minds, as well. So they may see an adult animation, but it's just assumed to be "wrong" rather than changing their assumptions about what cartoons can be.
Ironically, older cartoons weren't exactly for kids. Looney Toons/Tom and Jerry certainly enjoyed their violence, and I doubt that Flintstones doing construction work and drinking at the bar was intended for young children. But around the 80s cartoons turned into toy commercials for children and those were so overwhelming that it's become nearly a children's hobby since.
You can blame Reagan for that one.
you have no idea what you're talking about lmao.
Reagan wrong
GOP suck
And that why most cartoonists are left-leaning 😉
i thought they were left-leaning because they live in collectivist hives in Korea working 19 hours a day for a daily bowl of rice and a weekly hand-job. The ones in Japan don't even get the hand-job.
Or did you mean in burgerland?
Hollywood.
Maybe you should consider what they’re talking about by watching the trailer:
Not only does it look hideous there is literally no reason for it to be like this. And I refuse to call it animation.
hayes code and comics code authority.
capitalism literally lowers your IQ. that's your answer.
What the FRICK is valid vs invalid criticism?
Any criticism can be subjected to criticism itself. Just like not every movie is equally as good as another, some criticisms make more sense than other ones.
Not really? Animation is a medium, not a genre, there's nothing about it that should restrict what kind of stories it tells.
I'd guess its just a western impression that animated media should basically ALWAYS be disney tier shit for kids or young teens.
Can animation be used to tell any kind of story? Sure.
Is this a good use of animation? Probably not.
See King of the Hill as a better argument for something that "could" be live action but works better as animation. The timing, the camera composition, the designs are all aided by it being animated
This looks like an amateur live action film propped up by the style.
In that case I'd blame the director more than the medium.
It'd be like if a painter made a crappy sculpture, you wouldn't blame the clay for being bad or unfitting, you'd blame the painter for trying to display a work with a medium they aren't skilled with yet.
And none of the critics blamed the visual quality of the movie but rather its dull plot, turn out it still account for more even when it comes to animated movie.
>he asks this while taking a 5 minute break from posting "normal words but a horse guy" for the 500000000th time this week
In this case if it doesnt really had anything except like mentioned be a technical prowess, they went for a near realistic approach but could have used the same technique with a different style. It feels more like a gimmicm rather than a real intent to use animation to tell a story.
Well that is a tradition in polish cinema. It is a bit like asking why Hollywood movies from X period all have a good ending (or bad ending if it is a movie from the 70s).
Plus there is already a non animated version of the movie, made by a well known director, with one of the best actors Poland ever had. So remaking it the same way would be a bit like doing the 3ed Star Wars trilogy.
animation is only for Disney, children, and babies.
>animation is only for children and babies
Interesting. Which one are you?
>t. Oscar voter
Call me harsh, but I strongly believe everyone in this thread should die.
LMAO and the shitty Spiderverse slop was praised for the same things
>Should animation only be reserved for certain things?
animation is good whenever you want to achieve total control over all elements at the cost of fidelity and detail
you cant achieve the same subtle facial expressions even a B-list actor can make, and you cant draw every grain of sand falling in a sandstorm (unless youre a masochist) and they wont have the realistic physics that real falling sand will achieve
but every element that is there is there to serve a purpose you want
whenever anyone gestures or makes a face, its a face you chose
whatever is lit up or isnt lit up, whatever shows up or does not show up, is entirely because you chose it to be there
whether things follow the laws of physics or not is up to you
there should be, and isnt, any other reason needed to be animated
its animated because the person making it wanted it to be, that is enough
>Creating a drama in animation
Sure go ahead
>Creating a drama in the style of a painter in animation
That sounds pretty neat
>Creating a drama with rotoscoped shots with composition and style that might as well be live action
You lost me.
Mutts are moronic
The second comment is correct.
It looks good is reason enough
>top critic
It's often said book critics are failed writers. Film critics aren't even that. They filled a niche in the days before widespread distribution and the internet, and have now been replaced by first being able to ask your friends what's good, and now being able to ask literally anyone in the world what's good. Ebert is often touted as the best of the critics, but that really only means he was the best at writing down his opinion in an entertaining manner. Critics are unskilled, untalented, useless garbage who have fooled the world into thinking that giving their regular schmuck opinion on movies somehow makes them journalists. They're already dying out and being replaced by millennials and zoomers on YouTube, and good riddance.
For this movie? those criticisms make perfect sense. This movie's style just mimics real life and does nothing that can't be done better with actors
If you must ask yourself why people put effort in a movie, you don't deserve to see it
They're not wrong in this case. With this movie it's just a stupid gimmick. Literally painting over a movie. It's superfluous. Serves zero purpose.
As opposed to the stylized visuals of Puss in Boots serving the purpose of..?
making it visually pleasing
this movie isn't visually pleasing, it looks like it was made by an AI
That's a nice opinion, but I thought Puss in Boots looked like an AI filter eyesore whereas the Peasants looked delightful
Thing is, beauty is objective, not subjective.
So, while your opinion is objectively wrong, mine is objectively right.
see
it's like asking why live action are these guys moronic?
Most "live action" films are like 90% CGI anyways, why suddenly get shocked if a director goes the extra 10%?
>Caring about what critics have to say
Lol frick off with that shit.
honestly, i do think that it can be valid in some cases. Some stories are better suited to certain mediums than to others, and if making it animated doesn't really add to it in any way, it doesn't need to be animated. Of course, the same can be applied to live-action movies as well. After all, why would you want to make a live-action adaptation of a fairy-tale when an animated movie would be much better at communicating the sense of wonder and magic intrinsic to those kinds of stories? and it's not just restricted to plots with fantastical elements to them either, it could apply to a lot of different things depending on what you're trying to evoke.
can't say as to whether any of this applies to this particular movie as i've never seen it and have no idea what it is about, but there's your answer OP.
Eh it sometimes can be.
Its a visual medium best used for artistic stories too difficult to pull off live. So sometimes you can get some slice of life story that makes you go "yeah this could have been a no budget stage performance for all it does visually".
You can also get stories that you enjoy more not animated. For example Todd vs the Book of Pure Evil was a live action tv series that had a lot of cheesy practical visuals that added to the charm, so while the animated movie was able to visually do more it lost some of the cheesy tone the show worked best in.