Contest Feedback

Moderators: Fahim, Distinct Sun, Víctor Paredes, erey, Belgarath, slowtiger

User avatar
kdiddy13
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by kdiddy13 » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:38 am

I want to see more in 2D using computers to evoke different media like pencil strokes, watercolor, charcoal, etc. -- stuff that would look like it was done by hand, even though it would take forever to in reality.
I agree, but personally if I were to go that route I'd prefer doing it by hand anyway, but that's more because I work with a computer all day and mostly don't want to figure out more ways to use one at home :)

There are a number of short films that use computers, 3d, and non-traditional rendering techniques.

"Gas Planet" by PDI is one I can think of off the top of my head. Probably won't move you much, cause it's about alien snork creatures living on another planet that eat berries and fart. Not moving, but funny if you're up for a fart joke.

There are others, but I can't think of them off the top of my head at the moment. Which brings up my next point: unfortunately, these types of films typically fall into the "art" category (even if they are about farting snorks), which usually scares people off before they even give it a chance. In other words, not much financial incentive for bean counters to stick their necks out on "moving", "artistic" projects. And I think we all agree that that is a really unfortunate reality of the professional animation world, especially now that many of the truly great grants that used to promote this sort of artistic development have disappeared (I'm speaking for the US, but I'd imagine that it holds true for many other countries as well).
Last edited by kdiddy13 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AcouSvnt
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:14 am
Location: Rochester, NY
Contact:

Post by AcouSvnt » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:55 am

Not sure exactly what image comes to your mind when I say "moving" -- it can be a subtle thing, not necessarily an "Art Thing". I've seen episodes of The Simpsons that were what I'd call "moving", like when Homer finds his long lost mother who is on the run from the law. I actually got teary eyed at the end of that one. And Disney's "Dumbo" has an effect on me. So does the Charlie Brown Christmas Special. Just some examples.
-Keith
User avatar
kdiddy13
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by kdiddy13 » Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:42 pm

Not sure exactly what image comes to your mind when I say "moving"
I was wondering the same thing of you. In previous posts I got the impression that you were relating "moving" to the medium. Two different sentences, two different thoughts. My misunderstanding.

As for 3d, some (actually most) of Pixar's movies have managed to move me beyond being dazzled. Buzz learning he is a toy, Woody realizing that his boy will grow up some day, Boo saying good-bye to Sully, and the pure exhileration of being yourself reguardless of what society wants in "The Incredibles". All very moving, in spite of being dazzling. Other 3d films fall short of the mark, typically, but so do most 2d animations. It's unrelated to the medium. Technology (2d, claymation, or 3d) does not provide the emotion.

"It's Christmas Time Charlie Brown" still chokes me up, too, and I'm over 30. I think Schultz had remarkable foresight on this one, it seems even more fitting now than ever before.
Post Reply