Is there a reason why most of the cartoon shorts made in Moho (at least the ones that are mentioned in the LM Forum -- please, correct me if I'm wrong) are based on situation comedy like plots, instead of other forms of entertainment, like slapstick.
I always thought that slapstick was more appropriate for cartoon shorts (see Warner Bros. or Disney cartoon shorts) than sitcom, because slapstick is more direct and doesn't need much explaining. It fits perfectly in a 3-7 minutes long animation.
Sitcom is about character development (in the dramaturgic sense), which seems to me more appropriate for a feature-length animation, because there's enough time to let the audience be emotionally involved. Typcial examples of animated sitcoms are of course The Simpsons and South Park. Both have a kind of plot development during the show, because there is enough time to let a plot develop. However, they lack the directness of the earlydays cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, Goofy and thelike.
So, what's up with those cartoon shorts made in Moho? Why aren't we seeing more "cartoon violence" and less drama?
Why mostly sitcom animation in cartoon shorts?
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
Re: Why mostly sitcom animation in cartoon shorts?
Because it´s too hard to do....?RASH wrote:So, what's up with those cartoon shorts made in Moho? Why aren't we seeing more "cartoon violence" and less drama?
Because it´s easier and quicker (and cheaper) to make a static face with a mouth that moves to the dialogue?
Because most of the samples you see on the Moho forum are just people experimenting with Moho to see what it can and can´t do? (And are new to animation/drawing and are trying to see what they can and can´t do?)
I guess you rather meant minimal animation (see pic on the left) as opposed to full animation?I meant the storyline is often that of a sitcom: more or less predictable (but nontheless amusing). Slapstick has more of an "unknow factor": you never know what is going to happen next, or if you know, the next scene is so extreme that is funny just because of that.
Edit: and the scenes are much shorter in slapstick than in sitcom. Many Moho scenes I saw until now have rather long-drawn scenes.
Re: Why mostly sitcom animation in cartoon shorts?
I'd have to agree with that. That genre is very difficult, and the people who have come before us have set the bar very high.Toontoonz wrote:Because it´s too hard to do....?
A couple of weeks ago, I watched the DVD "Chuck Jones: In-betweens and Extremes, A Life in Animation":
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... d&n=507846
It is very good, and I recommend it to anyone here. Chuck Jones is a GOD in animation. He had a tremendous talent and shaped not only an industry but popular culture as well. The show was originally part of a PBS special, but also includes some animation techniques, as well as a couple of full-length cartoons. It brought me back to my childhood and Saturday mornings in front of the boob toob.
Just because one can draw doesn´t mean they can come up with a clever storyboard.
Just because one can write doesn´t mean one can create a funny, slapstick gag script.
Just because one can draw does not mean they can animate the characters faces, looks and all the action in a perfectly timed ballet of animation.
Just because one can animate does not mean they can capture that perfect, slapstick timing to pull this type of comedy off.
There are lots and lots of rare talents at work in creating really good, slapstick type animation. Comedy looks real simple, but its really hard to do...good.
Just because one can write doesn´t mean one can create a funny, slapstick gag script.
Just because one can draw does not mean they can animate the characters faces, looks and all the action in a perfectly timed ballet of animation.
Just because one can animate does not mean they can capture that perfect, slapstick timing to pull this type of comedy off.
There are lots and lots of rare talents at work in creating really good, slapstick type animation. Comedy looks real simple, but its really hard to do...good.
Agree, in todays audience you have to be real good at humour and targetting that particular audience. To be honest the only thing people find funny is something or someone getting injured.... unless you can make funny verbal comments.There are lots and lots of rare talents at work in creating really good, slapstick type animation. Comedy looks real simple, but its really hard to do...good
wikipedia rocks
--Scott
cribble.net
cribble.net
Re: Why mostly sitcom animation in cartoon shorts?
Mind you, people from outside Canada and U.S.A, Amazon mentions this:jorgy wrote:A couple of weeks ago, I watched the DVD "Chuck Jones: In-betweens and Extremes, A Life in Animation":
Edit: However, I found 2 replacements DVDs, The Looney Tunes Collection All-Stars Vol. 1 & 2 (actually Merry Melodies), which should be more widely available (at least in the Euro region). Each DVD contains 14 cartoons from the Golden Area of cartoons, plus bonus material (background info). Although they are for all ages, I found them in the children's movie departmentEncoding: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. This DVD will probably NOT be viewable in other countries. )
At the same location I found the Walt Disney Treasure series. I picked Silly Symphonies, because I thought it would offer more variety than the ones with Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. My budget didn't allow me to buy all of them right now. Like the Merry Melodies DVDs, worth any every penny/cent you spend on it (20 euros for 2-DVD with 31 music cartoons from between 1929 and 1939).
I'm looking forward to the other volumes in this series
These are all great examples of animation, like Rembrandt or Van Gogh in painting.
I'd like to see more of these in Moho animation, please!
This subject is a teeny pet peeve of mine.
I think most internet animation is like Hanna Barbera animation.
Chuck Jones called that style of animation "illustrated radio."
That's because the sound track, especially the dialogue, tells the story. By contrast, the old cartoons from the 20's to the 50's told the story visually -- many cartoons from those days had little dialogue.
Producing that kind of animation takes a lot time and planning. You'll notice that even the cartoons produced for network TV like Mucha Lucha or Foster's Home or Spongebob don't tell their stories visually. There are terrific dialogue shows, like Rocky and Bullwinkle and The Simpsons. They are fine shows, but I prefer the older style from the 40's.
About the only place to see that visual sort of cartoon these days would be the work of Bill Plympton or Don Hertzfeld. They do short films, and manage to produce about 6 or 7 minutes a year. (Though Plympton has made features.) Oh, and some of Ren and Stimpy.
But I have been disapointed by the fact that the Flash cartoon boom has given us mostly dialogue driven cartoons. I'd rather see more artists trying to be Tex Avery or Friz Freling or Otto Mesmer, but instead, many seem content to emulate Filmation or anime.
There's a difference in the experience of watching these two kinds of cartoons: to me, when I watch Bugs Bunny, he seems alive to me, and the movie he's in seems to be a document, a recording, of some adventure Bugs had. By contrast, watching Yogi Bear or Fred Flintstone, I feel like I'm watching drawings move around. Very clever drawings, and certainly fun and entertaining to watch, but that sort of work doesn't stay with you the way Bugs and Daffy do. I never felt like Fred and Barney had any life outside of my TV, whereas the Warner Bros. characters are out there somewhere, and I just got lucky enough to eavesdrop on them.
In other words, full animation gives the illusion you're watching lives lived on the screen, limited animation makes you feel like you're watching someone's creation. And that's a powerful difference.
So if you want to make these kinds of visually based cartoons, you have my encouragement! Moho is a terrific tool, in my opinion better than Flash, and one could certainly do any damn kind of film they wanted with Moho, dialogue driven or visually driven or like Hanna Barbera or like Warner Bros. The limits you choose to work under are your own.
Here's to LM for allowing us to reach any limits...
Gochris
I think most internet animation is like Hanna Barbera animation.
Chuck Jones called that style of animation "illustrated radio."
That's because the sound track, especially the dialogue, tells the story. By contrast, the old cartoons from the 20's to the 50's told the story visually -- many cartoons from those days had little dialogue.
Producing that kind of animation takes a lot time and planning. You'll notice that even the cartoons produced for network TV like Mucha Lucha or Foster's Home or Spongebob don't tell their stories visually. There are terrific dialogue shows, like Rocky and Bullwinkle and The Simpsons. They are fine shows, but I prefer the older style from the 40's.
About the only place to see that visual sort of cartoon these days would be the work of Bill Plympton or Don Hertzfeld. They do short films, and manage to produce about 6 or 7 minutes a year. (Though Plympton has made features.) Oh, and some of Ren and Stimpy.
But I have been disapointed by the fact that the Flash cartoon boom has given us mostly dialogue driven cartoons. I'd rather see more artists trying to be Tex Avery or Friz Freling or Otto Mesmer, but instead, many seem content to emulate Filmation or anime.
There's a difference in the experience of watching these two kinds of cartoons: to me, when I watch Bugs Bunny, he seems alive to me, and the movie he's in seems to be a document, a recording, of some adventure Bugs had. By contrast, watching Yogi Bear or Fred Flintstone, I feel like I'm watching drawings move around. Very clever drawings, and certainly fun and entertaining to watch, but that sort of work doesn't stay with you the way Bugs and Daffy do. I never felt like Fred and Barney had any life outside of my TV, whereas the Warner Bros. characters are out there somewhere, and I just got lucky enough to eavesdrop on them.
In other words, full animation gives the illusion you're watching lives lived on the screen, limited animation makes you feel like you're watching someone's creation. And that's a powerful difference.
So if you want to make these kinds of visually based cartoons, you have my encouragement! Moho is a terrific tool, in my opinion better than Flash, and one could certainly do any damn kind of film they wanted with Moho, dialogue driven or visually driven or like Hanna Barbera or like Warner Bros. The limits you choose to work under are your own.
Here's to LM for allowing us to reach any limits...
Gochris
I guess it's just time and money or the lack of those. In the old days labour was cheap, large teams of animators could work on projects. Human labour has become more expensive (most animation is done in Asia where costs are lower) so the faster the better. And talk is cheap, just ask any indie-film producer, look at Kevin Smith's first movies, all blabla, so animation is not the only medium where this happens.
Another factor could be the influence of silent movies. In the time WB produced all these classics the silent movies were not that far back and the visual style of storytelling would resonate for decades. Animation now takes a cue from television, soap operas, talkshows, sit-coms, lots of talking and not much visual information.
Animation evolves like any visual medium and for a big part in the same way. Both situation comedy and slap-stick have their place, at this moment in time sit-com style seems to be more popular. And so-called visual storytelling nowadays is often more a technical demo than an actual story...
Reindert.
www.nobudgetvideo.com
Another factor could be the influence of silent movies. In the time WB produced all these classics the silent movies were not that far back and the visual style of storytelling would resonate for decades. Animation now takes a cue from television, soap operas, talkshows, sit-coms, lots of talking and not much visual information.
Animation evolves like any visual medium and for a big part in the same way. Both situation comedy and slap-stick have their place, at this moment in time sit-com style seems to be more popular. And so-called visual storytelling nowadays is often more a technical demo than an actual story...
Reindert.
www.nobudgetvideo.com