http://www.flyingmcdavidbros.com/Cartoons.html
(Go to the one at the top: Cyber Stuart: Guardian of Corruption etc.)
We actually won some awards for this silly piece of nonsense, can you believe it?
Flying McDavid Brothers - October 2005 Sidewalk Scramble
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
Flying McDavid Brothers - October 2005 Sidewalk Scramble
This is what we entered for the Sidewalk Film festivals October 2005 competition (Sidewalk Scramble) where filmmakers have 48 hours to make a movie from start to finish.
http://www.flyingmcdavidbros.com/Cartoons.html
(Go to the one at the top: Cyber Stuart: Guardian of Corruption etc.)
We actually won some awards for this silly piece of nonsense, can you believe it?
http://www.flyingmcdavidbros.com/Cartoons.html
(Go to the one at the top: Cyber Stuart: Guardian of Corruption etc.)
We actually won some awards for this silly piece of nonsense, can you believe it?
"T"
------------------------------------------------
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
www.flyingmcdavidbros.com
------------------------------------------------
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
www.flyingmcdavidbros.com
-
Green Walls
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:45 pm
- Contact:
Great creative satire on "Power Ranger" styled movies! Also, loved the pumpkin helmet. My only suggestion would be to speed up your animation for your 2d/Moho characters…for example the Elephant/aardvark arm movements were really slow. Keep up the great work.
Anxiety is the handmaiden of creativity.
- Chuck Jones
- Chuck Jones
Green Walls wrote:Great creative satire on "Power Ranger" styled movies! Also, loved the pumpkin helmet.
Yeah, the Pumpkin was a required "inspirational item" (a.k.a. Item sprung on us at the last second to make sure we make the film in the contest's 48 hour period, not before.) It's the first time we've not just scanned it and added a face in Moho. Glad you liked itI'd agree, frankly the dialogue itself for that guy was slow, and dragged the pacing a lot (in my opinion). It's definitely floaty Moho animation (times 2 or more). Certainly could have been done better, especially since his scenes were the majority of the actual animated stuff.Green Walls wrote:My only suggestion would be to speed up your animation for your 2d/Moho characters…for example the Elephant/aardvark arm movements were really slow.
Thanks! We will, we can't help ourselves. (Thanks too for everybody else for their kind words).Green Walls wrote:Keep up the great work.
"T"
------------------------------------------------
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
www.flyingmcdavidbros.com
------------------------------------------------
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
www.flyingmcdavidbros.com
Lots of stuff thrown in there, and the funny part is that some of it actually manages to stick!
It's like a brainstorming session and there are some things to throw away but also some jewels in there too. And for working on the fly, I really admire that. Nice job working under a deadline.
As far as criticism, I liked the mix of live-action and animation. I thought the spoof of the power rangers was spot on. If anything, I would have liked to have seen more live-action.
And I realize you were trying to spoof a lot of things here, horror movies, power rangers, corporations and businessmen, but there is one thing to always remember: you can't spoof how stories are laid out. The basic structure must always be the same, and there must be a payoff. You drew us into the story, and we must get something at the end. Think about the famous spoofs, like Airplane, Top Secret, and while they are making fun of a genre, they are still good stories in an of themselves. So I guess I would have liked to have seen a bit more at the end, from a storytelling point of view.
Over all, it was a great job, and I look forward to your next effort!
It's like a brainstorming session and there are some things to throw away but also some jewels in there too. And for working on the fly, I really admire that. Nice job working under a deadline.
As far as criticism, I liked the mix of live-action and animation. I thought the spoof of the power rangers was spot on. If anything, I would have liked to have seen more live-action.
And I realize you were trying to spoof a lot of things here, horror movies, power rangers, corporations and businessmen, but there is one thing to always remember: you can't spoof how stories are laid out. The basic structure must always be the same, and there must be a payoff. You drew us into the story, and we must get something at the end. Think about the famous spoofs, like Airplane, Top Secret, and while they are making fun of a genre, they are still good stories in an of themselves. So I guess I would have liked to have seen a bit more at the end, from a storytelling point of view.
Over all, it was a great job, and I look forward to your next effort!
Definitely a thin story, but the writer/director likes to keep us in the dark while we're working (mainly because he stores it all in his head during most of the process). He's also a big fan of the "quick finish" (we're always worried about dragging out a joke too long, a-la Saturday Night Live.)
Unfortunately, with 48 hours to make a movie (especially with animation), we kind of rush through the writing process to get to the actual creation of the movie. I think it would help us to actually study plot and story some, too.
Actually, nevermind, the above sounds like a bunch of excuses LOL. Let's just say, hopefully we'll get better with practice.
Unfortunately, with 48 hours to make a movie (especially with animation), we kind of rush through the writing process to get to the actual creation of the movie. I think it would help us to actually study plot and story some, too.
Actually, nevermind, the above sounds like a bunch of excuses LOL. Let's just say, hopefully we'll get better with practice.
Last edited by T on Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
"T"
------------------------------------------------
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
www.flyingmcdavidbros.com
------------------------------------------------
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
www.flyingmcdavidbros.com
I'm actually the guy who wrote and directed it, and I love discussing story and plot structure, etc., which is why I'm glad you had something to say about it. I was nowhere near happy with the way this cartoon turned out. I'll probably re-edit it, but I won't change the end. Jokes end on the punch line. After the climax and resolution, there's no point in hanging around for an epilogue. The explosion of the earth was the payoff, whether it was a good one or not. This was actually a very conventionally told story. The protagonist is introduced, then the problem, then the antagonist, then the peripheral characters, the plot is pencilled in a bit more, a bit of misdirection (the mucus) followed by the climax (race to the button / power company). And the resolution is, of course, the explosion of the earth. Whether or not it was a satisfying payoff is debatable, but it was definitely woven as a traditional story structure. Too traditional, if you ask me.
Stephens King and Spielberg would debate me on this, but I think the art of storytelling lies in telling the story without making it so bloody obvious that that's what you're doing. Stephen King and Stephen Spielberg have both said that story is everything, which is fine, I suppose, if you would like to write a movie or novel that emulates either of their styles. But look at their style. 90% of the dialogue is expository. 100% of the dialogue in the latest Star Wars movie was expository, which is one of the reasons it fell so short of the original trilogy. But then take a movie like Napoleon Dynamite. The characters are so big and well-sculpted, you don't even realize you're being told a story. And it's a very traditional, formulaic story. The characters, though, are so big and dynamic that our attention is diverted from the whole man-vs-man, man-vs-self thing going on underneath them. Most of the dialogue just paints the characters and ignores the story completely.
I don't know why I went off on that tangent. Because my intent in making a cartoon is never to put story above anything else. It's to make people laugh. A comedy's first job is to make its audience laugh. If there's a story, fine. But don't forsake any humor for the sake of the story.
Having said all that, was that cartoon as funny as it should've been? No. Was it lacking in many other ways? Yes. But did it follow the conventions of storytelling? Yes, it did. No reflection on the quality, you understand. Just saying that it was very conventional for what it was.
Thank you for your comments, jorgy. I really hope if you don't agree with me on this whole storytelling thing that we can start discussing it. It's something that really interests me.
Stephens King and Spielberg would debate me on this, but I think the art of storytelling lies in telling the story without making it so bloody obvious that that's what you're doing. Stephen King and Stephen Spielberg have both said that story is everything, which is fine, I suppose, if you would like to write a movie or novel that emulates either of their styles. But look at their style. 90% of the dialogue is expository. 100% of the dialogue in the latest Star Wars movie was expository, which is one of the reasons it fell so short of the original trilogy. But then take a movie like Napoleon Dynamite. The characters are so big and well-sculpted, you don't even realize you're being told a story. And it's a very traditional, formulaic story. The characters, though, are so big and dynamic that our attention is diverted from the whole man-vs-man, man-vs-self thing going on underneath them. Most of the dialogue just paints the characters and ignores the story completely.
I don't know why I went off on that tangent. Because my intent in making a cartoon is never to put story above anything else. It's to make people laugh. A comedy's first job is to make its audience laugh. If there's a story, fine. But don't forsake any humor for the sake of the story.
Having said all that, was that cartoon as funny as it should've been? No. Was it lacking in many other ways? Yes. But did it follow the conventions of storytelling? Yes, it did. No reflection on the quality, you understand. Just saying that it was very conventional for what it was.
Thank you for your comments, jorgy. I really hope if you don't agree with me on this whole storytelling thing that we can start discussing it. It's something that really interests me.
I can totally understand that. I don't know if they didn't have any more jokes, or couldn't build any more sets so they had to string out the skits that they already had, but you're right, it's a perfect example of overextending your welcome.T wrote:He's also a big fan of the "quick finish" (we're always worried about dragging out a joke too long, a-la Saturday Night Live.)
How does the old saying go? Movies are never finished, only abandoned. There are a lot of people who are upset that George Lucas went back and made changes to the original Star Wars for the Special Editions. It's his movie, he can do what he wants. And while you may feel like you "own" Stars Wars as a part of your childhood, it does indeed belong to George Lucas.Sam wrote:I'm actually the guy who wrote and directed it, and I love discussing story and plot structure, etc., which is why I'm glad you had something to say about it. I was nowhere near happy with the way this cartoon turned out. I'll probably re-edit it, but I won't change the end. Jokes end on the punch line. After the climax and resolution, there's no point in hanging around for an epilogue. The explosion of the earth was the payoff, whether it was a good one or not. This was actually a very conventionally told story. The protagonist is introduced, then the problem, then the antagonist, then the peripheral characters, the plot is pencilled in a bit more, a bit of misdirection (the mucus) followed by the climax (race to the button / power company). And the resolution is, of course, the explosion of the earth. Whether or not it was a satisfying payoff is debatable, but it was definitely woven as a traditional story structure. Too traditional, if you ask me.
This is not just true of movies or animation - it's also true of the theater. A show may start in a regional theatre, move to off Broadway, and then maybe, if lucky, move to Broadway. And after the previews, it can change and be tweaked even after it opens. How many times have you seen a show and noticed changes in lyrics in a touring show after listening to the original cast album? The changes (at least to me) are always to the better.
And it's not only a modern phenomenon. Xray and other photographic techniques show how the classic artists changed their pantings, started out one way, and even "finished" it, only to be painted out and gone a completely different direction.
Some may see a production, whether it's a movie, an animation, a show, or even a painting as a static, finished masterpiece. However, the creator rarely sees it that way.
In my creative writing classes, the mantra was always "show, don't tell". I haven't seen Napoleon Dynamite, but I have to agree with your assessment of the relative virtues of Episode I-III vs. 4-6. Case in point, the relationship between Han and Leia vs. the relationship between Annakin and Padme.Sam wrote:Stephens King and Spielberg would debate me on this, but I think the art of storytelling lies in telling the story without making it so bloody obvious that that's what you're doing. Stephen King and Stephen Spielberg have both said that story is everything, which is fine, I suppose, if you would like to write a movie or novel that emulates either of their styles. But look at their style. 90% of the dialogue is expository. 100% of the dialogue in the latest Star Wars movie was expository, which is one of the reasons it fell so short of the original trilogy. But then take a movie like Napoleon Dynamite. The characters are so big and well-sculpted, you don't even realize you're being told a story. And it's a very traditional, formulaic story. The characters, though, are so big and dynamic that our attention is diverted from the whole man-vs-man, man-vs-self thing going on underneath them. Most of the dialogue just paints the characters and ignores the story completely.
I am reading an interesting book right now, called "The Art of Dramatic Writing" by Laos Egri. Does plot come from character? Or does character come from plot? All I know is that I am a storyteller. A lot of the people on this board are animators. I don't want to be an animator, I want to use moho to tell stories. There are people here who argue that you cannot tell a story without 3D. I would argue you can tell a story in 2D. I would argue that you can tell a convincing and emotional story with stick figures! Characters can be motivated and sympathetic regardless of the style. Adding technology can make shallow characters even more shallow! Of course, there are masterpieces such as The Incredibles or Shrek that are excellent in character development and plot that also excel and push the 3D envelope.
I think we agree more than we disagree, but I am certainly willing to get into an active discussion about storytelling, nature of plot, characters, and traditional and non-traditional molds.Sam wrote:Thank you for your comments, jorgy. I really hope if you don't agree with me on this whole storytelling thing that we can start discussing it. It's something that really interests me.
The one thing that is common to different mediums, 2d, 3d, etc. is timing. Being able to develop a character you care about, and a plot that is interesting but not too predictable, in a visually interesting way, all in 2 minutes is a very challenging task!!! There is a very scarce amount of time - how much do you devote to each character or part of the narrative? And as I mentioned in a previous post, I agree that a quick ending is far better than an extended "Saturday Night Live Please Shoot Me It's Past Its Prime" ending.
Looking forward to a discussion of storytelling, characters, plot, and other topics.
jorgy
