Bandslam

Have you ever had something in your past taunt you even if you didn't do it? Ever try to put a band together?  Ever meet someone and you have absolutely no idea if their up to something?  Do you like David Bowie?  Well Bandslam would work for you.  15-year old Will Burton (played by Gaelan Cornell) is pushed around by everyone in Cinncinnati.  His only friend is his mom s his mom Karen, (played by Lisa Kudrow).  The move to New Jersey and things to go alright for Will because for once he is invisible.  He meets quiet, book-worm Sa5m (played by Vanessa Hudgens) and a musician named Charlotte (played by Aly Michalka).  Charlotte helps Will fit in and has him become the manager of her new band that she has created for the Tri-county battle of the bandds called Bandslam.  Will's encyclopedic knowledge of music turns the band into something that they never thought they would be.  In turn Charlotte helps Will pursue Sa5m.  During this whole time Will is emailing David Bowie using him as a journal.

The movie has a terrific soundtrack with unknown artists and some known songs.  The movie also gives you a history lesson in rock n' roll.  Heck many of those artists I never heard of.

This movie meant so much to me a few years ago.

Footloose

Every been to a place where you can not dance do to it being considered immoral? Well that makes sense in churches and religious places, but what about whole towns and communities.  That's crazy but it exists and has exist in different places over the past 100 years.  In the movie Footloose (both versions), this whole dance ban idea was explored.

The film is about big city boy, Ren McCormick who moves to small town Bomont where public dancing and rock n roll is band from the town.  He meets the Reverend's daughter Ariel who is a real wild child unbeknownst to her father.  They like each other but Ariel's boyfriend is trying to hinder the friendship.  During this however Ren is trying to figure out why dancing is so wrong and how to change it.  With help from his new friend Willard, Ariel and other Bomont students, they take on the city council and the parents of Bomont.

Both films are written by Dean Pitchford and contain a wonderful score of original songs.  Some recordings from the original film were re-used in the remake and some re-recorded.  Both movie contained great songs but if you like 80's sounding music I recommend watching the original and if you like country and hip-hop I recommend watching the remake.

I suggest watching both versions back-to-back.

Uncanny

 

In internet terms, we call this 'nightmare fuel'.

Watching all of those Pixar shorts was yet another step back into my childhood. Geri’s Game, For the Birds, and Luxo Jr. were all little gems that I seem to have pushed into the back of my mind in favor of the feature-length films they accompanied. Geri’s Game is my personal favorite, and watching it again nearly killed me from suppressing my laughter, while Tin Toy nearly killed me by stopping my heart with that…thing.

On the subject of the Uncanny Valley, I don’t think Professor Leeper fully realizes how far games have come in terms of overcoming that obstacle. Granted, it’s only recently that we’ve been able to produce some truly life-like characters, but there have been some massive leaps in technology. Let’s compare, actually. Let’s take this guy from the original 1990’s Half-Life game…

 

…to this guy from the upcoming Halo 4.

 

 

Both of these characters are generated by their respective in-game engines, not through pre-rendered cinematics. This is about 12 years’ worth of differences being compared here. That is a huge leap in quality. Combine this with the fact that video games do all of this in real-time while dealing with artificial intelligence and player input, both of which are also becoming more and more advanced, is a feat just as impressive as any movie. Video games can be just as technically marvelous as any CGI film or effects in terms of sheer man hours put into creating them, and unlike pre-rendered film footage video games have to deal with dynamic events that require intense sessions of de-bugging.

Video games still have a long way to go. They’re about ten years behind films in terms of three-dimensional models in animation (I’m going by the Money for Nothing music video by the Dire Straits, as it’s the earliest example of CGI I can think of in media), and they’re swiftly catching up. But they aren’t showing promise anymore; they’re showing results, and they’re closing the gap. Give them time, and they will match the quality of modeling, animation, lighting, and other miscellaneous effects seen in films.

Just check out this demo for the Cry Engine 3 to see further proof.

 

Diner

When people think of the 50's people often think of teenagers.  But what about the slightly older people and what they went through.  Well for me Diner is a great example of that.  The film stars, Mickey Rourke, Kevin Bacon, Timothy Daly, Daniel Stern, Paul Reiser and Steve Guttenberg.  The movie has a loose-threaded story of a group of Baltimore boys who hang out at the local diner and are waiting for the wedding of one of the boys.  The others have to deal with what the married life is really like, unplanned pregnancy, alcoholism, and gambling addictions.  Yes there is quests for love in this movie. They each have their own life and own story which are told separately but the stories often interact with each other.  This movie is a great example of a coming-of-age piece.  Many of the characters are moving out of their college life-style and into their proper adult life-style.  

This movie helped spark many career opportunities for the actors and it's director  Barry Levinson.  The movie had rave reviews and achieved an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay.  The movie inspired a television pilot and an upcoming musical adaption that will see Broadway in the spring of 2013.

Teen Wolf

Ever have a crush on the blonde goddess in your high school?  Ever wanted a way to get her despite the repercussions?  Have you ever wanted to be werewolf?  Well that is exactly what happened in the 1985 film Teen Wolf.  The film stars Michael J. Fox as Scott, Lorrie Griffin as Pamela, Susan Ursitti as Boof, and James Hampton as Harold.  The movie is about Scott Howard, an average teenage basketball player who wants more out of his life and wants to date the beautiful Pamela Wells.  His basketball team sucks and not even the coach cares.  Scott thinks his life is going nowhere until one night he discovers that he is a werewolf.    Scott doesn't know how to deal with it until, until realizes that he will get appreciated and noticed if he starts winning basketball games for his team.  It goes well but he starts losing his friends.  Now Scott will need to put all the pieces back together.

This movie along with Back to the Future made Michael J. Fox king of 1985.  Two successful films and a number 2 rated television series with Family Ties.  The story, the jokes and the original sound track made this movie one of Michael J. Fox's most remembered feature films.

Snow Day

Have you ever seen a movie about a snow day.  Well before 2,000 I certainly didn't. The movie stars Chris Elliot as Snowplowman, Mark Webber as Hal, Chevy Chase as Tom, Zena Grey as Natalie and Jean Smart as Laura.  There are four different stories that each of the Branston family are played out one winter day when the Heavens finally pour out snow and the schools get closed.  Almost every story is relatable.  Hal is trying to return a bracelet for a girl that he is obsessed with, Tom is trying to be a better weather man than Chad Simmons (played by John Schneider), Laura is trying to get her work done while her young son is trying to play outside, and Natalie is trying to stop a snowplow man from destroying the young kids' dream of a second snow day.

This movie has had different meanings through my life but it's still enjoyable for me to watch. The movie has a wonderful soundtrack and a great blend of unknown actors and funny established actors. Despite being marketed as a kid's film it still has relatable themes to older teens.  And despite some of the predictable outcomes, there are many things that are not expected.

A Reminder to Vote

 

     I realize that it is not November 6 quite yet, but since it is nearly hear, I thought I would make a quick blog concerning the need to vote. Now, just as a disclaimer, I will not be endorsing anyone or either party. I am simply reminding everyone that it is important to vote, and realize what the people you are voting for stand for.

     As most of us have just come of the age to vote, voting may seem like an exciting opportunity to show off a new freedom we have. But more fundamentally, it is an opportunity for us to show that we really mean what we say when we give an opinion on something or state the reasons for our beliefs. If you do not show that you truly stand by your beliefs by doing something about them (in this case voting), then, to be perfectly frank, your opinions don't matter. Those people who complain about the shape of our country, get riled up in any conversation that deals with anything political, and then don't vote, are fools and hypocrites of the worst kind. As for the most obvious excuses, let me address those briefly. First, the excuse that your vote doesn't matter. Let us put this into the context of how most people view life. They say that their vote, among the 250 million Americans doesn't matter; but they will, without skipping a beat, adamently hold to the ideal that they are unique amongst 6 billion people on this planet, and that their opinions and hopes do matter. Well, if you hold to the latter argument but don't vote, you are a hypocrite whose opinion doesn't matter. I am reminded about the Bible passage in which Jesus condemns the lukewarm. The second argument goes something along the lines of "Their aren't any good candidates." Listen, there will never be a 100% perfect candidate. So, get over that ideal, and cast your vote with the one who comes closest to your beliefs. To help remind you to vote, and to get you in a patriotic mood, I have included one of the best speeches in cinema history, straight from the movie Amistad.

 



Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Who would like to skip school and have a day of fun with your best friend and girlfriend.  Well that's what happened in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.  Another one of John Hughes' great works.  The film stars Matthew Broderick as Ferris, Alan Ruck as Cameron, Jennifer Grey as Jeanie, Mia Sara as Sloane and Jefferey Jones as Ed Rooney.

One day in the spring, Ferris Bueller a senior class-men decides to fake being sick and miss school and have a day of fun.  He decides to take his girlfriend, Sloane and his best friend Cameron on a tour of Chicago and they decide to just do whatever they can to enjoy the day.  However Ferris has already missed a lot of school and if he gets caught with faking it he won't graduate.  However he still wants to have the best day he can.  However both Jeanie (Ferris' sister) and Rooney (Dean of Students) are out to prove to Ferris' parents and the world that Ferris was faking it.  These two story lines drive the film to laughs and also there is a sense that it shows that once you graduate high school, you won't be able to spend as much time with your friends.

The movie includes a great soundtrack with great 80's songs and oldies but goodies.

Howard The Duck: Good Or Bad? Who Cares?

In 1986 the co-creators of American Graffiti brought a little alien duck to the big screen.  However with the box office and the critics it was a spoiled egg.  The movie stars Lea Thompson as Beverly, Chip Zien as the voice of Howard, and Jeffery Jones as Dr. Walter Jenning.  Howard is a happy single duck living on planet Duckworld who accidently sent to to Earth and must adjust to his surroundings.  He meets Beverly, a struggling lonely musician.  Through this there is pitfalls and lots of humorous (or atleast attempted humorous action).

Though the movie sounds interesting but it didn't go so well.  The producers wanted to make animated film (or atleast an animated Howard) but do to scheduling the producers were forcerd to maked a live-action movie with animatronic technology that still wasn't very advanced.  This caused problems with prodcution.  The shooting was a nightmare and part of the time the crew had to keep re-shooting Howard because his footage didn't work.  Now the difficulty with filming Howard was having a dwarf actor  move around without being able to see and being hot and sweaty all day.

Now here are some good things about the movie.  It has a nice score, and nice sound effects.  Also all the actresses performed the vocals themselves for the films rock songs that were written by Thomas Dolby.

Whether it's a good film or not I still find it interesting to watch.

In Defense of Comics

 

     I know that Leeper makes small comments concerning Hollywood, video, games, etc., that not everyone catches onto. While I have my personal problems with the above topics he has spoken of, I would like to concern this particular post with comments concerning comics.

     I recall him saying that comic book movies almost never rise above their genre, and that comics are derivative. This, however, I think is an unfair assessment. I base this on the fact that I happen to know quite a bit about comic books and their creators. I only began to become interested in this topic a little while ago, but since then I have become fascinated with the medium and what it has to offer. Now, before I continue, let me say that I do agree that super hero comics are quite derivative, and other than a few exceptions, so are their movies. However, I am afraid that it is a sign of a small amount of knowledge concerning the medium, when someone says that all comics are the same. This simply is not true. There are quite a few comics in which the creators do something fresh and new wih their medium. These are often found in creator-owned and indie comics. Only someone with serious prejudice could say that all comics are the same. Also, there are plenty of phenomenal artists working in the comic book medium, who are better artists than anyone most anywhere else. In terms of the medium, I do not think it is that much different than a form of picture books, no different than Leeper's beloved Where the Wild Things Are.

 

 

 

 

 

     Finally, in terms of the comic movies that come out of Hollywood, I can safely say that the problem is not that the films are based upon comics, but rather which comics they are based upon. If you chooses nothing but super hero comics to make movies from, then yes, they will seem derivative. However, just because Hollywood only choooses one aspect of the medium to make movies from, it does not follow that the whole medium is bad. This is a logical fallacy. There are more than a few good comics out there, and I wholeheartedly recommend anyone to look at them and give them a chance. Here are some great places to start: Skottie Young's Oz serie; The Stuff of Legend; Bone; We3; and Axe Cop.

  

Constraints

 

      I will readily admit that I find the business side of the industry to be personally fascinating. My natural talents are more geared in that direction. However, I do believe that producers should be more willing to give artistic freedom to the directors. Totally constraining them is not a good idea, in my book. However, in this post I would like to concern myself with the constraints that we talked about in class; namely remembering your limits.

     Firstly, I think that the reminder to know your limits is extremely important, in nearly any and everything, movie-making or otherwise. I am not saying that you should forever be constrained by them. I do think you should be willing to just sit in the same spot your whole life. This will suck the artistic freedom and love for whatever you are doing right out of you. But I think not willing to admit that you have limits to what you can do, or not being willing to admit that you don't know how to do something, is just as bad as not stretching or pushing your limits to better yourself. We have too many people in the world who are unwilling to learn, simply because they are unwilling to admit that they have a lot to learn. This is partially to blame on our culture, I think. But I think that the article on "the Pixar myth" was a stark reminder that we are not in college to make a Pixar quality short film. We are here to learn, and hopefully make at least a good short film by the end of our time here. While I have mostly concerned myself with showing that we should be aware of our limits, below I have included a stunning example of what can be done by one person, with enough time and dedication. (If you don't believe me, look it up. The name of the film is Rosa.)

 

 

wreck it ralph

Yesterday me and some people went to see the new disney pixar movie Wreck it ralph. Since we had just spent a few weeks on animation i went into the film with a different mindset then i usually would have when i'm about to watch an animated film. The quality of animation was absolutely amazing; pixar never ceases to shock me in that regard. They were able to switch from cheezy old arcade game graphics to stunning 3D cartoons with insane realism. The story however left something to be desired. Overall it was a solid story; something i would expect from a disney movie. I saw a point near the end of the movie where they could have took a risk in the story in order to make a more powerful ending. Unfortunately, they chose to opt out and go for the happily ever after type ending. SPOILER ALERT: The main character, Ralph, chose to sacrifice his life to save his friends game from being overrun and destroyed. However, instead of him dying they pulled a few tricks and boom, he was able to save the game and yet survive at the end. Obviously i understand why they chose this ending, because little kids would not take kindly to a movie where the main character is killed; but still i was able to clearly see the line between being a little edgy and being a sell out. Overall I liked the movie a lot.

Billy Elliot

      We watched this movie in Signs and Wonders last...Sunday?  I really liked it. The only problem was that it kind of reminded me of Disney channel movies, because part of the plot was Billy sneaking away to practice ballet (or BAL-ee, as his dad would say) when his dad thought he was practicing boxing. That made me think of the Disney channel's "Oh, the parent is trying to live their dream through their child, but you should go for your own dream, kid". So overused and wrong. Also, though I loved the ballet teacher character, that has also been used in Disney movies; an adult, sometimes a really "tough" adult, who sees the kid's talent and encourages them to do the activity.
       What was not in the Disney movies was the miners' strike. A family living in poverty, their mom dead, having been out of work for months, and a family who is real. In the Disney movies, the parent was self-centered and bossy, for no reason other than selfishness and lack of wisdom. This type of parent does not come off to me as realistic at all, but this dad did. He was under a lot of pressure, and so it made perfect sense for him to get angry when his son suddenly added more chaos to the mess by doing something unexpected, like "BAL-ee!"(that is just an awesome way to say ballet). Later in the movie you could see that he really loved his sons. The father was willing to give things up, including the strike, so that Billy could go try out for the ballet school.
        I think the best things about this movie were the scenes about the older son and the dad, and Billy's dancing. None of the scenes of Billy dancing are especially precious in my mind. I just got carried away by the way he loved dancing. I like movement; I like to draw it. So to see Billy thoroughly enraptured by movement makes me smile.
 

Steampunk

 

      A few of my last posts have been concerned quite a bit with the idea of aesthetic. So, I thought I would do a short post concerning an aesthetic style I personally find fascinating, but I also think is extemely hard to pull off (hence it is used so little). The name of this style is steampunk.

     Steampunk is a very unique aesthetic that attempts to mix Victorian style architecture and clothing with technology. However, the uniqueness comes from the fact that said technology is nearly always powered in some form or another by steam. This gives this particular style a very gritty, yet sophisticated look. It also tends to bring back memories of what you can think of as "classical"times. It used very rarely, and pulled off even more rarely. The reason, in my opinion, for this is that this style requires a lot of art and such to pull off the look, and even more work in terms of making costumes and props. Also, I think that this style requires that the director be accutely aware of the uncany valley, because people are aware that we use electricity, not steam, to power modern technology. Getting them to think about a place where something older still remains supreme can take quite a bit of work. But, when it is done well, steampunk can produce some amazing results. See my example below. Also, while the movie does have problems in terms of plot (it's a bit thin), the anime movie Steamboy is pretty good, and in terms of steampunk aesthetic is a true wonder to behold.

 



Another Wonderful Success Story

 

     In a previous post, I took a look at one of the most interesting cases of a success story in recent years; namely, The Piano Guys. This time I am going to do the same thing, but rather than focusing on someone working in the music industry, I am going to look at perhaps an even rarer case: someone who went from a nobody to a very well-respected director in the video game industry. Now, before I go on, I am not going to get into the "video games are art" or "video games are stupid" or "video games are hurting the youth" arguments. I myself play video games, but I think these arguments tend to turn into ridiculous cat fights, and don't get anywhere, and in my opinion, are not necessary or helpful. My intention is only to show that there are those who don't allow some hardships or personal limitations to deny them to work in their field of choice, and provide something unique to the world.

 

 

     All right, let's be honest, the above animation and art would look incredible in a video game today. What if I told you it was from a video game from 1995? Well, it is. Michel Ancel wanted to become and animator, and he thought that video games was the way for him to go. However, there was a major drawback to his dream. Michel was not talented enough to animate a full character with arms and legs. However, he decided that this must not hinder him. So, he created one of the most popular and recognized video game characters of all time, Rayman. How did he do it? Well, he cut losses and made Rayman a character with only a head, torso, feet and hands. Nothing else had to be animated, cutting not only costs and manpower required to animate the character, but also giving Rayman a look unlike anyone else in video games. Ancel's first game as director, Rayman, was released in 1995, and was a great success. But, Michel had something even better in store. A game so beautifully animated, I defy anyone who says it doesn't look as good as most, if not all 2D movies.

 

    

 

      Now. I think we can all agree that most game trailer look way better than the actual game. But what if I were to tell you that the above pictures were in-game shots. Well, they are. Ancel would go on to make another Rayman game after the first, but would then go on to work on other projects. However, in 2011, he decided to release another Rayman game which he helmed. What makes this game so special to be worth talking about. Well, it is the best-animated game I have ever played, and probably the best I have ever seen. How was this accomplished. Ancel once again wanted to "Wow!" his audience when they saw the game. So, he designed a new graphics engine called Ubiart. This system allows the animator to animate anything the concept artist brings to him, from a 3D rendering to and India ink drawing. This allows the work process to be hassle-free, and also frees up the artists to bring about their vision on the screen. Don't believe me? Look it up. The result is simply stunning, and if you need more proof, I have included the original trailer in which it was tried out. All because a young animator wouldn't allow himself to be limited by the fact that he wasn't able to animate a full character, and instead brought his zany French style to life with a limbless hero.

 

 

Sixteen Candles

Every girl enjoys thinking about the day of their sixteenth birthday.  They enjoy invite guests making present lists and creating party favors.  However what if none of that happened and your birthday was acknowledged? Well that was what happened in John Hughes directorial debut Sixteen Candles.  The movie stars Molly Ringwald  and Anthony-Michael Hall.  This movie was the beginning of the so-called Brat Pack films.

In the film Samantha Baker's family forgets her birthday while they are focused on her older sister's wedding.  Meanwhile Samantha has a crush on a hunk named Jake Ryan (Michael Schoeffling) who she thinks doesn't even knows that she exits.  Unlike most films Jake actually does.  They try to meet each other despite the unintended hindrance of Farmer Ted (Hall) and Caroline Mulford (Haviland Morris), Jake's beautiful yet self-centered girlfriend.  Anoter funny part of the movie is the adventure of Asian, foreign exchange student Long Duk Dong (Gedde Watanabe).  His moments are hilarious.

The movie though predictable does have some funny moments and moments that you don't see in today's films.  The film is heart-warming with great forgotten 80's songs and with a hilarious ensemble cast.  Along with the writing and directing of John Hughes, nothing really went wrong.

The Breakfast Club

 In 1985 a new way of how characters interact.  How?  Well John Hughes just stuck five kids in a library on a Saturday.  That is what happened in Breakfast Club.  When five students are sentenced to Saturday detention, they decide to make the best of it despite having almost nothing to do for nine hours.  Each student had their own worlds who rarely cross.  For they are athletes, brains, basket cases, criminals, and a princess.  However as the day goes on each student learns about each other and the cliques start breaking down.  Also on the other end the disciplinarian learns that he is not as he thinks he is.  Also the characters have a high (not the drug on) when they see each other as friends but do not know if they will speak to each other on the following Monday.

Now that sounds cool but what is cool is that most of the movie takes place in one room and most of the movie is just plain dialogue driven.  It was something that was very unusual and is not easily something to be pulled off.  However I think that having cliche cliques and having realistic backgrounds to the characters, the movie much more relateable to younger viewers.

But kids, don't SMOKE THE POT!!!  It won't make you dance like Emilio.

I Liked It, But Would Henson Approve?

I'm guessing he wouldn't approve of this abomination. Me? I bet it's misunderstood and just wants a second chance.

A few years ago, Tim Burton produced a film called ‘Nine’. I loved the film from an aesthetic standpoint; it was a dark, creepy CGI film about dolls fighting demon robots in the post-apocalyptic future. It was unique and interesting; very few theatrically-released CGI films use this aesthetic and the dark themes that go with it. The story was disjointed, yes, but the art style left me wanting to experience more films in that art style.

Now, if there was one thing Nine skimped on, it was humor. When Professor Leeper showed us Overtime, I immediately made the connection between the art styles, but Overtime tossed out the tension and terror of Nine in favor of a macabre and yet somewhat inspiring sense of humor. I can see how some people would be offended by Overtime’s humor, and I have no idea how Jim Henson would have actually reacted to this short, but I really enjoyed it. Despite them depicting the puppeteer’s corpse as a puppet, I found the film very respectful of Henson at the same time. They never did anything inappropriate with his likeness or the likeness of his characters, and the Kreepy Kermits all treat their creator with respect despite their happenin’ attitudes around the house. As Professor Leeper said, this was obviously a tribute to the man behind the Muppets, and I think the film does an excellent job of it.

I just wonder if Henson would have enjoyed it. As Leeper has said, Henson was a man who wanted to cater almost exclusively to children with lighthearted humor and loveable characters. Overtime, while still tongue in cheek and starring the iconic Kermit (albeit Kreepy), has a drastically different style than Henson’s work, with its moody lighting and darker humor. Deep down, I think he would have. I grew up on the Muppets Christmas Carol, and that film was very dark in places, especially as the arrival of the Ghost of Christmas Future began to creep up on the horizon.

All in all, I loved Overtime, and I’m looking forward to personally looking up more of Subinfocom’s work.

Harry Potter Series: The Moments of Adolescence

When we think of Harry Potter we typically think of magic, weird creatures, and Voldemort.  However I think of those stories as something different.  I think of them as the journey of adolescence.  Not just Harry, but Ron, Hermione, Neville and Draco.

In The Sorcerer's Stone the characters are learning how to be in a new surrounding and how to deal with each other, despite their short-comings.

In the Chamber of Secrets it's a continuation of the themes of the first but it includes appreciation of your friends who aren't there when you need them.

In the Prisoner of Azkaban that movie is the beginning of the interest in the opposite sex and also learning the truth about the people before you hurt them.

In the Goblet of Fire it's about finding out that celebrity's won't always be famous and people will turn on you. Also the movie is about secret feelings that start to be revealed and even the hero can't always get a date.  Also sometimes you must go into a competition alone and even if it's friendly it can still become unfriendly.

In the Order of the Phoenix it is about taking charge of your life and other lives even at a young age and remembering that even your parents were once young as well.  Also it is about the realization that the girl you like might not be as good as you wished.

In the Half-Blood Prince it is about the moment when you think a couple will get together and that person goes with someone else, yet their hear desires more.  At that point everyone is standing around thinking "FINALLY."

In the Deathly Hallows it is about joining together at the worst moment and never letting go, despite, anger jealously, and fear.

All movies also include the fight between good and evil and how evil is impressionable to the young ones.

The Great Gobelins of France

 

     Since my last post was concerned with the idea of truth/beauty and aesthetics, I have decided to show a group who are the masters of what I am talking about; namely, Gobelins School of Animation in France. This school consistently produces some of the most imaginative shorts I have ever seen, and they also tend to cover all kinds of ground, from mythology (such as the above picture), to anti-war and films handling the long-standing tension between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Although their films are extremely short, they cover a lot of ground in the time they are given, and they also show the principle of knowing your story and having a beautiful aesthetic to draw in the audience.

     Because the films that Gobelins students create (typically as commercials to promote the large Annecy film festival in France) are so short, they must immediately draw the viewer in with a pleasing or interesting aesthetic. This is done in so many different forms from these talented students that I am not going to even attempt to describe them all. I have included some videos to give you a taste. However, they are also required to tell some sort of a story in the allotted time. So, although they are pemitted to use amazing visuals, they are not allowed to waste the time of the audience simply showing off said visuals. They must tell a story or at least make a point of some kind. To me, being able to mix both incredible art style and a great story is the highest form of movie-making, and the greatest and most memorable movie-makers understand this principle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Love and Stuff

Once upon a time...

There was a boy who loved a girl. 

When he first saw her, he realized that she was the most beautiful thing he had ever seen. He loved to draw, and so did she. Thus, they drew together every day until they had become very close friends. 

And he loved her.

The only problem was that he knew that they could not be together. Between them stood a barrier that neither of them could overcome. Obstacles, however, would not prevent him from being with the one of whom owned his heart.

Because he loved her.

One day, he had had enough. He decided that he would be with her, and he almost succeeded. The barrier was too strong. Just as it had been punctured, it reformed itself destroying all that the boy had: his drawing hand. Time went by, and he came back to her even after all the pain, and the girl wanted to draw with him, but he could not. 

He gave up everything because he loved her.

The following day, he came to see her again, and she had a present for him. In surprise, he looked up from his present, and she asked him to draw with her. In the package was her left arm to replace the left arm he'd lost. 

She did it for him because she loved him in return.

Main Blog Idea Thingy

Now, I know that that doesn't really happen in real life. If you cut off an arm without a physician, you just die from blood loss; you can not give it to someone else, and expect it to function properly. However, the imagery of love is fantastic. 

Lately in class, we've been talking about getting bad ideas out first (we discussed this when we learnt about Pixar, and how the animators went about creating concepts), so this blog might be a bad idea, but I just feel like it should be out there.

To me, this short independent animation is representative of what true unconditional love looks like: a willingness to give your all for something you love, and returning to the said love even when you have nothing left to give, and at the same time, being willing to sacrifice what you have so that restoration can happen in others.

Some people may say that such love does not exist, but that is where I disagree. Although this is a love that seems intangible, it is real. When Jesus came to die on the cross, He did it because God loves us. God was trying to break the barrier between us formed by sin and reinforced by our own darkness. Where the story above and the story of Christ differ, is that He succeeded after giving His all: His life. He rose again. Where do we come in? If we are Christians, we know that He will always love us, but we should offer to Him ourselves so that we can help Him complete the good work that He started. For some, this might be devoting life to missions and dying a martyr, for others it might just be a hand to use to draw. 

As artists we should use our abilities, that were given to us by Him, for Him. That does not mean go out and make Fireproof 2, but even little things like crediting your talent to Whom it truly belongs. The glory is not our own, anyway.


True love hurts, but that does not mean it is not worth it. 

The end.

Beauty vs. Aesthetics

 

     I have found the discussion in class concerning the idea of beauty/truth and aesthetic to be rather interesting, but I think I shall place myself on the side of those who are having trouble with the films that do not look pleasing (even if the stories are at least decent). Here is my main reason for doing this: I think that a filmmaker should never become so enamoured with the current state of the story as to forget aesthetic, and vice versa. I have seen both cases, and can testify that, while the films aren't necessarily what I would call "really bad", I think that they would be better if told in a different way, or with a different art style. Case in point, the film concerning the two sisters, in my opinion, would have been better if it had been done in live action. Now, I understand that the director was an animator. However, I still think that the film would have been more aesthetically appealing in live action, and might have made the characters more "human", if you will, in terms of their reactions and such. Would the sight of the disfigured sister have been more jarring, sure. But that is the point. She becomes that much more pitiable. Let me say, before I go on, that I am in NO WAY endorsing the idea that art style should carry a movie. However, a great movie that looks boring, is still an incomplete movie, just like a movie with great aesthetics but a seriously lacking story.

     Now, to finish, I will address the issue of the other side of this coin. There are more than a few directors who hide incompetent stories behind stunning visuals (Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland or James Cameron's Avatar, anyone). However, I do not think that we should say that presenting a bad story in a beautiful way is necessarily that much different than presenting a beautiful story in a very mundane way. Now, I will say that I understand that not all movies require a Tim Burton level of attention to inventiveness (Forrest Gump likely would not have been as good of a movie in Tim's hands). However, audiences will appreciate both types of moviemaking, because both types are so rare. Don't believe me? Count the number of visually stunning films you have ever seen, along with those who truly hold a great story from beginning to end. Then, divide that by the number of movies you have seen, and presto, you get my point. Being visually creative shows the audience that, although you may have slacked or had trouble in the story department, you still cared enough about your art to show them something beautiful. After all, is not awakening the childlike sense of wonder and imagination in your audience through the pictures they see a form of truth/beauty. I rest my case.

Pie

As I reflect on the movie Waitress, I remember just how well the characters were developed and shown to the audience for what they were; the good, bad, ugly, and beautiful. You could see how each of them had deep struggles, mixed with social pressures to appear a certain way while there were secrets lying behind everything that made it nearly impossible to live an honest life. The main character (Jenna) was caught up in so much painful tension between desire, uncertainty, and guilty conscience, and whatever choice she made would have it's consequences. This, I think, captures the essence of the social reality we live in; we're forced to live in a society that values certain things while we have conflicting desires and/or moral standards, but we don't know really what the right thing to do is so we try out all the options to find some truth in it all... the process goes on. On top of that there is this internal struggle against oppressive authority, and a longing for freedom to do what you want in life. Most of the film focused on this aspect of Jenna's life. She wished for freedom from her repressive husband, but could not bring herself to break it off. An affair with her doctor only added to the stressful situation - part of her wanted to give full vent to her desires for him, but the other part reminded her of how wrong it was, and plagued her with guilt.

We all have different struggles and internal conflicts; most of us probably haven't been through quite the situation that Jenna was in, but we are equally as complicated. I know that there are so many times I wish i could just escape the pressure of this life....all the endless decisions and responsibilities and cravings that don't ever seem to fit together. Life is complicated. Often it seems too complicated to deal with, but somehow we manage to survive, a lot of times wishing that we hadn't. In Jenna's case everything ended up ok, and we can rejoice with her for that. But reality is a bit less forgiving, and sometimes we end up more disheartened than when the conflict was at it's peak. So....what if things go wrong? What if Jenna's situation changed, and she was left with a less favorable outcome, like being stuck with her idiotic husband for the rest of her life? I guess this is not letting the movie speak for itself, and I know that the point of the movie was not really to be realistic as much as it was to show us humanity and beauty amidst terrible darkness....and for what it's worth I absolutely love the film for what it does. But while we are talking about humanity and beauty, we might as well apply inevitable tragedy to everything; after all, that is the world we live in. Yes, there is comedy and wonderful, spontaneous joy, but we don't know that it will happen to us. It seems that the film almost sends a false message, saying that if you only follow the true desire of your heart (in Jenna's case, leaving her husband and having the baby and living on her own with her own pie shop) then everything will be ok. It's like the traditional Disney message (follow your heart, it'll all be fine)...which I cringe to say, but that's what appears to be the case.

I find that one of the flaws to Signs and Wonders is that we never really spend time talking about the idolatry in the films we watch. As a Christian community, we should be always challenging ourselves and testing the things that come our way. Movies have a lot of good in them, especially the ones shown in Signs and Wonders. But there is hardly a movie out there that lacks an idol or two, maybe snuck in between the truths so that we don't notice it. Part of being a good listener, I think, is learning to test what you hear and find out what exactly is good about it and what is not. So, I guess my main point is that, even though I totally agree with the fact that there is good stuff in movies life Waitress, there is a danger in avoiding talking about the false things that are usually mixed in there right along with the good.

Waitress

Signs and wonders last night was (once again) a wonderful experience—even more so because there was pie involved. The movie was interesting in so many aspects, exploring many dimensions of multiple real-life problems, and really shed a relatable aspect to the entire story.

I really enjoy simple films like this because you can tell that they don't try to over-dramatize the situations, but you still experience the ups and downs of a more natural plot structure. It was mentioned last night that even though the characters are obviously part of a movie set, you wouldn't be surprised to actually find them in a real diner somewhere down south.

There were so many comical moments in the development of each characters, and the smaller cast allowed you to really develop a connection with each character. In the way that the main character was able to find her purpose as a mother allowed for such a deep emotional connection that is really vital to a good story. One of my favorite aspects was how she often expressed herself by dreaming of all different kids of pie, each with a clear name about how she was feeling.

While watching the movie, I really didn't appreciate all of the emphasis about affairs throughout the story. My first reaction was almost annoyed about how they seemed to be promoting the disloyal behavior without showing any of the consequences. However, I was glad to see that in the end, she breaks off the affair and doesn't follow through with what she knows is wrong. For the character's sake, it certainly makes for a happy ending that neither couple's spouses found out. When you step back to look at the story, the affairs actually don't have such a big impact on the final message.

Short stories

        There are three different kinds of stories; maybe more, but I'm tired of thinking about this blog (I've already spent about an hour on it, atleast). A story which it is necessary to tell all the details of is a short story. Not one detail is wasted, not one can be left out if it is to get the desired response from the audience. A story that can be easily summarized, and has other, less important details, is a simplistic story. A story which can be summarized, but not very well summarized in a short summary, is the kind of story you would find in a novel.

       I think that most classic Disney stories are simplistic stories. You could quickly say, "It's a story about 15 puppies who get stolen by a crazy lady, and the parents of the puppies go rescue them." That's a pretty just summary of 101 Dalmatians. Just because I call it a simplistic story doesn't mean I think it's lame or worthless; in fact I think it's a great story, and very entertaining. It's just rather simple.
       Pixar shorts are short stories. You can't summarize those things and make it sound interesting at all. What are you going to say, "It's about a baby and a toy"? Boring. (Except for "Gerry's Game". "An old guy playing chess with himself and really getting caught up in it" could sound interesting...maybe.) But then you watch it, and it's totally awesome.
       So, each of these types of stories take a different type of storytelling. When I started this blog, I was going to say that I have a lot of trouble writing short stories, but then I remembered I've written a couple of short stories that I think are decently good. Maybe. Anyways, anybody who can write a great short story has my admiration. I mean, you have five minutes to tell a story that will entertain people. You can't put a great action scene in there, or tons of dialogue; you don't have the time. But somehow some people make great, entertaining, challenging, and/or funny stories in that time limit.
       There was a guy back in the early 1900's? who wrote under the pen name O. Henry, and he wrote a lot of awesome short stories. If you've ever seen or heard a version of "The Gift of the Magi", he was the one who wrote the original story that the other versions are based on.
       Okay, apparently I've rambled and have no main point in this blog, but hopefully it'll be of some use to somebody.
       P.S. While I was looking for a picture to go with this blog, I found a site called classicshorts.com where you can read a lot of short stories from different authors. It looks really awesome. Who knows, you might read some of these and use them in your animations some day....

Forrest Gump

Once in 1981 a little white feather fell next to the feet of one of the most extraordinary figures in fictional history.  His name is Forrest Gump (played by Tom Hanks).  This is a man who has a IQ of 75 but he has a heart of gold along with some of the fastest feet around.  He is always in historical places with historical figures.  From teaching Elvis the pelvis, to  meeting JFK, to showing LBJ his butt, to busting the Watergate burglars.  Along with the historical people he interacted with, he also had a lot of people that meant the world to him.  First was Mama Gump (played by Sally Field).  She was the only one who always thought that Forrest was normal, despite his IQ.  Second was Bubba (played by Mykelti Williamson) who was an army friend that Forrest met before he went to Vietnam.  Third was Lt. Dan (played by Gary Sinise), Forrest's ungrateful lieutenant whom Forrest saved during combat.  Fourth and four most was Forrest troubled female friend Jenny (played by Robin Wright).

The movie was a technical breakthrough with getting Tom Hanks to be able to interact with dead historical figures.  Also removing Gary Sinise's legs was also a technical challenge with all the different moving camera angles.

With a hit soundtrack, 6 academy awards (including Best Picture) and 7 other nominations,  Forrest Gump is a slice of wonderful filmmaking.

Back to the Future Trilogy

Have you ever wondered how your parents met?  Have you ever known a crackpot scientist?  Have you ever even heard of a DeLorean?  If you said yes to any of these or even no then the Back to the Future Trilogy is the right movie for you.  The trilogy stars Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson and Tom Wilson.  The movies are about the time-traveling adventures of Doc Brown (Lloyd) and Marty McFly (Fox). The timeline that the trilogy explores are from 1885 to 2015.  Through those adventures,  Marty, Doc and Marty's father go through changes which ultimately help out each other.

The films deal with greed, toughening up, gun-slinging, and being blinded by love.

The success of the trilogy lead to Back to the Future: The Ride and Back to the Future: The Animated Series.

These films along with Romancing the Stone lead director Robert Zemeckis to be able to direct some very important films such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forrest Gump, Cast Away and the upcoming feature film Flight.

These movies are part of the reasons that I wanted to become a director and although i haven't the films in a while, I still hold those movies close to my heart.  

Blur is Also a Transformer

Eat your hearts out, ladies.

Being a huge sci-fi fan, I was pretty surprised and excited to see Rockfish in class on Tuesday. Later that day, I heard about Lucas Arts getting bought by Disney, and in one of the reaction videos I saw online someone mentioned Blur Studios and their involvement in some Star Wars animation.

Blur was responsible for the animated trailers for the Star Wars: the Old Republic computer game. The skills they display in those animations are nothing short of amazing, and it isn’t the only big-name exposure they’ve gotten. They did work in James Cameron’s Avatar and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, as well as another Star Wars game, The Force Unleashed II. These guys have some chops, as both Rockfish and their advertising and film work has shown.

Back to Rockfish, however. While it doesn’t really have many themes, morals, or undertones behind it like many other videos Professor Leeper has shown us, it is still an excellent animation to just sit back and enjoy. Still, while I enjoyed it (and I believe most of the rest of the class did, as well), it seems somewhat odd compared to everything else Leeper has shown in class. It’s a simple adventure tale without any kind of special message or theme; it’s just a space fisherman who fishes for giant rock worms with the most elaborate fishing equipment ever devised.

Is it possible that Leeper is slipping? I mean, just showing us eye candy?

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Everyone likes jokes about the government but what is better is when those jokes are made in a time period when that government didn't even exist.  My favorite movie that involves that is Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  Whether accurate or not that movie makes you laugh.  From galloping coconuts, to Trojan horses, to deadly rabbits and the Knights Who Say Niiii, you can't quit laughing.  Shot on a shoestring budget, comes great sets, great colors and again great laughs.  Following King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table through pitfalls, promiscuous favors, annoying musicians, and witches.

When God says to go after the Holy Grail, you go after it.  Even if you have to go over a dangerous bridge and find a shrubbery (Gasp).  If you can sword fight without any limbs go for it, but if your opponents leave, don't curse at them.  Also the more you try to explain something, the more confusing your simple instructions turn out to be.  And it IS okay to sing, just don't sing about Camelot, or else no one will want to go there.  Or maybe it's because Camelot was "only a model."  Either way this was a great way for Monty Python to bring themselves to the masses.  Way to go!

Also if you can watch the musical version called Spamelot.

Let's Be Pretty

Funny how I have another post coming out having to do with "pretty" ideas. Anyway, I went to the Forester Lecture tonight in which Dr. Kimberly Gorman spoke about her journey of overcoming anorexia. After Dr. Gorman gave her pretty compelling story, someone in the audience asked how we as a society can take steps to prevent eating disorders.

I immediately thought of the commercials we watched that Dove has created that display the flaws in what our society has deemed perfect. I love that we watched those commercials, and I love that we watched them in class. While the second one was slightly explicit, I think it's important for us media makers to show how the perfect body isn't possible, and get it communicated as soon as possible.

Bringing body image onto the screen means engaging in a much more personal issue not only for me but for many other people. Eating disorder awareness is out there, it's being shown, and the message that a perfect body isn't out there is being communicated too, but I don't think that either of these are really hitting home.

I wonder if media makers showed the more powerful side of the disorder we could communicate the real message of the monster of anorexia. When you don't eat--if you're cutting your caloric intake down to just 1200 calories a day--your body 1) starts to lose fat 2) starts to lose muscle 3) stops producing hormones 4) blood pressure and sugar drop drastically--you can't stay warm 5) can't ever get enough sleep 6) organs start to eat themselves to sustain life 7) heart shuts down. And not to mention the social seclusion and the inability to focus. Suddenly your in this world of absolute emptiness, and all that's there is food. Food is your only friend, and you can't even have that friend.

There is no love here. There's nothing but depression and utter hate for yourself and whatever the heck it is you've become. And you figure, why try to change this anyway?

Wouldn't it be cool for media to give these people hope? The problem is, a person with an eating disorder doesn't want to hear it. They don't want facts, they don't want messages, they don't want love, they don't think they deserve it. But they will dream, and if somehow media can give them the right dream that gives them hope enough to accept some sort of love, that can be it, that can save someone.

Animation and Story

Even before I wanted to make live-action films, I was into drawing and cartoons. I have a deep respect for animation, especially hand drawn. I grew up on the old Looney Tunes, as well as the Disney animation revival. The first film I ever saw in theaters was the Lion King. It has been cool getting to watch animation for a couple weeks. 

I don't want to get into this debate over mediums and beauty and art that seems to be raging on. But, I think no matter what you're trying to make, the number one thing you should be going for is keeping your audiences interest. That doesn't mean explosions, but I do think there should be a lot of thought put into the story and characters. I didn't really like the film about the family and whatever incest that was happening. I did love the rotoscoped film When the Day Breaks. I think these are both "weird" films, so its not that them being abstract bothered me. 

One cool thing about animation is its being democratized. Pixar used to be the only studio that could pull off a short, now a few guys can crank one out and have it look a million times better than Tin Toy. This is an exciting time for CGI, but I don't want people to forget about hand drawn. Again, I think relatable characters and interesting story trumps any type of aesthetics. That's why Toy Story kicks butt, even though it doesn't look as good as Brave. Story and characters matter more than anything else, if you want people to care. 

Animation

Even though i have no desire to ever get into the business of making animated films; after these 2 weeks or so of studying animation i have developed a much higher level of respect for this art form. I especially appreciate the films we watched today that were made by only 3 guys. The fact that they can animation shorts at that level of quality between the three of their minds and budgets gives me hope for the industry. Although obviously big budgets are nice to have; i feel that the best films are made on tight budgets that can focus on doing the little things really well instead of just looking for expensive scenes and effects they can throw in the film to widen appeal. You need a huge budget to make a huge hit its just a myth. 
I am excited to see the art that our HU animation students can produce during there time here.

A Hard Day's Night

In a world where most pop artists' movies stunk (even Elvis occasionally),  one band was about to change that.  That band was the Beatles.  They were getting successful in Britain when secured a 3-picture deal with United Artists but when they were about to shoot the picture they were the biggest band in America as well. Little was really riding on the film since it was low budget and kids would watch it regardless of the story, but the producers, the director and the Beatles wanted something new.  New is what the audience got.  A mockumentary about "a day in the life" of the Beatles.  The film is filled with some of the Beatles classic songs and some interesting humor.

The script was very interesting because it contained many different phrases that people believe were part of the Beatles slapstick-type humor.  In fact it came from writer Alun Owen who was a fellow Liverpudlian.  The story seems kinda thin but hey in a day of the life of the Beatles nothing really connects because their lives were very crazy in 1964.

The movie did inspire how to really cut scenes to the beat of a song.  With fast hand-held camera moves and multi-angle shots, Richard Lester (the director) started the trend of making music videos, which was explored more in the next Beatles film Help!

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

In 1988 when classic animated films were going down the tubes and other more exciting films were being produced, one film beat the odds.  That movie was Who Framed Roger Rabbit.  Directed by director Robert Zemeckis, executive produced by Spielberg and animation directed by Richard Williams.  The movie was a financial risk at $70 million which still concerned Disney, despite having two hit makers as the leaders of the production.  The movie starred Bob Hoskins, Christopher Lloyd and Charles Fleischer as the voice of Roger.  The film is about the murder of Marvin Acme who is the inventor of all those Acme inventions that are in Warner Bros. cartoons.  Roger Rabbit is framed for murder and with help from cartoon hater Eddie Valiant (Hoskins) they set out to discover the truth.

The movie took about 3 years to make with some animation being done before shooting started.  With over 300 animators working very long hours the film was finished on time and made over $300,000,000.  The movie also garnered 6 Academy Award Nominations and won in 3 of those categories.

That all sounds nice but the real achievement is that this movie was the sparked that started the Disney Renaissance and the great animated features that came from it.  So if Roger hadn't been framed then Simba wouldn't have ever become king.

Pretty

....I'm siding with Matt!

It's interesting to call my view tailored to the squeaky clean CGI that I've grown up with or the nifty animation of Disney princess movies. While I'll be one of the firsts to stand up and say a lot of the animated shorts we've been watching the past several days in class turn me off because of lack of aesthetic appeal, I don't see myself as corrupted view from being fed Pixar films [I also want to note here that I've seen plenty of kinds of animation growing up: I wasn't strictly a Disney/Pixar girl, and never will be]. 

It's all about a good story, but I won't lie, even some of Pixar's films don't impress me in the least. While I've come here to HU and have been plenty open to having my view on films and animation altered in the aesthetic sense, there's a problem: I haven't changed a bit. 

I like pretty. I really do. I like aesthetic beauty and complexity and detail and big pictures that you have to make my eye and head wrap around. Sand on glass is creative, and it's admirable that Caroline Leaf made pretty spiffy animations using that medium, but that's something I will probably never watch again. 

Part of the magic I look for in media has to do a lot with aesthetic appeal. And this goes back to one of my posts from a while back when I talked about the definition of art not really existing because art is subject to opinion: you can't call an artist's piece good or bad or ugly or pretty and expect everyone else to agree. 

Well the same goes for animator's art. Personally, Caroline Leaf's simplistic style isn't enough for me. The stories are powerful, but the aesthetics are too weak to keep my mind absorbed in the story. Call me a child of America's senses-blasting special effects, but I'd be hesitant to label me that seeing as I haven't watched more than maybe five movies a year for the last three years of my life. 

Is it sad that I'd rather create fantastical worlds that are real and are something that I wish I could have stepped outside my bedroom window into at night as a child? Is it bad that I think shorts like "Two Sisters" might reveal an ugly truth behind them that we all need to know but doesn't deserved to be watched twice? Sure, I'm pretty stiff about it. 

So technically, Final Fantasy has very non-realistic elements to it; I definitely agree to that much. 

I understand the disturbing and unsettling animations we watched in class are meant to be that way. I understand that there are disturbing, ugly truths that humanity needs to get smacked in the face with in order to feel the need to do anything about it, but my raw, unedited and blatant nature is that I don't like these films. I understand abstract disturbing, but I also understand realism and fantasy, and really part of realism is disturbing. Real is gross. I like to think that real can be escaped, just for a moment, and that in that moment, one can figure out how to beat real. [Don't write me off as a "Thomas Kinkade" yet]

"Two Sisters" has a truth behind it. And a story. Confusing maybe, but that makes me think. But because the imagery was so bashing to my senses I don't want to think about it. I can't sympathize with the characters anymore now that I'm outside of the moment. And even "The Man Who Planted Trees" made my inner artist want to claw someone. Am I the only one who missed the inspiration of that short? 

I like realistic animation, I won't lie. And I do realize it's a huge challenge, takes a lot of time, money, dedication, and so forth, but don't give up on me yet, I never said I was going to go out and animate real looking people. Who knows?

*I appreciate all the different kinds of animation we've been watching in class though. While I didn't like some of them, I have respect for all of them, and I really, really enjoyed the style of some. Like somewhat mentioned before, I understand that some animation styles were geared toward unsettling the viewer while others were more children's tale like to evoke the sense of being in a children's fairy tale book. I enjoy seeing work of animators greatly.

SIU

I think all the non-animation students need to take a chill pill and man up. I keep seeing all these blogs about how awful these last few weeks have been because they were animated pieces and they couldn't relate and all this other crap. Guys, seriously? Its only been four weeks. That's hardly any time at all. Have you ever stopped and wondered how the animation people might be feeling? Because the six to seven weeks leading up to this has been mostly live action, and the rest of the semester will probably be focusing on live action. So where does that leave us? We got four weeks to focus on what we came to college for. Four weeks. Not only that, but in DigiTools we've been forced to learn things that aren't really useful in our field, and are downright boring to be honest. And our animations classes haven't started yet so this is the only class we really get to take that's even related to our major. So, in the long run, who really has had the short end of the stick? Who deserves to be complaining and moaning because we get to go to a class where all we have to do is watch movies and be a part of a conversation, but the movies aren't the kind we like or understand?
Have you seen any of the animation students complaining about the weeks on end where we watch live action?
We're in college, guys. Adults. Be mature. Not everything is always going to go your way.
I don't have anything against live action and have enjoyed all the films we have seen in this class, regardless of the medium. But it really ticks me off to see people complaining like little babies, especially about something that's important to me, especially when they've been, for the most part, the priviledged members of this class.
What's worse is that I think these students are missing the point of this class altogether. This is an introductory course, a preview into the world of story, not into the world of live action or animation. This is supposed to expand our mind, our vision, and challenge us. And while live action and animation may be different methods of storytelling, in the end its still storytelling, and you can reap the benefits of how to tell a good story from both mediums.
That is if you actually try and watch them and learn from them instead of just complaining.
Just a little advice.