I'd also say animated films in general; I feel that the entire concept is just a step below live action filming; even when they deserve appreciation for their "art" - isn't really the reason I go to see films - I go to see acting and characters, and you can't capture that kind of depth in animation.
This is just so wrong.
Up, Wall-E, and most of Pixar's films disagree. Also, all of Miyazaki's films prove you flat wrong. There's also Mary and Max, The Iron Giant, Fantastic Mr. Fox, and countless other animated films with developed and interesting characters.
Also, I can't force you to appreciate the art of voice acting, but maybe you could challenge yourself to re-evaluate your view on that subject? This is streaming on Netflix.
Up, Wall-E, and most of Pixar's films disagree. Also, all of Miyazaki's films prove you flat wrong. There's also Mary and Max, The Iron Giant, Fantastic Mr. Fox, and countless other animated films with developed and interesting characters.
None of that proves me wrong; having an "interesting character" does not equate to capturing the depth of body language and face-to-face interacting - that's impossible to do with animation, sorry if it hurts to hear that. It's factually impossible to "develop" an animated character in the same way you can a live actor.
Animation as a whole is more entertainment and stimulation over substance, kind of like what an action or a horror film is to a serious film like The Godfather.
Also, I can't force you to appreciate the art of voice acting, but maybe you could challenge yourself to re-evaluate your view on that subject? This is streaming on Netflix.
Doing a lame English dub of a Japanese anime cartoon in no way compares to what, say Al Pacino did in The Godfather trilogy. Voice acting as a whole doesn't require anywhere near the same effort as face-to-face interaction with another person in front of a live audience. (Just like recording yourself doing a cover of "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey isn't anywhere in the same league as putting on a live performance in front of an audience).
Stop arguing something you know you can't win. I enjoy plenty of action films or horror films, but I'm not seriously going to defend them as on the same level of depth as films like The Godfather when they're clearly not - that just screams low emotional maturity.
I imagine you have no problem at all with rotoscoped "animation" like A Scanner Darkly?
Gollum was a live actor enhanced with CGI, not a GCI-only creation. I think this is who you meant. I have no idea what "Golem" is.
I have no "problem" with animation per se - I'm arguing that it's not capable of the same depth or chemistry as a live performance for obvious reasons. If it were there'd be no reason to have actors at all, since you could just "draw" someone like Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise, on a piece paper or in 3D imaging software.
Golum is a pokemon drawn so accurately you can't even tell him apart from a real life rock.
No but seriously I have to disagree with what you're saying about animation. It is not a step below live action filming. It goes without saying that there is more detail in a real picture than an animated one, but there is not more depth to a live action movie than an animated one in a general sense. The details are different, but not necessarily qualitatively less.
I'd also say animated films in general; I feel that the entire concept is just a step below live action filming; even when they deserve appreciation for their "art" - isn't really the reason I go to see films - I go to see acting and characters, and you can't capture that kind of depth in animation. This is why children enjoy animated films - they offer visual stimuli but only maintain a level of depth which a kid can understand.
You should expand your notion of what animation can do. The medium may have certain limitations to it, but it also has many freedoms that live action filmmaking doesn't have.
Anyway, I couldn't disagree more with what you're saying.
Yeah, there are some things that are much better done in animation, like tricky camera angles and unnatural monsters or space battles. Even live action films use a lot of CGI animation for stuff like that, and you can't always tell that it's CGI.
__________________
It's like you're unraveling a big cable-knit sweater that someone keeps knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting...
90sAce, live action acting is a simulation of real life. A fabrication. This human interaction you're so incredibly obsessed with isn't real. Animation is also an imitation of life. I see little difference between the two.
And if you don't think animation can simulate or emulate real emotion then you are sorely mistaken. The entire point of characters in animation is to replicate human actions and emotions and there are tons of examples that are just as good at doing this as live action.
Watch Cowboy Bebop, the TV show and the film. Watch the Avatar the Last Airbender show. Watch Toy Story 3. Watch Up.
Both animation and live action are just tools. Both are used to tell a story and convey emotions. Neither does it better or worse. One is not superior to the other. Both can use true emotional moments to tell a human story.
Also, what's your deal with The Godfather? Not every movie has to be The Godfather. But, if it makes you feel better, I'd rather watch Cowboy Bebop or Princess Mononoke than The Godfather.
90sAce, live action acting is a simulation of real life. A fabrication. This human interaction you're so incredibly obsessed with isn't real. Animation is also an imitation of life. I see little difference between the two.
Point missed entirely - I was asserting that a live actor putting on a convincing performance or interaction requires much more effort than just drawing or creating a character with CGI, and it does. If you're a fan of animation then good for you - but don't be a "fanboy" and blindly argue without understanding
And if you don't think animation can simulate or emulate real emotion then you are sorely mistaken. The entire point of characters in animation is to replicate human actions and emotions and there are tons of examples that are just as good at doing this as live action.
It comes much closer to it seeing as it's actually... um, a real person than something 100% digital or animated. Just like... um building a car is closer to replicating a car than drawning one on paper? What's so hard to understand this and what are you arguing about?
If there was really little to no difference then actors wouldn't even exist, since it would be a lot cheaper and simpler just to draw a character, just than to pay Russell Crowe or Tom Cruise millions of bucks to appear on screen for 2 hours.
Watch Cowboy Bebop, the TV show and the film. Watch the Avatar the Last Airbender show. Watch Toy Story 3. Watch Up.
Why?
The only one of the above I've watched is Toy Story 3, and though it's got it's entertaining moments, it's light-years behind serious films when it comes to depth. Any one of Scorsese 's films makes it look like a 30 minute Saturday morning cartoon in comparison (another reason why RT's rating system can't be taken too seriously).
Both animation and live action are just tools. Both are used to tell a story and convey emotions. Neither does it better or worse. One is not superior to the other. Both can use true emotional moments to tell a human story.
"Superior" is more of an opinion. However it's not arguable at all that live actors are superior at replicating real interactions than animated characters and voiceovers - beyond that it's kind of pointless to argue whether a certain venue is "superior" or not since that's apples to oranges.
Also, what's your deal with The Godfather? Not every movie has to be The Godfather. But, if it makes you feel better, I'd rather watch Cowboy Bebop or Princess Mononoke than The Godfather.
I'm sure there's people who'd rather watch Epic Movie than the Godfather - and if so good for them - what's your point?
There are plenty of popcorn flicks that I'd rather watch than the Godfather too - that doesn't mean I'm going to seriously argue that a film like Saw or Fast and the Furious is the same depth-wise as The Godfather.
I was asserting that a live actor putting on a convincing performance or interaction requires much more effort than just drawing or creating a character with CGI, and it does.
This is just ignorant. Acting is not more difficult than drawing. They both require just as much effort to reach peak performance.
You seriously need to learn more about animation and open your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong.
Try some of these: The Animatrix, The Wind Rises, Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Perfect Blue, Jin Roh.
The Godfather may have more depth than Toy Story 3, but it doesn't have more depth than every animated film.
I can guarantee you it does.
The point that you're trying to argue is absurd. You haven't demonstrated more than a superficial understanding of animation either. For example:
This is just ignorant. Acting is not more difficult than drawing. They both require just as much effort to reach peak performance.
But the effort put into drawing isn't the same kind of "depth" as depth of acting or chemistry. It's a completely different "discipline" (just like designing the frame for a Rolls Royce is completely different than designing the motor).
But to me that's not what I'm looking for when I go to see a film; I'm not going there to "stare at art", I want to see dynamic performances and interaction which can't be captured with animation.
It's kind of like the difference between racing a car, and going to a car show. If I'm going to actually race a car, I'm not going to care how "good it looks" or "how much effort" went into designing the chassis - I'm going to care about how it drives. That's the key difference.
You seriously need to learn more about animation and open your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong.
Try some of these: The Animatrix, The Wind Rises, Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Perfect Blue, Jin Roh.
See above. These might be deeper plot-wise than a Cartoon Network show but this is really just sidestepping my point - if you're insecure about your interests because then that's on you. I might check some of these out though
Keep in mind I didn't say "animation is bad" - I said that it's not the same type of depth that you get in a live action film. If you're talking about depth in terms of the art creation process that's apples to oranges.
Why not? Is it bad? What do you mean don't go near it?
Well, it's certainly well-regarded among anime buffs, but I myself absolutely loathed it. I thought it was boring, confusing, ugly and terribly pretentious.
The point I was trying to make is: if you ever decide to expand your anime horizons, definitely don't start with that one
Well, it's certainly well-regarded among anime buffs, but I myself absolutely loathed it. I thought it was boring, confusing, ugly and terribly pretentious.
The point I was trying to make is: if you ever decide to expand your anime horizons, definitely don't start with that one
Same, I had to watch it for a university course and loathed it. Not as bad as the 1970s Space Battleship Yamato film we watched though.
Reply to Topic
