Films You Hate, But Everyone Else Loves

Moot and wrong.

The amount of work the lead artist put into that one segment of The Animatrix, Kid's Story, is more than some of Michelangelo's paintings. And that has nothing to do with live action movies so it's irrelevant.

CGI can't displace live actors. Yeah, and? What do you mean what am I arguing? What are you arguing? You know when Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within came out a lot of people didn't even realise it was CGI right away. They thought it was live action initially.

You said animation doesn't have as much depth as live action films. I'm arguing that animation can have just as much depth as a live action film. I'm talking about amount of work that's put in creating it, story, plot, character development, drawing/creating cgi effects, etc... I'm talking about all of the detail that goes into the movie. I'm talking about detail in it's broad sense.

I mean what's the point of arguing that you can't draw a face as close to a face as a real face? Because it's like your saying live action is better only because there's more detail in a real face than a drawn one, which is just stupid. Please tell me that's not what you've been trying to say all this time.

I'm not talking about "work" - I'm talking about capturing human realism. I used Michelangelo as an example since some of his paintings included muscles that had not even been discovered yet.

No one said that artists don't "work hard" to do what they do - I said that it can't capture the same sense of realism which is why I don't prefer it. If some people prefer admiring the effort it took to create GCI or animation, then that's a different ballpark. This isn't a "better/worse" argument - this was making a point.

And which of the GCI characters one an Oscar for "Best Actor"?

I was arguing it's better in terms of capturing drama or interaction - which too me are what really make movies good. And I didn't say that it was "objectively better" - like I mentioned that's arguing apples and oranges.

If you though it I was saying that animators are lazy or "don't work hard" nope, that's not what I was saying at all. IMO though I'd rather see a great acting scene and be able to admire an actor's overall talent, than a scene of beautiful done animation or graphics - so that's why I prefer live action in that front.

It's idiotic to say that animation is inferior to live action because it's not exactly like reality. The same argument implies that books, music and painting are also inferior to live action and photography.

In fact, animation is perhaps superior because it allows total freedom just like painting allows total freedom versus photography. It's possible to make animation to look almost photorealistic with modern CGI technology but there is no point in doing that, instead use the freedom of animation to make stuff look different from reality. To make it BETTER than reality.

Animation simplifies and hence amplifies reality. It reflects the mind of the creators more than simple photographic reproduction and hence has potential for great emotional depth. True that few animation has been trying to achieve great emotional depth.

Though I might be overstating my case here as live action also has it's qualities: Tarkovsky, Kurosawa and Kubrick certainly knew how to make super impressive looking live action cinematography. There are great stuff in both mediums, though it's true that live action film has many more masterpieces than animation because it's a much larger field (there exists about 120,000 hours of animation in the world while live action film represents many hundreds of thousands of hours (around a million hours of live action film I estimate)).

The great animation director, Isao Takahata, said that he worked in animation because of it's special realism. While Miyazaki, the greatest of all animators, said that he found animation as the ideal medium to express what he feels in his heart inspired by Russian and Japanese animated films.

Many forum members have animated films in their top 10, 20 or 100 movies. Some people don't like animation, others don't like live action. I talked to people in anime forums who said that live action films are garbage and that they couldn't be moved by them because actors are obviously acting and hence it doesn't feel real. I like both mediums though.

Well,, taste is taste. However, don't confuse taste with close mindeness. I also though live action was superior until I was proven wrong by Miyazaki's work. How many of my top 100 animated films have you watched? How many of my top animated TV series below have you watched?

Puella Magi Madoka Magica (2011)
Neon Genesis Evangelion (1995-1996)
Haibane Renmei (2002)
RahXephon (2002)
Serial Experiments Lain (1998)
Saikano (2002)
Future Boy Conan (1978)
Legend of the Galatic Heroes (1988-1998)
Aria the Origination (2008)
Texhnolyze (2003)
Shinsekai Yori (2013)
Clannad: After Story (2008)
Trigun (1998)
Gurren Lagann (2007)
Kaiba (2008)
Space Battleship Yamato 2199 (2013)
Now and Then, Here and There (1999)
Ping Pong: The Animation (2014)
Detroi: Metal City (2008)

Well, I know the answer, zero. I piece of advice: Don't talk about what you don't know, you might regret it later.

All mediums: comic books, literature, live action film, music, painting, can produce masterpieces and hence can move people. Animation is still the least developed medium and the smallest because of the cost of producing animation as it requires drawing of each frame.

Lol, and according to those people animation feels more real because...?

Ghost in the Shell pretentious? Not really, it's a very smart film. I was impressed on how intelligently exdecuted it is and how clearly it states and argues about it's themes. Though the film's dialogue is completely derived from the original manga which I found superior.

Anyway, I found Ghost in the Shell to be a crystal clear film. it's super elegant. I disliked the lack of emotional connection I had with it though but that's simply because it is a film that consciously distances itself from the characters.

If you think it's pretentious don't try watching Oshii's other films like Urusei Yatsura 2, Angel's Egg, Sky Crawlers and Patlabor 2. They are way more pretentious. Oshii is the animation equivalent of European arthouse film mixed with science fiction (which are his main influences, the film LaJetee is a major influence on his work as are Goddard's films).

Mamoru Oshii's whole filmography is essential to any animation buff. He is one of the four great anime directors together with Hideaki Anno, Takahata and Miyazaki. Miyazaki himself respects his work greatly and here is a talk between the two directors discussing Patlabor 2:

http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/int...patlabor2.html

Because it's more abstract. Like a book. Animation is between live action and literature. A book is way more abstract than animation: it's just marks of paint on a piece of paper. Hence it's more realistic because it is not obviously fake like theater and film but a representation of reality. Some people might not be able to suspend disbelief watching theater and film but will be able to suspend disbelief while watching animation.

Anyway, I don't feel that way about live action since I watched a ton of both mediums and I love a ton of works in both mediums. I am both a live action film fan and an animation fan.

Some Japanese film directors, however, said they hated animation. Well, I least I know that Takeshi Kitano said he dislikes animation and Miyazaki's films. But that's his taste, everybody has his/hers own taste.

So there is no abstract live action? I'm assuming those people aren't even aware of art house and serious cinema?

One thing I've noticed with anime fanatics is that more often than not they're very close-minded and self-conceited people, deluded even, and will mostly refuse to get out of their comfort zone. If one person told me that all live action is garbage and that animation is the superior art form, I would never take the opinions of that person seriously

Well, that's called taste. Some people prefer a medium over another. Anime fans in general prefer animation because they are, well, anime fans. Film fans prefer film because they are, well, film fans. Literature nerds prefer books because they are literature nerds.

Close minded means you don't watch it because of prejudice. I talked to someone on an anime forum who said he watched 700 movies and couldn't get into any opf them because he found watching people act to be fake. That's called taste, not close mindedness.

You can understand that a book is more abstract than live action film, right? Animation is closer to live action film but still more abstract than it. Manga is more abstract than animation but still not as abstract than a book.

I think that I have developed a sensibility to animation because of the huge volume of computer games I played over my childhood and teenager years. The visual style of many anime reminds me of computer game graphics which I identify to.

And here we have in a nutshell why Guap left the forum. He says something too assumptive about anime, and people lash backwards in a similarly aggressive fashion. I think you should've stopped this reply after the first sentence

__________________
Mubi

I won't say that all anime fans are this or that, but I do think there's much higher percentage of anime fanatics who happen to be middle-aged, neckbearded single men still living with parents who don't watch anything other than anime - than the general filmgoing population.

Your posts above mirrors my sentiments, thanks.

I'm actually into human behavioral science.

I believe that animation (this includes cartoons like anime and video games) triggers a higher release of dopamine in the brain than live action does; I think this also leads to over-stimulation and dependency on dopamine for some individuals, making it addictive, almost like a drug. There are also theories that excessive dopamine or dopamine sensitivity contributes toward certain mental disorders such as schizophrenia. I find this all pretty interesting stuff, and it makes me wonder what the net affects today's media will be on future generations.

A little off-topic but that post you mentioned about animation reminding you of computer games got me off on this tangent. It sounds like it's triggering a similar dopamine rush to computer games - I also notice that myself too on the occasions that I watch cartoons or play a computer game (compared to live action media).

I'm not being aggressive at all to be honest + that wasn't directed at Guaporense (since he stated he appreciates both mediums)

What I'm trying to say is, anime fans usually don't have much knowledge about cinema in general. I'm speaking from experience. I have a friend who has been an anime nut for a decade and only recently started to get interested in film. He saw The Godfather for the first time last month, and now won't stop gushing over it (The Godfather!)

Armageddon, for one. Okay, I know it makes people emotional and I've seen people sobbing away to glory while watching this movie but excuse me? I understand that it is no mean feat to agree to sacrifice yourself to save mankind by detonating a bomb on an asteroid that is spiraling toward Earth (Bruce Willis does this in the movie, for those not in the know). But he does it mostly because he wants his daughter (Liv Tyler) to have a shot at life with her boyfriend (Ben Affleck) - whom he didn't approve of earlier. This is how the storyline goes. And people (except me) still seem to go gaga over the movie. Eh?

A Walk to Remember. Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's the movie, but I just can't manage to sit through this one. Mandy Moore looked very much like an extremely pale, Puritan angel and couldn't act at all. And people cried their way through this one as well.

That's perfectly fine. Saying you're a fan of anime and not a fan of film is one thing, but disparaging live action film and claiming it's garbage is ridiculous and offensive (considering the number of genres, styles, decades, countries, movements etc). If you make such a claim you're trying to come off as smart, but in reality you're showing that you're a philistine

What sort of abstraction are you referring to, exactly?

How is, say, the Harry Potter series more abstract than 2001? How is Toy Story or The Lego Movie more abstract than Persona?

I never thought Armageddon was a huge classic - only thing I think is notable about it is that it's one of Michael Bay's least awful films.

I disagree with a lot of things you're saying 90sAce, but your main point seems pointless. If you prefer live action movies that's fine, but if you learn to appreciate and enjoy animation you'll have more material to enjoy. As it stands I don't think you even have a basic understanding of animation.

And let's face it, most live action movies are very unrealistic.

Jesus freaking Christ 90sAce, can you make a point about animation that isn't spoonfed by decades of playing down a medium for no relevant and solid reason other than its traditional use to represent childhood fantasies? I have seen animated works that took ten years to make, sometimes by a single author. There is effort about them, and a damn lot of coordination. That first and firemost.

Thematically, you still haven't brought any reason that makes live action and animation different, other than resorting to the comparison between stuff for kids and stuff for adults. Watch Perfect Blue and compare the result with Black swan. Watch It's such a beautiful day and compare the result with... I dunno, any existential drama. Watch American Pop and compare it with any live action biopic. Or Angel's egg with Tarkovsky.

In terms of expressive capability, I think you are overrating a damn lot the work of an actor. And underrating a damn lot the work of a drawer. Both are working to represent a reality that does not exist. Both observe different realities and try to bring them to life. They are not substantially different. The only difference is a subjective perception. I hope this is clear. Would you find Waltz with Bashir (if you've watched it) more believable if the director had not presented it in animated form? That's quite an extreme that would clarify a lot about your position.

On the matter of visuals. You are talking about the limits animation has to imitate live action, what about the limits live action has to imitate animation?

Do you imagine a live action film being able to play with its backgrounds, colouring and decolouring them, and describing a character through unrealistic, overdone ("cartoonish") movements?

I'm sorry for not digging into this "you are entitled to your own opinion" thing because I think that 1) this is obvious and 2) your tastes and perceptions are one thing and the way you word them is a pretty different one. And don't get me started with the blatantly ignorant commentary about anime fans that looks like it's taken from one of the million articles sensationalist media write anytime there's an Anime Con in their town. You'd be surprised to see that anime, film and music fans are people with families, friends and healthy or unhealthy lifestyles. Specially now that we have internet, anonymity, and we can handle different versions of ourselves pretty easily.

Amen.

Both live action and animation have their enrichments to storytelling and their (mild) shortcomings.

Watch Kill Bill Vol. 1 for instance. Would you say that the animated sequence is the least effective part of the film?



Yeah, I didn't think so.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

That's an excellent argument jal90. I think you just put it better than anybody.