From A.O. Scott's review of "Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the
Were-Rabbit":
He seems to share my love of Gromit, but why is the plasticine pooch so much more appealing to Mr. Scott than a more realistic character like our big, green friend?
I think the answer is a combination of a lot of things, so let's see.
Well, First off, A.O. Scott puts it down to the medium. Sorry Mister, but I don't think that's it at all. A well-animated CG character should tug the heart-strings just as one would when produced in another medium, but for some reason computer animation struggles with the stigma that it is heartless and somehow less creatively involved than the traditional animation disciplines. It's the easy thing to say; after all, computers can only crunch numbers, right? This is, of course, nonsense. Any good animator will approach their medium will a similar methodology, because it takes the same skills, imagination and talent to get the work done, and will usually even take about the same amount of time. The "Made by hand" thing is just the manifestation of creative elitism, and can be promptly discarded by anyone who gives it some real consideration.
>K gets out pipe and fills it thoughfully<
Another thing to factor in is the whole anthropomorphism issue. For some reason we find it easier to connect with animals than we do other people. I guess that's the isolationist society we live in, but it means that it is much easier to grab an audience with a cute, preferably furry creature than with a human. Related to this is the visual style and character design that an animated movie will go for. As we edge towards that "uncanny valley" we start to lose the audience, and means that a Shrek (I'm taking Shrek to be human) has to work much harder than a Gromit to get them back on side. That pooch is possibly about the best animated character ever, in my opinion. He is clean, graphic, expressive, emotive.... you get the idea.
>Inhaling deeply, he concludes<
So yeah, I think that the way we're (by we, I mean of course all of you lot and myself) going to keep our audience is to think very carefully about what the instant reaction to our characters is. Pitching it too low and you've got some generic thing that may or may not please the kids and turning the adults off. Aiming too high will give you a rainy holiday in the Valley that freaks everyone out. It's a toughy, and no mistake.
Good luck with your character designs, people!
Were-Rabbit":
I am thinking of Gromit, the mute and loyal animated dog whose selflessness and intelligence can be counted on, when things get really crazy, to save the day. Gromit has no mouth, and yet his face is one of the most expressive ever committed to the screen. In particular, his brow - a protuberance overhanging his spherical, googly eyes - is an almost unmatched register of emotion. Resignation, worry, tenderness and disgust all come alive in that plasticine nub. To keep matters within the DreamWorks menagerie, you might compare Gromit to Shrek, who has the genetic advantages of Mike Myers's Scots burr, a bevy of celebrity-voiced sidekicks and rivals, and state-of-the-art computer-animation technology. Good for him. But Gromit, made by hand and animated by a painstaking stop-motion process, has something Shrek
will never acquire in a hundred sequels: a soul.
He seems to share my love of Gromit, but why is the plasticine pooch so much more appealing to Mr. Scott than a more realistic character like our big, green friend?
I think the answer is a combination of a lot of things, so let's see.
Well, First off, A.O. Scott puts it down to the medium. Sorry Mister, but I don't think that's it at all. A well-animated CG character should tug the heart-strings just as one would when produced in another medium, but for some reason computer animation struggles with the stigma that it is heartless and somehow less creatively involved than the traditional animation disciplines. It's the easy thing to say; after all, computers can only crunch numbers, right? This is, of course, nonsense. Any good animator will approach their medium will a similar methodology, because it takes the same skills, imagination and talent to get the work done, and will usually even take about the same amount of time. The "Made by hand" thing is just the manifestation of creative elitism, and can be promptly discarded by anyone who gives it some real consideration.
>K gets out pipe and fills it thoughfully<
Another thing to factor in is the whole anthropomorphism issue. For some reason we find it easier to connect with animals than we do other people. I guess that's the isolationist society we live in, but it means that it is much easier to grab an audience with a cute, preferably furry creature than with a human. Related to this is the visual style and character design that an animated movie will go for. As we edge towards that "uncanny valley" we start to lose the audience, and means that a Shrek (I'm taking Shrek to be human) has to work much harder than a Gromit to get them back on side. That pooch is possibly about the best animated character ever, in my opinion. He is clean, graphic, expressive, emotive.... you get the idea.
>Inhaling deeply, he concludes<
So yeah, I think that the way we're (by we, I mean of course all of you lot and myself) going to keep our audience is to think very carefully about what the instant reaction to our characters is. Pitching it too low and you've got some generic thing that may or may not please the kids and turning the adults off. Aiming too high will give you a rainy holiday in the Valley that freaks everyone out. It's a toughy, and no mistake.
Good luck with your character designs, people!
0 comments:
Post a Comment