Hello all
I am doing my research for my thesis at NYU and I would like to ask your opinion on a number of topics.
1) What makes CG unique? Meaning why was making the Incredibles in CG the best option as opposed to Live Action (fantastic four movie) or 2D animation or even stop motion. Why would CG be the best option to tell a story?
2) This question is more general but can you use Photo realistc characters (like the ones in final fantasy) but animate them in a stylistic way without motion capture and make it work.?
3) Has there been a film that used CG animation and Live action like “Cool Wold” (where part of the story was told in Live action and then part was told in the 2D animated world.) Would the Live action and CG blend better if the CG characters were realistic looking or if they were more stylized looking. ?
1 -CG was the best option because it was the only option. The Incredibles was developed as a 2d project but no one would finance it in 2d. The story could have been told in live action, but animation brings new things to the table. I think some of the things they did with the baby character would have looked goofy/creepy in live action.
2 - you could, but it depends on the amount of time and money available(a lot), and on the talent of your animators and riggers, and how good you want it to be.
3 - none that I can think of, though there are those that mix 3d animation and live action in a cartoony way, like the Mask movies. Monkeybone was similar to Cool World, but was stop-motion.
Addition to 2.): I think the best way to form your own opinion on that is to look at movies like "The Mask" ("The Mask 2" if you really, really have to) in which they attempted to animate photorealistically rendered humans or human-like characters in a rubbery, cartoony way.
Personally, I think combining classic hand-drawn animation and live-action works better because the two are so different. 3D imitates a lot of the realism and plasticity of the real word and therefore doesn't stand out as much as classic animation. Unless the 3D is done really over the top, like in The Mask.
About 3.): Like Ant-eater, I can't think of any CG/live-action movies combining the two in a plot based on the assumption that fantastic realms of cartoon characters exist next to a mirror version of our own world, like in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Space Jam and Loony Tunes - Back In Action - but in most modern fantasy movies, live-action and CG are combined to create elaborate visuals of alternative realities. Just look at the Lord Of The Rings movies which, to date, feature the most epic and seamless combination of live-action, scale models and CG enhancements. Not to mention CG characters playing next to real actors.
Thanks for the responses. The reason for the question is because I have to defend my choice of technique (2D, CG, Live Action, Stop Motion etc) before a panel. I agree with everthing that has been said. I dont think there is a right answer. But I cant go in front of a panel and say " I just thought it would look cool" or " I just felt like using CG" There are certain attributes that CG will offer that 2D etc wont. I am just trying to get some ideas to come up with an articulate defense. Thanks for the input I will certainly use some of your points. This is the research stage of my thesis so please keep the opinons comming.
John
:)
the main advantage that 3d has over 2d, is not necessarily the extra dimension, it's the textural quality. You can have something totally unreal and fantastic, yet you feel that you can reach out and touch it. You can show if something is wet or dry, you can show if skin is soft or hard or smooth, or scaly.
The advantage over live-action should be obvious. You can tackle subject matter that is not easily possible with live action. You also have the flexibility to make changes quite far down the line.
Thanks ant eater that was helpful. Any one else have any opinions on this topic?
I've reduced my post. I think Ape is right, you'll need to be able to design (and consequently be able to defend) your own work. I'm leaving the book recommendation up for you to get started with the process:
You should pick up a copy of "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud and pay special attention towards the chapter on iconic imagery vs. realistic imagery. It's one of the best theoretical views on using imagery to tell a story and it applies beyond comics, not to mention it being an entertaining read.
His second book, "Reinventing Comics" is interesting only if you're interested in his vision of reinventing the distribution system of media on the internet.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
Sorry, I had to delete my response after reading your first reply. I think you need to be able to defend your own decision for chosing a medium to animate in and not look to others to supply your defense for you.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."