An interesting review of Monster House by San Francisco movie critic Mick LaSalle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/DDGHTK1F471.DTL&type=movies
I haven't seen the movie yet, I might go this weekend so I can't comment on the animation or story. I just wanted to point out a few things that Mick wrote in his review.
"Imagine what Disney might have done with this in the creation of the Seven Dwarfs. Imagine all the things that will be done with this in the future. "Monster House" looks like the ground floor of something important."
Because the animation in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was so wooden and un-appealing. Ok, so maybe Snow White's performance was a bit stiff, but that because quite a bit of her animation, as well as the other humans' were rotoscoped, kinda like 'Performance capture.'
"The motion-capture process is put to good use in the sequence in which DJ's best friend, Chowder (Sam Lerner) comes to visit -- he looks a little like the chubby, earnest Samwise in "The Lord of the Rings" -- and they play basketball in the driveway. Chowder's uncoordinated movements are funnier as animation than they would have been in live action. Their verisimilitude makes them funny. It's the kick of watching a cartoon look awkward in exactly the same way as a human being."
veri·si·mil·i·tude
Pronunciation: -s&-'mi-l&-"tüd, -"tyüd
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin verisimilitudo, from verisimilis verisimilar, from veri similis like the truth
1 : the quality or state of being verisimilar
2 : something verisimilar
veri·sim·i·lar
Pronunciation: "ver-&-'si-m&-l&r, -'sim-l&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin verisimilis
1 : having the appearance of truth : PROBABLE
2 : depicting realism (as in art or literature)
- veri·sim·i·lar·ly adverb
I had to look up verismilitude. So a couple things about Mick's statement. If verisimilar means "2 : depicting realism," then why is it funnier animated? Whouldn't they be equally funny if the animation depicts realism? Also his last sentince, "...kick of watching a cartoon look awkward in exactly the same way as a human being." So the animation looks awkward, and that makes it funny or does the animation portay the awkwardness of the character, thus the characters awkwardness make it funny?
Any way, a strange review of an animated movie. I tried to find other reviews of animated movies by him but couldn't find any. Maybe I didn't look hard enough. Some one else said they felt Mick got alittle too wrapped up in the press release for this movie, and I'd have to agree. I usually don't read movie reviews, but when a film critic has glowing reviews about a movie's technology, it always makes me sit up and take notice.
Like I said, I haven't seen the movie yet. It does look fairly interesting and I might go see a matine of it. At least the eyes don't look as creepy dead as they did in Polar Express.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
I tried looking up "whouldn't," "sentince," "portay," and "matine" in my dictionary but didn't have as much luck as you did with your dictionary.
Amid Amidi - over at CartoonBrew.com - has also been going nuts over reviews of animated movies he hasn't seen.
Fools like Amid really have to stop trying to compare rotoscoping and motion capture to Looney Tunes. These are different art forms with different purposes.
Monster House is one of the most positively reviewed animated features of 2006 - only slightly below Cars and Over the Hedge - so it's probably worth checking out. Please leave your prejudices at home.
You are absolutely right Harvey, I can't spell. I had to look up "verismilitude" because I didn't know what it ment. After I looked it up, at Merriam-Webster online http://www.m-w.com/ I didn't think his use of the word was correct. Thats what I was pointing out. I wasn't pointing out that he misspelt it or n-kneeting.
Also I didn't think I brought any prejudices to this post. Any one who's been on this forum for a few months would know that I'm not a fan of motion capture or rotoscoping, but that's not my complaint with his review. He's basicly saying it's a good movie because of the cool technology. I don't think that's a very good way to critique a film. Like I said befor, the movie looks interesting and I'll probably see it this weekend.
I will have to agree with you about Amid's comparisons. I don't think putting Mickey or Bugs up againts Monster House is a good comparison. I think a more fitting comparison would've been something more along the lines like Tarzan's realization that he's not alone when he first meets Jane in the Disney animated moive. Or Hellen Par franticly trying to call off the missiles while flying the plane in The Incredibles. But hey, what do I know? I can't spell.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
As a local who has to suffer through Mick LaSalle more than I'd like, he's a knucklehead. He frequently doesn't know what he's talking about, despite being a movie reviewer of quite a few years' standing.
His use of verisimilitude in this review is incorrect; he's essentially saying that the characters look "real-er" animated than they would as live action. Impossible, since they're both stylized and mo-cap.
Aype, yor speling iz knot awl thatt baad, exceptt iyn yer lasste poest... :D
Hey, I just thought so many new words in a single post was funny. I'm not trying to say that you're a hypocrite.
"Cool technology" is one of the primary reasons I like animation. For example, when I first saw Toy Story, I was more excited by the tech than the direction or animation. The same can be said for the first times I saw stop motion or cel-shading.
When something new and exciting comes along in animation, it's almost always related to technology, as the principles of acting and character animation haven't changed much or have changed very slowly in the last 50 years.
So I don't blame LaSalle for being excited. He's witnessed what is possibly the most successful blending of rotoscoping/motion capture with traditional "cartoony" content. That's not to say that there isn't room for improvement, simply that motion capture is making some progress. It would be nice if traditional animators didn't feel threatened by this. I feel there is room for both.
Quoting from the SF article:
"...There was never any point to a close-up in an animated film -- there was never really anything to see. But with the motion-capture process, real actors give their performances with computer sensors attached to their face and body, and that recorded information becomes the template for the computer animation. If an actor is bug-eyed, the character will look bug-eyed. Moreover, if the actor is thinking or is full of doubt, the technology will be able to render subtle qualities of pensiveness or doubt in the animation."
It's not the technology of Mo-cap that captured the subtle qualities in the characters' expressions, that was all key-animation done by the animators. There were also a few scenes of the kids that were added in after the original filming that were not mo-cap at all because the kids were no longer on set. This all was talked about quite a bit at the Industry Giants presentation in Dallas this past June by Mr. Hofstedt, the Animation Supervisor on "Monster House".
t
"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. "
- Goethe
-----------------------------------------
www.tanjawooten.com
Oh Well,
It's the MOTION CRAPTURE crew again- pretending to be animators.
I'm sure Ollie and all the others feel left out for their efforts because some techno geek writer understands software instead of art.
I know folks who worked on Gollum from LOR and they thought the actor dude took way too much credit...his performance was enchanced by the animators who really made it what it was.
This is just a another case of a neophite trying to play director...motion crapture does that to people.
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
:( "Boo hoo. Some critics gave a positive review to an animated film that didn't conform to academia. An animated film beat out Lady in the Water, Clerks II, and Super Ex-Girlfriend at the box office. Boo hoo. If only animated films, that I haven't seen yet I hate, failed at the box office rather than succeeded. Only old-school animation should be respected. Boo hoo hoo." :(
Well boo hoo, some of us don't like movies that can't seem to decide whether they want to imitate live-action movies or classically animated ones. Seriously, what with today's FX technology there isn't anything stopping them from shooting stuff like that with real actors.
It wasn't the positive review of an animated film that uses "new technology" that seems to be bugging the animation community who are fans of both traditional and cg animation films, myself included...it's the knockdown to the old-school films and the artists that worked on them and developed the principles that are used in CG animation which seem to have generated alot of discussion IMO. Check out all those posts by the artists that work in the animation community...primarily with CG animation, not traditional:
http://www.cgchar-animation.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,103/topic,6048.0
Having seen Monster House myself, while the characters expressions are not as vacant as "Polar Express" nor edge into the "uncanny valley" like Final Fantasy, and they are definitely a big step up from "Hoodwinked" (I know, that wasn't mo-capped..I'm simply using it as a comparison of 3D animated films), I still think it needs improvement. Likely that will continue as mo-cap technology is even more fine-tuned or the studios that use it don't rely on it as a crutch but give their character animators enough development time to key frame the subtle movements and signs of emotion that mo-cap simply cannot capture. I mean, compare the Monster House mo-cap to the Davy Jones mo-cap character in Pirates of the Caribbean which was definitely fine-tuned by the character animators and you'll see quite a difference in the performance. Considering that the upcoming film Beowulf is also using alot of mo-cap, I'm curious to see how that compares once it's in theaters. But, Pirates (and Beowulf, I've read) are trying to create believable characters in a real environment, not a cartoon kid in an imaginary animated world.
I think you're missing the point. Or trying to stir up more discussion. It did. There's discussion going on all over the place. :)
t
"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. "
- Goethe
-----------------------------------------
www.tanjawooten.com
I take it I'm a fool as well then, Harvey, seeing as Amid linked to my blog in his post pertaining to this newspaper review.
Maybe you should read it again, though. Amid's, mine, and everyone else's reaction was to the critic's disregard for 100+ years of animated performance-making simply because it was crafted, and not captured.
I haven't seen "Monster House" yet, and I am certainly not going to get stuck in over something I haven't seen! I do, however, see it as my responsibility to make sure that the medium is properly represented when sloppy, ill-conceived articles denigrate a powerful, expressive artform for no other reason than the intoxicating smell of freshly unwrapped technology.
K
Hey, no fair. Here we only review movies that we haven't actually seen. We also review reviews of movies that reviewers have seen, but we haven't. Since a film critic doesn't have as comprehensive an understanding of animation history as we do, it's impossible that he actually enjoyed the movie.
Although I haven't seen Monster House either, it's logical to assume that you're correct, Tatiana: motion capture artistry is gradually improving, but still requires many years of development.
Um, you did see that the Cartoon Brew post was reacting to the following quote, didn't you, Harvey?
Do I need to have seen "Monster House" to offer comment? It sounds like a supposition by the author to me, and it's up to the animation community to educate people that this theory is erroneous.
-K
The play's the thing.
In this case, the movie.
Who CARES what steps have to be taken to get the story completed to the point that it can be shined onto a screen and people can appreciate it?
This particular director chose this method. It's neither better, or worse. It's just the method he chose. He could have chosen 2-D cel or 3-D computer all hand created, or mo-capped, or live-action, or blue-screened or matted or stop-motion or go-motion for that matter, or puppets or cutouts or Jell-o molds.
Is this about who takes the credit, the animators or the actors? With a film done in this particular style, BOTH animators and actors are equally important, because THIS film couldn't have been made without work done by both parties. Sure, they COULD have done it without actors, but then it wouldn't have been THIS film - it would have been "Grabbed By The Ghoulies." And they COULD have done it without animators, but then it would have been "The Shining." Or, well, you get the point.
Maybe the critic did use the wrong word, but I think I understand what he was TRYING to say. The film was more interesting than a normal animated movie or a normal live-action movie that would have told the same story. They way it was animated added to the movie, it wasn't just the method of bringing it to life.
/soapbox
Hello,
My comments were directed at those who dissed 100 years of animation prowess because of some new bell and whistle.
Of course tech. is never beter than the artist using it.
To think or even say hat folks like Ollie Johnston wasted their time workng on an art form they helped to create and sustain is pure bull-pucky...
The article said:
"So the only qustion that remains is, Who's going to break the news to Ollie Johnston, the last of the Niine Old Men, that all those classic Disney features he animated on were a waste of time becuase he never had the ability to show an emotive human face? Poor guy, if he'd only had motion-capture t help him animate."
That's the stuff that proves to me this person doesn't know what they are seeing on the screen...nor do they appreciate the work that came before...
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
It's simply that reviewer's opinion that motion capture is a preferable animation technique. And yes, millions of people prefer 3D animation to 2D animation. Adults who would be bored by a 2D movie are somewhat excited to go to a high-tech 3D motion capture flick. So there it is. Welcome to the brave new world. Go ahead and get angry about it. I can't say that I blame you.
I'm just happy that another animated movie is a critical and box office success, whether it's 2D, 3D, or no-D.
Hey Harvey,
Absolutely NO anger here- just my opinion.
I agree that a reviewer has a right to their opinion. I don't think Ollie or others (including me) are staying up nights worrying about what someone who is that uninformed thinks............. and it's appropriate correct misguided statements with my "old school" misguided statements.
Ollie and the others from Disney... and other studios kept the torches burning forever so the artform has devloped in a real money maker (so of course, it's importance has gained stature).
We owe a great deal to those guys who developed the medium.
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
I know I do. My problem with this is that someone that is this uninformed has their oppinions published in a paper that has a huge readership. So the average person reads this great review and goes to see the movie based on good reviews of the technology and not the story. Mick actually says "The movie itself isn't quite so important, but it's pleasing." It's like reading a review for a live action movie that has tag lines like "great special effects", "visually stunning," but mentions nothing about the story, plot or acting.
I still think it's a very incomplete and uninformed film review. I'm gonna see "House" later today and I'll give my oppinion of the movie then.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
Went to see it yesterday in 3D, and it wasn't too bad. The story was a bit all over the place though. The main story about the Monster House and the kids discovering it and how it came to be the way it is, was pretty cool. Then it just ends abruptly and the explination is spoon fed to us. There are some things that just didn't make any sense to me, not vital to the movie or story but left me just thinking "huh?" Stuff like Chowder making armpit farts with his shirt still on. Anyone who was ever a kid knows it needs to be skin on skin to get the right tone. As well as a crane up through the clouds to the moon, then back down through the clouds again for no apparent reason.
The animation was ok. I really liked the animation on the main cop. He was well acted. I can only really compare it too Final Fantasy: Spirits, but it's some of the best motion capture work I've seen. It's still alittle stiff and the faces seem alittle wooden in their performances. Most of their faces seemed to stay fixed in a default pose untill they have a big emotion change, like sad, happy or scared. I liked the character designs but thought they would've worked better if the animation wasn't so stiff.
The house was really cool when it would go into Monster mode. It looked and acted creepy and was really well designed and handled.
Some of the animation was a bit jittery, but I'm not really sure if it was the animation it self or if it was due to the 3D projection process. It almost looked like there was too much information and the inbetweens needed to be smoothed out. The average viewer probably won't notice it. I did take alittle while to get used to the 3D though. Just getting old I guess.
All in all, I thought it was a good, fun movie and the slightly older kids should like it. Esspecially the boys.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."