Well, didn't really get much from this lecture, the notes were slacking as there was many videos causing a distraction, but what i did take from the lecture was how Disney differs from animie or manga. The main thing i noticed in Disney was how everything in the whole film centred around its characters, For example like in Bambi, the characters, the forest are all based around the main character. This differs in a Japanese film we were shown called my neighbour toroto. this had a completely different layout compared to the American Disney films with scenery spreading the whole of the scene rather than enclosing the characters. the only link i could make between the two is how they use similar drawing styles in the way that they outline they're work, other than that, there's not an awful lot else to say.
Right then, initially, whats better? or is that the right take? in the lecture we were showed a clip of fantasmagorie, originally a 2d based animation that has now had 3D added to it, it shows the contrast between movement, bill explained in the lecture that its not always the quality of the key drawings but its what happens in between them is whats important, further going on to say that the ultimate thing that defines the two typed of animation (2D/3D) is how easily that's done, for example, a 2D artist is pretty much god to the page and his pencil where as with 3D the are calculations that need to be made that cant always create the same free art work that 2D artists can.
http://www.indavideo.hu/video/Fantasmagorie_2008
A good example of this is the movment shown in the Fleicher brothers adaptation of snow white with Betty boop. where the story line falls down the character animation and movement brings it right back up to life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNG8GYrh1mg
Another version of this is Disney's take on snow white where the same movement isn't shown but the storyline in significantly better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gWiVs5Q0kc
basically to round it up i currently think that 2D artists with they're originally animation talent have the upper hand on the movement side of things but i think it wont be long before 3D catches up and more importantly loosens up
Ok, excellent lecture, kicking it off with a complimation of video game head shots, booooomm, smashh, splaatt, blood everywhere bla bla bla, you know the rest. but everyone loved it, the whole room was cheering and laughing at virtual people getting they're heads blown off, but why? Such graphical violence is a terribly thing to watch happen, or is it? Is it the difference between winning and loosing, the satisfaction of the opposition failing and the other other prevailing with such skill? There a many answers to the question but i think mainly its down to the fact that no one is bothered by this kind of thing anymore, everyone's so acclimatized to death these days a few head shots mean nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odsCfqywDSk
But has it always been this was? Has violence just turned up? I'm afraid not, an example of this was a 1976 game called death race which shocked society with the thought of people running each other over, since then it has become a growing and more acclimatized subject, progressing onto games like doom, causing great controversy as it was the hole grail figuratively speaking to one of the Columbine killer teens.
So who's to blame, script writers, directors, game developers, actors? or our self's? I think its consumerism, i think it most defiantly followed the lines of " the customers always right, even if they're wrong".
Science fiction, possibly one of the genres.. everrrrrrrr, is one opinion i could agree with. With science fiction begin a genre that follows trends of out of this world that cannot usually be replicated it falls into the realm of fx in all areas let it be 3D or special.
Not to shame or put a downer on sci fi there its one trait that currently lacks originality. Most films in this genre usually follow the story lines of alien invasions, the end of the world, machines taking over. This is where i refere to intertexturality as these films all follow similar story lines, from the undead in resident evil taking over the world to ridley scotts aliens doing the same.
Yet however much everyone thinks that films are just always ripping each other off we still go to see them because is someway or another we still want to go see those aliens and crazy effects for the thrill of seeing some out of this world screen action.
So euhhh, new media? pretty much does what is say on the tin really.
To begin touching on the subject Bill showed us a a film about a fireman, looked pretty historic to say the least, but followed the trend of view points. It was a bit odd to begin with as it started off like any normal narrative with the fireman bursting in, saving who ever, leaving, then it replayed the whole story from the start from another point of view, rather than picking up the story seamlessly but from a different view. It kind of threw me back to films like "blur witch" and a more modern, new media film, "Cloverfield". Initially i personally found it interesting because of the view as its not one that's commonly used however it feels somewhat restricted as you don't always get the full picture.
Where the point of view technique is more commonly used is in games. Transforming from games like pacman with the Ariel view to games like call of duty, halo, half life and so on with the first person view.
So the question really is, Does the effect of techniques like point of view in film or games really effect quality and how interesting new media is? or is it more down to realistic qualities or other modern attributes?
Personally i think that the majority of things are judged on the enjoyment gotten out of a subject, how much of a thrill you get from watching a film or how addicted you get to a game can be deiced by any technique or device used, i don't think it really is anything in particular, i think its more down to what works best with the subject or theme of what you are trying to create.
okk so i was pretty mythd at this to begin with but il try to convey what i managed to take in.
Basically i came to the conclusion that structuralism is what we make of a subject/thin. The term first brought about by Claude Levi Stance it is how we make meaning and gain an understanding of a thing.
Another term linked to structuralism is binary opposition. This is quite simply the difference between the obvious, for example:
- Good and Dad
- Light and Dark
- Win and Loose
- Male and Female
- Hot and Cold
Ok. now getting somewhere, but is that it? 1 or 2, A or Z, what about the bit in between? Commonly known as the grey area, simply because not everything falls between one or the other but on the middle instead.
Well, didn't really get much from this lecture, the notes were slacking as there was many videos causing a distraction, but what i did take from the lecture was how Disney differs from animie or manga. The main thing i noticed in Disney was how everything in the whole film centred around its characters, For example like in Bambi, the characters, the forest are all based around the main character. This differs in a Japanese film we were shown called my neighbour toroto. this had a completely different layout compared to the American Disney films with scenery spreading the whole of the scene rather than enclosing the characters. the only link i could make between the two is how they use similar drawing styles in the way that they outline they're work, other than that, there's not an awful lot else to say.
