Pose-to-pose animation is "the thing" in animation, it's what everyone does, because it allows the animator to work easier and be in control. It's structured, it's the way to see your final animation in an embryo, and it allows you to control the look of your animation by building carefully planned key poses, with the role of pillars, or skeletons, sustaining an entire architecture. The whole construction relies on them and they can define it more or less clearly. Clarity though, too much of it... I think is a problem. I think a lot of animators take this pose-to-pose concept too literally, or childishly. I'm not the first one to observe this, but I just though I might write about it too, why not.
OK, maybe animation that goes from pose to pose, where you can see the poses clearly, can be cute, cartoony, and it can work in some cases. But I think, for the most part, when you see an animation that goes... pose, zzzzzip, pose, zzzzip, pose... it just looks cheap. There should be life in between those poses, and around a pose, not just a zzzzzzzzip. Anyway, I'm sure anyone would agree with this, it's pretty basic.... but my main comment and the reason I'm writing this here is in fact a different one.
I keep seeing weird acting shot breakdowns, with cool looking poses, that in fact don't help describing a natural, believable flow. The animator goes... OK, let's illustrate "thought"... OK, now that'd be a niiice "thought" pose. OK, let's move to the next second of animation... and let's illustrate fear, the character will zzzzippp into a fear pose because he just realized something... OK, that looks niiiice, let's move to the next pose, which will be more like a question... the character doesn't understand what just happened... OK... niiiiice, let's pose another pose, let's make him look like he's "thinking" again... [and each pose is unique and shockingly unrelated to the others]
What was that?? [quoting Ruby Rhod from 'The fifth element'... "it was baaaaad, it had no fire, no energy, no nothing..." ] :| [I do prefer Ruby Rhod's exaggerated acting to most cartoons btw! He does have the real fire and energy! Cartoons can be more energetic, no problemo, but the detail... the visceral impact of reality... that's hard to draw on paper.]
Does that have anything to do with a breakdown that could lead to natural, believable acting? Of course, I can't really know exactly what some other animator is thinking, with precision... and I've also exaggerated a little (or have I?)... But that's what a lot of animation looks like.... Clean, clear poses that are inbetweened more or less well. That's more like illustration, and less like acting, and definitely not at all like an "illusion of life". The idea is, the animator sets an illustration as a pose, and uses illustrations as breakdowns, instead of thinking of that shot as an actor, instead of trying to describe a real/believable situation with poses... Illustrations are cool, they might capture the intensity of a moment, of a gesture, but... but... but... they're illustrations. Real life doesn't unfold as illustrations. I think the intensity of that moment should rather be captured with timing and spacing (and an understanding of real facial functionality), not with illustrations.
Comments
|
About me
I'm a character animator, visual artist, game dev, and music composer. I like to doodle, write, experiment, and plan my next big thing. I love tech that inspires and enables art. I have a formal background in music composition. And I like to walk around the world and see things up close. Archives
February 2022
|