But what has changed 3D movies from a gimmick to a commercial art form is the number of serious filmmakers -- Spielberg, James Cameron, Tim Burton, Robert Zemeckis -- who are now embracing the technology as a storytelling tool, said Chuck Goldwater, president of Christie/AIX and former chief executive of the Digital Cinema Initiatives.
(Quote taken from this yahoo movies article)
I just saw Monster House yesterday, and even though it's not animation but motion capture, I have to say it's pretty good, especially compared to complete disasters like Polar Express ;) . I liked the movie not so much for being a good movie, because it's not, but because it's a full-3D feature of a different kind.
The movement is a little lifeless, being MoCap, it doesn't flow as well as animation does, but then a movie also doesn't. The main issue though, I think, is once again, the facial animation, which done with MoCap loses all its detail, all the juice in it.
But the body movement looks great. The acting is awesome, being done by real actors in real time, it's... real enough - there are no cartoon "takes", but real reactions of people put in real situations (which is to say: animators tend to be pretty bad actors and this should change, because animation already is in danger of becoming... mostly unnecessary). Another good thing about Monster House is that it feels like a movie. It's not only edited as such, and having naturalistic acting, but also... movies aren't as clear as cartoons, you make shots focused by using light, camera, etc, but things are not all 100% clean and focused, which is good. Being 100% cartoony-clear is starting to be seriously boring for the people of the 21 century.
Last thing would be the story. Monster House is not a collection of gags, like most animated movies are, but a logical, flowing line that feels natural, evolves over time and involves the audience in a real journey (OK, I might be exaggerating a bit here, the story is not that fabulous, but it does have a natural flow). I already talked about this in another entry. I don't get involved in caleidoscopical stories, where there's something new happening in almost every shot. I prefer the flow to the diversity. Well, yeah, you can have both, but it makes a huge difference if you put together separate pieces into a cohesive whole, or start with a story line and diversify it, while keeping the flow as main priority. Too much diversity can make a mess of your story and seriously weaken it, the audience will be entertained, but it will lose track of what's important, they're not involved anymore, they watch it as they'd watch a TV show, where stuff is just funny every now and then, and nothing else. The collection of gags, at its best, can flow really well, and you have a ton of people working on it. But in the case of a story like this one, in Monster House, a single person could write the story, and if that person happens to be an inspired, talented writer, there are good chances for a strong story line. And then you start developing the characters and refining the dialogue to be more "on character". But it's a matter of what leads, what's the main interest? I think flow and logic should lead. Different methods, different outcome.
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
|