Comments on: James Cameron: It’s Not Animation Because I Say So http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/james-cameron-its-not-animation-because-i-say-so.html Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:26:29 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: amid http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/james-cameron-its-not-animation-because-i-say-so.html/comment-page-1#comment-858977 amid Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:06:07 +0000 http://www.cartoonbrew.com/?p=19845#comment-858977 Totally agree! Can you get in touch with me here: <a HREF="http://www.cartoonbrew.com/amid-amidi" rel="nofollow">http://www.cartoonbrew.com/amid-amidi</A> Totally agree!
Can you get in touch with me here:
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/amid-amidi
]]> By: May http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/james-cameron-its-not-animation-because-i-say-so.html/comment-page-1#comment-858960 May Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:08:19 +0000 http://www.cartoonbrew.com/?p=19845#comment-858960 I hate James Cameron. FYI, James Cameron had to make an apology to the animators at Weta. Why didn't this apology make it into the media? It saddens me to have such a huge name in the film industry refuse to acknowledge the hard work and extremely long hours the animators put into his vision. If it was all the actors and all mo-cap then what were those names in the credits? Was the theme music during the credits too long so they just made up a long list of names so go with it? Weta should release the raw mo-cap footage and show the actors performance on one side and the finished version on the other. I hate James Cameron.

FYI, James Cameron had to make an apology to the animators at Weta. Why didn’t this apology make it into the media?

It saddens me to have such a huge name in the film industry refuse to acknowledge the hard work and extremely long hours the animators put into his vision. If it was all the actors and all mo-cap then what were those names in the credits? Was the theme music during the credits too long so they just made up a long list of names so go with it?

Weta should release the raw mo-cap footage and show the actors performance on one side and the finished version on the other.

]]> By: ADQ http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/james-cameron-its-not-animation-because-i-say-so.html/comment-page-1#comment-451684 ADQ Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:54:55 +0000 http://www.cartoonbrew.com/?p=19845#comment-451684 Hey Brian, when you have one "iconoclast" with a single vision, you get crap like Avatar. A CHILD can come up with complicated creatures of his own if they had Cameron's budget!!!!! The whole idea of 'iconoclast' > '3-4 guys bouncing ideas' is pretty friggen dumb when you compare cinematic filth like Avatard with masterpieces from Pixar, who seem to like the idea of working as a TEAM. Cameron just shoots the film there, walks off set and just lets the "nerds in the back render his awesomeness". No, THEY FREAKING ANIMATE. Those stupid ass avatars had tons of hard work and animation put into them, not just mo-cap crap. Cameron just can't stand the idea of sharing the credit with someone else, let alone those "nerds in the back", or as I say, RESPECTED, HARDWORKING ANIMATORS BUSTING THEIR BALLS FOR YOU. Hey Brian, when you have one “iconoclast” with a single vision, you get crap like Avatar. A CHILD can come up with complicated creatures of his own if they had Cameron’s budget!!!!! The whole idea of ‘iconoclast’ > ‘3-4 guys bouncing ideas’ is pretty friggen dumb when you compare cinematic filth like Avatard with masterpieces from Pixar, who seem to like the idea of working as a TEAM.

Cameron just shoots the film there, walks off set and just lets the “nerds in the back render his awesomeness”. No, THEY FREAKING ANIMATE. Those stupid ass avatars had tons of hard work and animation put into them, not just mo-cap crap. Cameron just can’t stand the idea of sharing the credit with someone else, let alone those “nerds in the back”, or as I say, RESPECTED, HARDWORKING ANIMATORS BUSTING THEIR BALLS FOR YOU.

]]> By: Nicole http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/james-cameron-its-not-animation-because-i-say-so.html/comment-page-1#comment-439954 Nicole Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:28:38 +0000 http://www.cartoonbrew.com/?p=19845#comment-439954 So does that mean the planet, plants and animals were acting too? I'm guessing those were TOTALLY NOT ANIMATION EITHER. So does that mean the planet, plants and animals were acting too? I’m guessing those were TOTALLY NOT ANIMATION EITHER.
]]> By: Tom Robin http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/james-cameron-its-not-animation-because-i-say-so.html/comment-page-1#comment-431968 Tom Robin Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:38:37 +0000 http://www.cartoonbrew.com/?p=19845#comment-431968 For us, it's just a new way ton capture the performance of an actor. To capture a performance, we can use the photography (like we have made since 1885), but now, we can use captation in space. Animation, the work is emplyed when animators créate the way characters ares moving, expressing with their faces, but the mecanisms to create a emotive animated character are very different with what a actor do. Is a photographied actor more rel than a digitalized actor? No. He wore costumes, make up, wigg, but the character he play don't exist more than a CGI character played by another actor. Ron Perlman in Hellboy is no more real than Neytiry. The only animated part of the characters of Avatar are the fingers. The rest of it, it's Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver. We are used to say "Sigourney Weaver plays very well in Aliens", we can also say "Zoe Saldan plays very well in Avatar", even without talking of the voice performance. And with this process, the actors can play a scene like they were on a theater scene. No need of reshooting fractions of scenes under 23 different angles, they can play a sequence all the way! Their action is more live than ever!!! We say "animation" when characters moves by the hand of ANIMATORS. This is why Avatar is not animation! This is why, at end of the end credits of Ratatouille, it's wrotten "certified without motion capture", because the Pixar's guys knows that if a character walks by the motion capture, this is not the fact of a animator. For us, it’s just a new way ton capture the performance of an actor. To capture a performance, we can use the photography (like we have made since 1885), but now, we can use captation in space.

Animation, the work is emplyed when animators créate the way characters ares moving, expressing with their faces, but the mecanisms to create a emotive animated character are very different with what a actor do.

Is a photographied actor more rel than a digitalized actor? No. He wore costumes, make up, wigg, but the character he play don’t exist more than a CGI character played by another actor. Ron Perlman in Hellboy is no more real than Neytiry.

The only animated part of the characters of Avatar are the fingers. The rest of it, it’s Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver.
We are used to say “Sigourney Weaver plays very well in Aliens”, we can also say “Zoe Saldan plays very well in Avatar”, even without talking of the voice performance.

And with this process, the actors can play a scene like they were on a theater scene. No need of reshooting fractions of scenes under 23 different angles, they can play a sequence all the way! Their action is more live than ever!!!

We say “animation” when characters moves by the hand of ANIMATORS. This is why Avatar is not animation!
This is why, at end of the end credits of Ratatouille, it’s wrotten “certified without motion capture”, because the Pixar’s guys knows that if a character walks by the motion capture, this is not the fact of a animator.

]]> By: Hal http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/james-cameron-its-not-animation-because-i-say-so.html/comment-page-1#comment-431071 Hal Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:00:33 +0000 http://www.cartoonbrew.com/?p=19845#comment-431071 AMID - it certainly is worth debating semantics. It appears to me that you have defined a percentage of work by animators/amount of film completely animated to result in what should or should not be an "animated film." By doing so you are removing the artist' intent and achievements from the equation - you are trying to allow the community of animators define what is our medium instead of the creative individual who has achieved great things. Yes, mocap is ROTOSCOPY! It IS animation, no one is arguing that - but history will view this differently from Zemeckis' films. I for one would rather Cameron's feature simply BE a live action visual effects extravaganza that pushes the boundaries of what animation can add to live action than fight this silly battle to claim its entirety for the animation world at large. There is no doubt AVATAR pushes the boundaries of animation and live action (contrary to your mindset Hollywood is not that cynical and anti-animation a place) but that's not a good enough reason to try and fit this square in the circular peg. I'm sure your arguments are fueled by overbearing comments of Cameron and other directors' (I'm looking at you Zemeckis!) pushing MoCap as the only future for animation, and the fear that our profession will be (as in the case of AVATAR) simply supplementing actors' performances to 90% mocap with 10% animation, and 100% facial performance replication from actors' face data. But to keep this fight up instead of investigating its amazing technical achievements is just ice skating up hill. I love this site, but feel this is a misguided thread of discourse when there's a lot to LEARN from AVATAR. I have yet to see an AVATAR animator come on these boards and defend the "AVATAR is an animated film" argument, and for good reason: In a year where animated films as diverse as PRINCESS AND THE FROG, 9, CORALINE, FANTASTIC MR. FOX, UP!, PONYO, $9.99, MARY AND MAX and A TOWN CALLED PANIC have been released while live action films such as AVATAR, STAR TREK and DISTRICT 9 have used animation to create brilliant new worlds augmenting our cinematic "reality," its clear animators in both animated films and vfx for live action are pushing boundaries further and further - isn't that good enough? AMID – it certainly is worth debating semantics. It appears to me that you have defined a percentage of work by animators/amount of film completely animated to result in what should or should not be an “animated film.” By doing so you are removing the artist’ intent and achievements from the equation – you are trying to allow the community of animators define what is our medium instead of the creative individual who has achieved great things. Yes, mocap is ROTOSCOPY! It IS animation, no one is arguing that – but history will view this differently from Zemeckis’ films. I for one would rather Cameron’s feature simply BE a live action visual effects extravaganza that pushes the boundaries of what animation can add to live action than fight this silly battle to claim its entirety for the animation world at large. There is no doubt AVATAR pushes the boundaries of animation and live action (contrary to your mindset Hollywood is not that cynical and anti-animation a place) but that’s not a good enough reason to try and fit this square in the circular peg. I’m sure your arguments are fueled by overbearing comments of Cameron and other directors’ (I’m looking at you Zemeckis!) pushing MoCap as the only future for animation, and the fear that our profession will be (as in the case of AVATAR) simply supplementing actors’ performances to 90% mocap with 10% animation, and 100% facial performance replication from actors’ face data. But to keep this fight up instead of investigating its amazing technical achievements is just ice skating up hill. I love this site, but feel this is a misguided thread of discourse when there’s a lot to LEARN from AVATAR. I have yet to see an AVATAR animator come on these boards and defend the “AVATAR is an animated film” argument, and for good reason: In a year where animated films as diverse as PRINCESS AND THE FROG, 9, CORALINE, FANTASTIC MR. FOX, UP!, PONYO, $9.99, MARY AND MAX and A TOWN CALLED PANIC have been released while live action films such as AVATAR, STAR TREK and DISTRICT 9 have used animation to create brilliant new worlds augmenting our cinematic “reality,” its clear animators in both animated films and vfx for live action are pushing boundaries further and further – isn’t that good enough?
]]> By: Hal http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/james-cameron-its-not-animation-because-i-say-so.html/comment-page-1#comment-431056 Hal Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:33:52 +0000 http://www.cartoonbrew.com/?p=19845#comment-431056 As much as I find Cameron a smug dink, he's right to define this film by his own terms. He's not claiming there was no animation used throughout production, simply that the intent is not an animated film, otherwise, why film actual actors instead of mo-capping them too? I'm going to stand by my argument in the last post that where AVATAR is concerned, the intent remains digital effects to create a world which IS AN EXTENSION OF THE REALITY THE MOVIE OPENS IN. The world which AVATAR takes place in is technically OUR REALITY we inhabit - the visual effects may use extensive amounts of CGI and animation, but it is all to a singular purpose of SIMULATING REALITY, not creating its own Animated Reality that films such as A CHRISTMAS CAROL, FANTASTIC MR FOX, PRINCESS AND THE FROG or even A SCANNER DARKLY define withing the parameters of AN ANIMATED WORLD. ROGER RABBIT is NOT an animated film, it is a film with (to quote Amid) "100% animated elements. ENCHANTED is not an animated film, it is a film with 100% ANIMATED ELEMENTS AND SEQUENCES. So many live action films now have 100% digital sequences - the scene of Snake Eyes jumping cars in Paris ended up being almost 100% character animation in an almost entirely Digitally created Paris. The line is blurry in terms of TECHNIQUE, but not the final products. AVATAR would only be an animated film if (mocap or not) there was NO live action elements by which the animation elements are judged. I'd argue against Robert Zemeckis if he claimed his mo-cap films WEREN'T animted films by the same rationale. Please no more on Cameron, CARTOON BREW, this is a cyclical debate to no useful end. CHRIS SOBIENIAK: As for your smug comments - a graphic novel is a GRAPHIC NOVEL - a self contained narrative told through sequential artwork instead of simply using written words amd language. Comic books are individual serialized narratives featuring a consistent cast of characters which are open ended - there is no beginning, middle and end. Collected story arcs of comic books that act as chapters of a greater story create a single narrative, the graphic novel description stands for those. Action figures are articulated TOYS, so you're ignorant line should have been "They're NOT JUST TOYS, they're ACTION FIGURES!" Get your semantics right before you play the "condescending towards what you consider geeky" card and make an articulated argument. As much as I find Cameron a smug dink, he’s right to define this film by his own terms. He’s not claiming there was no animation used throughout production, simply that the intent is not an animated film, otherwise, why film actual actors instead of mo-capping them too? I’m going to stand by my argument in the last post that where AVATAR is concerned, the intent remains digital effects to create a world which IS AN EXTENSION OF THE REALITY THE MOVIE OPENS IN. The world which AVATAR takes place in is technically OUR REALITY we inhabit – the visual effects may use extensive amounts of CGI and animation, but it is all to a singular purpose of SIMULATING REALITY, not creating its own Animated Reality that films such as A CHRISTMAS CAROL, FANTASTIC MR FOX, PRINCESS AND THE FROG or even A SCANNER DARKLY define withing the parameters of AN ANIMATED WORLD. ROGER RABBIT is NOT an animated film, it is a film with (to quote Amid) “100% animated elements. ENCHANTED is not an animated film, it is a film with 100% ANIMATED ELEMENTS AND SEQUENCES. So many live action films now have 100% digital sequences – the scene of Snake Eyes jumping cars in Paris ended up being almost 100% character animation in an almost entirely Digitally created Paris. The line is blurry in terms of TECHNIQUE, but not the final products. AVATAR would only be an animated film if (mocap or not) there was NO live action elements by which the animation elements are judged. I’d argue against Robert Zemeckis if he claimed his mo-cap films WEREN’T animted films by the same rationale. Please no more on Cameron, CARTOON BREW, this is a cyclical debate to no useful end.
CHRIS SOBIENIAK: As for your smug comments – a graphic novel is a GRAPHIC NOVEL – a self contained narrative told through sequential artwork instead of simply using written words amd language. Comic books are individual serialized narratives featuring a consistent cast of characters which are open ended – there is no beginning, middle and end. Collected story arcs of comic books that act as chapters of a greater story create a single narrative, the graphic novel description stands for those. Action figures are articulated TOYS, so you’re ignorant line should have been “They’re NOT JUST TOYS, they’re ACTION FIGURES!” Get your semantics right before you play the “condescending towards what you consider geeky” card and make an articulated argument.
]]> By: Chris Sobieniak http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/james-cameron-its-not-animation-because-i-say-so.html/comment-page-1#comment-430139 Chris Sobieniak Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:04:05 +0000 http://www.cartoonbrew.com/?p=19845#comment-430139 "Reminded me of someone saying, “They’re NOT TOYS, they’re action figures!”" How about "They're not comic books, they're graphic novels!" “Reminded me of someone saying, “They’re NOT TOYS, they’re action figures!””

How about “They’re not comic books, they’re graphic novels!”

]]>