Actually, pointing out that highly respected people with relevant experience disagree with a position is not an appeal to popularity, it’s a perfectly valid rhetorical argument.
No, mentioning that John Lasseter likes Miyazaki’s work not relevant given that John Lasseter was not asked about the elements being discussed: inadequate frame rate, jerky motion, no lip-sync. Nor would he be asked about those elements in an interview for a blurb on a laserdisc collection of Miyazaki’s work.
To clarify my position, earlier in this thread, I said:
I have no idea how Lasseter is able to over-look the flaws in Miyazaki’s work, but then I don’t understand what fans of death metal hear in the music they love either.
Without access to John Lasseter to ask him specifically about those flaws, we don’t know his opinion. I can only presume that he is talking about the aspects that are good (the story, the background design) and the elements that are stylistic matters of taste (character design) and avoiding the elements that are technically bad (again: inadequate frame rate, jerky motion, no lip-sync). But I know one thing for sure - the elements that annoy me in Miyazaki’s work would also be unacceptable to Lasseter or any other Pixar director in a feature or short. How do I know this? Because no Pixar work features inadequate frame rate, jerky motion or no lip-sync.
He called it, “hand drawn animation at its finest.” That indicates, at the very least, that he considers these flaws to be inconsequential.
…or he is not that good of a hand-drawn animator. I don’t know, I’ve only seen his CG work. Again, it’s a blurb in a commemorative box set.
But CG versus hand animation is just process, not result, isn’t it? Surely, if Princess Mononoke had exactly the same animation, but was done in CG, you wouldn’t be giving a pass to poor lip-synching or stiff wolves? You earlier said that this things would be obvious to anyone who looked at the films with a critical eye. Surely, the fact that Lassiter works in CG wouldn’t blind him to these “obvious” flaws?
Which, IIRC, largely exists because Lassiter was able to convince Miyazaki to allow his films to be released in American markets again after the fiasco of the original Nausicaa release. Lassiter clearly thinks that Miyazaki is a hugely important figure in the field of animation, and he does not seem to be alone in that opinion. You previously suggested that Lassiter and the others might be focusing on character design or story telling, and ignoring the actual animation. Possible, I suppose, except, it would seem odd to cite someone as an influential animator for things that have nothing to do with animation.
Foreign animation, all two dimensions of it, still manages to break some ground. Triplettes of Belleville, Persepolis and Waltzing With Bashir managed to live down the shame of not being Pixared.
Sigh. For anyone who would like to know why RealityChuck is wrong, please refer to my posts in this thread, which neither he nor gaffa made any attempt to refute or deny. As **Exapno Mapcase ** so concisely puts it, “When put in front of audiences, audiences overwhelmingly vote for 3D with their dollars. There is no turning back.”
Actually, no. Most of them were polarized, too, although this misconception is extremely common. (I thought so myself until relatively recently.) Anaglyph (red/blue) 3D has mostly been limited to comic books, certain technical and scientific applications, and the rare releases of 3D movies to TV or home video. The last mainstream theatrical use of anaglyph was the reputedly awful Spy Kids 3D in 2003. (I haven’t seen it.)
The recent TV commercials during the Super Bowl, and the 3D episode of the sitcom Chuck, used a new form of anaglyph called ColorCode that provides a reasonable 3D effect while preserving full color.
There is plenty of awful 3D animation produced by companies other than Pixar - mostly for local car dealers. But because it’s pretty much impossible to animate 3D without a pre-existing soundtrack (I’ve never seen anyone try it, anyway).
I’ve only met John Lasseter once, at a SIGGRAPH party. So I can’t read his mind.
You’re wrong there. Look at the credits for a Pixar film.
The production is so high quality precisely because of the intense level of compartmentalization in their production process. Story artists create using hand drawings, and those drawings are pinned up to the cork-covered walls of a room. The story artists act out the whole story, and everyone critiques it. Then an animatic is made of the storyboards. After the animatic is approved, rough voices are recorded (additional bits will be recorded through the course of the production). Then very rough animation is made with blocky stand-ins while the real characters are constructed. Other departments create the lighting, camera moves, shading (small programs that produce surface, lighting and volumetric effects) and custom software required by the project. There are people who do nothing but “rig” the characters, building control sets that the character animators will use to control the expressions of each character. There are people who do nothing but hair and fur.
Someone like Lasseter or Pete Docter looks at every part of the work at every stage. They have to look at a scene of two characters talking and evaluate if it is working even though the two characters are only Phong-shaded cubes standing in for the real characters that are still being sculpted. So yes, every single day of their working lives, Pixar directors are able to be “…focusing on character design or story telling, and ignoring the actual animation”. It’s pretty much part of the job description. They are able to focus on details like how the cloth wraps around a character, or how their hair is moving. And they also are able to step back and look at the whole animation.
To offer another example, my brother is a big fan of Bob Dylan. I can appreciate that Bob Dylan is a brilliant songwriter, and I enjoy several song written by him, but performed by other artists. Tons of critics fall all over themselves to praise Dylan. He’s sold millions of records and has many fans the world over.
But at the same time I can say, and my brother will agree, that his voice is thin and tuneless, that his guitar playing is serviceable at best, and his harmonica playing atrocious. Never the less, my brother keeps going to see him in concert because (he insists) that on occasion, he does something really amazing. I’ve seen Dylan in concert with my brother, and can’t say I’d see him again if you offered me tickets for free.
Does the praise from critics, number of fans and sales figures “prove” that Bob Dylan can sing?
They can read through the whole thread and see that you ackowledge RealityChuck’s statement that:
…and your response seemed to boil down to “I don’t care”. I hope it fails, and hope that any 3D system that requires glasses fails. Someday, maybe, they will produce a 3D system that doesn’t require glasses. And I will be able to see that just fine because my eyes aren’t being asked to perform contortions.
I saw Triplettes of Belleville and Waltz With Bashir. The first was a wonderful, classic 2D animation. It’s been years, but I don’t recall much speech in it at all - I don’t think the Granny spoke at all. But the Triplets and the dog were perfectly in sync, and fully animated at 12 FPS.
Waltz With Bashir was a completely different type of animation, almost rotoscoping, where they shot all the action on videotape and animated over it. Again, since they start with synchronized audio and video, it’s pretty much impossible to just have “flapping lips” like in Miyazaki’s films. Look at this scene from the film. It is beautiful, smooth and fully animated. I have no problem with any style of animation, only bad animation.
No, my position was that you and RealityChuck vastly overstated the problems people have with 3D and the number of people affected. I’m concerned for anyone with a disability, but not so much for those – disabled or not – who would childishly deny the rest of the world something they can’t experience or just don’t like.
This is not a position likely to generate much sympathy from the millions of people who enjoy 3D movies.
No, I honestly stated the problems I have had with it. I have attempted to see it, as this crap has been presented many times at the SIGGRAPH computer graphics industry conference. I asked to be tested by my ophthalmologist the last time I had an eyeglass exam, and she confirmed that I can’t resolve 3D.
And the part you resolutely seem to be unable to acknowledge is that we who cannot see the 3D effect, along with those millions who can, are going to be forced to pay more money to have a worse experience.
I just want it to fail, and I have every right to express that opinion. I’m letting people know that not everyone can see it, and even a good percentage of those who can ostensibly see it do not particularly enjoy the experience, reporting headaches and nausea.
Hollywood is pushing 3D because they want the higher ticket price it commands. The theater chains are pushing it because, like the studios, want more expensive tickets as well. The public doesn’t appear to be pushing for this, and I be interested in seeing any evidence that there is some huge, pent-up demand for 3D films.
BTW regarding Lasseter’s ability to evaluate hand-drawn animation, according to Wiki, “he enrolled as the second student in a new animation course at the California Institute of the Arts. Lasseter was taught by three members of Disney’s Nine Old Men – Eric Larson, Frank Burgess and Ollie Johnston – his classmates included Brad Bird and Tim Burton.”. Later he worked as an animator at Disney.
So I would say he is plenty qualified to talk about hand-drawn animation and when he calls Spirited Away hand-drawn animation at its finest that is high praise from someone with true expertise.
Another highly regarded animator who has praised Miyazaki’s animation is Glen Keane. I had forgotten but he appeared in the Spirited Away extras and praised a particular scene where Chihiro put on her shoes and tapped them to make sure they fit properly. It’s a shrewd comment which gets at the fact that a lot of Miyazaki’s animation is about these small moments and finely-observed gestures. It’s not all about the great flying scenes and explosive action sequences.
I have been reading a bit about Miyazaki and his influence on the animation world. There is a lot of stuff out there: interviews, blogs, essays and clearly a lot of animators admire him enormously. What I haven’t come across is any expert saying that Miyazaki’s animation is poor in quality…
I won’t quibble with you about what constitutes a “good percentage,” but I seriously doubt the 20-30% figure you mentioned has any basis in fact. There are a lot of squeaky wheels out there (and I’ll grant that you weren’t as bad as RealityChuck, who insisted that *everyone *gets headaches), but there are just as obviously millions of people who enjoy 3D without any problems.
News flash! Hollywood is infested with capitalists! Horrors! Start congressional hearings!
Okay, here you go: Box Office Mojo.
Monsters Vs. Aliens $176,157,854
Bolt $114,053,579
Spy Kids 3D: Game Over $111,761,982
Journey to the Center of the Earth $101,704,370
Beowulf $ 82,280,579
Coraline $ 74,949,527
Nightmare Before Christmas in 3-D (2006) $ 74,676,583
Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: $ 65,281,781
My Bloody Valentine 3-D $ 51,545,952
Total $852,412,207
There’s nearly a billion reasons why 3D is here to stay. No one forced anyone into theaters to see those pictures.
The thing is, 3D is not like coffee, where someone was able to cleverly apply an upscale brand to an ordinary commodity and essentially con millions of people into paying ten times more for it. Whether you like it or not (and I’m on the record as not being an especially big fan), 3D really does add something new and different to the moviegoing experience. Most theater patrons prefer it, and so the studio and theaters are giving them what they want. And yes, making a profit at it.
But if I can make another effort at conciliation, as I did in the other thread, I don’t think you need to be overly concerned about the majority of films being released only in 3D. For the next 5-10 years, at least, virtually all 3D titles will also be released in 2D, if only because it will take a while for the conversion to digital (and then to 3D) to occur. A few films may get 3D-only releases, but the money-grubbers in Hollywood aren’t likely to allow many auteurs below the level of James Cameron to keep them out of the vastly larger 2D market. So I don’t think you should be worried that you’ll be forced to pay extra for something you can’t see.
Okay. What does that have to do with what I said? You said that you’d never seen Lasseter’s hand drawn animation. I was pointing out that this wasn’t really relevant, because the flaws you’re perceiving in Miyazaki’s work would be flaws regardless of whether the animation were hand drawn or CGI. So the fact that Lasseter’s known for his CGI work wouldn’t have any bearing on whether he sees the same flaws in Miyazaki that you do.
I’m not asking you to read his mind.
And the next two paragraphs are utterly unrelated to the point I was making, so I’m not really sure what I’m “wrong” about. I’m not saying that someone like Lasseter can’t judge separate elements of a animated film, I’m saying it’s very unlikely that he’d praise Miyazaki as one of the greatest animators ever simply on the basis of his story telling. That wouldn’t make him a great animator, it would make him a great story teller. I’m willing to bet that Lasseter is well aware of the difference.
It proves that the popular and critical consensus is that Dylan is a talented and important musician. That doesn’t mean that you have to like him, of course, taste being subjective, and all. But if you were trying to argue that Dylan is obviously untalented, and that anyone who listened to his music critically would come away with the same conclusion, then pointing to the legions of critics who disagree is an effective rebuttal.
Which is to say, you are free to dislike Miyazaki. No one is trying to “prove” that you should like him. If a lack of lip synching is important to you, then this is definatly a major flaw in Miyazaki. For you. It’s not evidence that he’s objectively untalented, though. The vast majority of the movie going public, and apparently a significant portion of the animation industry, does not appear to consider this a significant problem.
Sure, there are people who can’t resolve 3D, but then, there are also colorblind people. Does that mean that we should release all movies in black and white?
Wow, this canard again. Oh joy.
The fallacy of the False Dilemma. I thought I had thoroughly dealt with this nonsense in the thread that commasense imported into this one. Here’s what I said there:
Sigh. For anyone interested in a reasonable, reality-based response to gaffa’s last post, please refer to my responseto that post in the earlier thread, which he made no attempt to refute or deny.
I guess there are none so stereoblind as those who will not see.
It wasn’t worth replying to. But as you’ve insisted on stalking me to this unrelated thread and bringing it back, I’ll give you the answer you crave, though you won’t like it.
You just reiterated your earlier claim, falsely claiming that I don’t “want anyone else to see it”. It’s perfectly fine in it’s proper space - which is amusement park rides and possibly very short films at museums. But definitely not for mainstream Hollywood releases.
You claimed that “the vast majority of 3D films will also be shown in 2D”, without offering any reason for that claim. That would require the studios and theater chains to actually leave money on the table. Again, the push for this crap is the desire to charge more for tickets.
You said “my accommodation would be a pair of 3D glasses with one eye blacked out”, completely ignoring that all the different systems have different glasses. Or are you making the claim that Disney 3D will be the same as whatever system Cameron is pushing? How many special pairs of glasses will I be required to purchase so Hollywood can make more money? Are the blind required to purchase their own “Descriptive Audio Service” headsets, or the deaf their own “Rear Window” mirrors?
You claimed to be an ADA coordinator. How tragic, an ADA coordinator apparently lacking empathy.
Oh, and the Box Office Mojo link does not break down to 2D vs 3D screens so it’s a completely meaningless statistic.
I was simply referring people to my response to RealityChuck’s repeat of his ludicrous claims here. I wasn’t going to hijack this thread, but you insisted on repeating your own ludicrous claims.
Oh yes, I’m completely trapped in the crushing grip of your impeccable logic. :rolleyes:
In other words, it’s false that you don’t want anyone else to see 3D, except in its most popular venue. You’re fine with denying it to people there.
You have that exactly backwards. As I explained above, until the conversion to digital is much further along, there will be more 2D than 3D houses. So 3D-only releases would be “leaving money on the table.” Not the other way around.
Has my conceding this point a dozen times not been sufficient for you?
You really are an expert on the False Dilemma, aren’t you? In the post you reference, I was saying that if I were still an ADA coordinator, and if stereoblindness were a covered disability, I would simply prepare sets of 3D glasses with one eye blacked out for my guests. The clear implication was that you could prepare a simple cover for the appropriate lens of your own eyeglasses (not the 3D glasses), instead of using the eyepatch you mentioned.
No one has claimed you’ll have to buy anything. Glasses are always given out free at the theater, and in most cases they’re yours to keep. Have you considered that you could take a pair home, black out one eye, and bring them back to the same theater the next time? Or, if you don’t know what kind of glasses the theater uses, just bring a roll of black tape with you to the theater, and prepare the glasses before the show starts. Simple solution; almost no cost.
FYI, Cameron is not imposing his own 3D system on theaters. Theaters that show Disney 3D films will show Avatar with the same glasses. There are only three or four different types of glasses, and Real-D had about 80% of the market, last time I looked.
And you have never explained why, eyepatch or not, wearing a set of 3D glasses over your own glasses is such a major inconvenience. Millions of glasses wearers are enjoying 3D movies without complaint.
Not being sympathetic to your ridiculous claims has nothing to do with my attitude to people with disabilities.
So you’re conceding that 3D films are being shown in 2D as well? Perhaps that’s progress. And as I said, the majority of people who went to those films chose the 3D theaters, so it is a strong sign of the popularity of 3D, and hardly meaningless.