Recently, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the group responsible for the eponymous Academy Awards), has decided that the technique of motion capture will no longer be considered to be "animation". So, what does this mean for any animated Oscar hopefuls? More at: http://www.rabroad.net/blog/blogs/254/what-is-animation/
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Blog Talkback: What is Animation?
- Thread starter BB Good
- Start date
LenaLumpLump
New member
Great article, chdr!
You hit the nail on the head here, at least in my opinion. Animation is any still image altered to give the illusion of movement, and that includes, as you said, James Cameron's Avatar.As to why he refuses to call it an animated film, well, that's because of the "kiddie stigma". But, that's another subject entirely.
Thoughts?
Tomato
You hit the nail on the head here, at least in my opinion. Animation is any still image altered to give the illusion of movement, and that includes, as you said, James Cameron's Avatar.As to why he refuses to call it an animated film, well, that's because of the "kiddie stigma". But, that's another subject entirely.
Thoughts?
Tomato
morgan_bair2000
New member
I feel that he considers avatar not to be an animated film because of the fact that the movie is (well for the most part anyway?) a live action movie. It has scenes of really really well done computer animation in it, but its done so well you think the movie isnt animated. At least i thought as much when i saw the movie...
Twilight Rocks =)
New member
Eh, it's hard to determine the label for animation. If you want to get literal, you'll end up involving a bunch of films that seem out of place or have tons of "BUT WHAT ABOUT" responses.
If you say it can only be drawn, made from scratch, digitally made on a program, etc. (2D films, CGI films), then the arguement of stop-motion would appear.
I typically like to refer to animation as a 2D or CGI product. Stop-motion I would either refer to as stop-motion or animation, like if I were telling someone what Wallace and Gromit is, I would say "It's stop-motion animation" instead of just "It's animation". When talking about Polar Express or Beowulf, I would say it's motion-captured. With Avatar, I say it's a mix; a live-action movie with motion capture used as a special effect.
I think referring to all of those as just animation is too broad, especially since they're apples and oranges. Imagine a movie like Avatar beating Toy Story 3 or something for "Best Animated Film", the animation techniques are so vastly different that having them compete would be silly (As well as many fans of the movie feeling copped-out if the other movie won).
I would consider Roger Rabbit an animated film more than Avatar.
I do think the job label for all of those techniques would be "animators", since they are all doing frame-by-frame work, but the product itself is something very specific.
EDIT: As for the "Avatar is so heavily mo-capped" thing, many Superheroes are so heavily placed under special effects, but they are still considered actors and not animation.
If you say it can only be drawn, made from scratch, digitally made on a program, etc. (2D films, CGI films), then the arguement of stop-motion would appear.
I typically like to refer to animation as a 2D or CGI product. Stop-motion I would either refer to as stop-motion or animation, like if I were telling someone what Wallace and Gromit is, I would say "It's stop-motion animation" instead of just "It's animation". When talking about Polar Express or Beowulf, I would say it's motion-captured. With Avatar, I say it's a mix; a live-action movie with motion capture used as a special effect.
I think referring to all of those as just animation is too broad, especially since they're apples and oranges. Imagine a movie like Avatar beating Toy Story 3 or something for "Best Animated Film", the animation techniques are so vastly different that having them compete would be silly (As well as many fans of the movie feeling copped-out if the other movie won).
I would consider Roger Rabbit an animated film more than Avatar.
I do think the job label for all of those techniques would be "animators", since they are all doing frame-by-frame work, but the product itself is something very specific.
EDIT: As for the "Avatar is so heavily mo-capped" thing, many Superheroes are so heavily placed under special effects, but they are still considered actors and not animation.