Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/30/10 03:25 PM, PBass wrote: A lot of the other 3D movies seem to just go from event to event to event, and when the main character is in peril, you're not really sure if you care about what happens to him. At least thats how I feel, but I over analyze things often.

I agree, making the audience care about the characters is important

At 1/30/10 03:52 PM, Starogre wrote:

At 1/30/10 03:25 PM, PBass wrote: A lot of the other 3D movies seem to just go from event to event to event, and when the main character is in peril, you're not really sure if you care about what happens to him. At least thats how I feel, but I over analyze things often.

I agree, making the audience care about the characters is important

Like in that online hit short "kiwi" you only see him on screen for like 2 minutes but i cried by the end , its animation like that that makes me want to go on

At 1/30/10 04:07 PM, HDXmike wrote: Like in that online hit short "kiwi" you only see him on screen for like 2 minutes but i cried by the end , its animation like that that makes me want to go on

Oh man! you beat me to it! Kiwi is one of my favorite animations on the web. It's really powerful and really inspiring, a great example of storytelling.

At 1/30/10 01:26 PM, PBass wrote:

At 1/30/10 01:06 PM, poxpower wrote: From Disney?
Good luck?

I was being a bit more broad with the concept, there's more than DIsney.

Generally, it's ambiguous.
If you ripped an entire scene's animations though, then that's plagiarism, no matter if you changed the characters or backgrounds or redid the entire thing.
Maybe it won't get you into legal trouble, but I doubt people would call it "an homage" or anything like that.

Of course that's when you're on a higher level making movies for money, if you're just talking about Flash, no one gives a shit really.

At 1/30/10 02:17 PM, Ani-x wrote: I would think the word "Pretentious" is the most over used word in the world of art.

Holy smokes Batman, there's no domain more fraught with pompous dimwits than arts in general, from writing to installation.

It's the same as the wine-tasting crowd and the "gourmet food" people. Basically, in a blind test, they will fail to differentiate genius from shit. Their entire perception of what is good or bad stems from their preconceived notions on what should be good and bad and what they already know to be accepted by "experts" as good or bad.

Modern art is great for this. A 10 year old can replicate most of their paintings, but they think they're worth millions because of the "statement" it makes or whatever bullshit. Basically, these people are morons. Sell things to them.
Relevant Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_XAMm_TB Jk

You can write as many books as you want on Picasso or Duchamp but it doesn't change the fact that most of their work is technically "incompetent" and could be replicated by just about any dumbass.

So what are you really paying for then? A good question to ask yourself.

====

Anyway that's just the kind of people who refer to anything as "pieces" and it annoys me for some reason.

Haha.

At 1/30/10 04:45 PM, poxpower wrote: Generally, it's ambiguous.

Yeah, that's true. It'd depend solely on the specifics of the situation.

Their entire perception of what is good or bad stems from their preconceived notions on what should be good and bad and what they already know to be accepted by "experts" as good or bad.

I couldn't agree more. High Art now has become something that absolutely lacks communication. People have to figure out why a piece is good, or study it to learn what it means. Properly appreciating art has become a 'skill' that only can be learned by those who have money and social standing. If a piece of art is good it should be obvious. Yes, opinion is relative, but it shouldn't take some self appointed critic to tell you how to come about forming your opinion.

If anybody has ever seen a painting (or even a good duplicate) by a renaissance artist, such as Michelangelo in person. The artistic value is obvious, it requires no formal training to appreciate, it's simply just amazing.

The way I look at it, the 'high' art critic crowd is akin to a man with too much access to porn. First he's fascinated by it, then he searches for better and better porn, then, after much over-stimulation he becomes bored and delves into the weird, stupid, and plain bizarre.

Yet in art, that's an admirable trait, who'd have thunk it?

At 1/30/10 06:18 PM, PBass wrote:

At 1/30/10 04:45 PM, poxpower wrote: Generally, it's ambiguous.

Yeah, that's true. It'd depend solely on the specifics of the situation.

Their entire perception of what is good or bad stems from their preconceived notions on what should be good and bad and what they already know to be accepted by "experts" as good or bad.

I couldn't agree more. High Art now has become something that absolutely lacks communication. People have to figure out why a piece is good, or study it to learn what it means. Properly appreciating art has become a 'skill' that only can be learned by those who have money and social standing. If a piece of art is good it should be obvious. Yes, opinion is relative, but it shouldn't take some self appointed critic to tell you how to come about forming your opinion.

If anybody has ever seen a painting (or even a good duplicate) by a renaissance artist, such as Michelangelo in person. The artistic value is obvious, it requires no formal training to appreciate, it's simply just amazing.

The way I look at it, the 'high' art critic crowd is akin to a man with too much access to porn. First he's fascinated by it, then he searches for better and better porn, then, after much over-stimulation he becomes bored and delves into the weird, stupid, and plain bizarre.

Yet in art, that's an admirable trait, who'd have thunk it?

This is nothing new, its been this way since snobs had money and found new ways to turn a nose up at weaker wallets.

the truth is a value of a painting is not the feeling, skill or emotion behind, its what the person paid for it so they can hang it over there mantel next to there Sarah pallin/rush books that lay on there coffee table.

btw im a republican, but that statement is just sadly true

they focusing on the 3d stuff to much really need to take it back.

At 1/31/10 05:27 PM, GKoolaid wrote: they focusing on the 3d stuff to much really need to take it back.

Hehe, well both James Baxter and John Lasseter are trying to do that now. Princess and the Frog gave us some good promise that feature animation is going to return towards 2D again.

At 1/31/10 05:30 PM, PBass wrote:

At 1/31/10 05:27 PM, GKoolaid wrote: they focusing on the 3d stuff to much really need to take it back.

Hehe, well both James Baxter and John Lasseter are trying to do that now. Princess and the Frog gave us some good promise that feature animation is going to return towards 2D again.

i hope so, i got the feeling that sense this is the first black princess and all they wanted her to look just like the others, not some shitty cgi one, so they all have the same appearance.

At 2/5/10 02:04 PM, GKoolaid wrote: so they all have the same appearance.

well theres definatley some variety ;P

And whose seen the newest one , rapunzel ? holy crap she looks hot.

At 2/5/10 02:46 PM, HDXmike wrote:

At 2/5/10 02:04 PM, GKoolaid wrote: so they all have the same appearance.

well there's definitely some variety ;P

Well, I did think that Tiana looked strikingly like Belle, but there's only so much variety you can do. With the amount of princesses Disney now has, not even counting the non-princess heroines, they're going to start to look the same.

It doesn't matter what style it's in, it's all about STORY

so when you guy's rant over Pixar and it's superior 3d animation you're looking at movies the wrong way

At 2/6/10 08:14 AM, naronic wrote: It doesn't matter what style it's in, it's all about STORY

so when you guy's rant over Pixar and it's superior 3d animation you're looking at movies the wrong way

No were not you dumb ass , the title is pre 1999 animation not 2d vs 3d , it just happens to be that the stories stopped seeming to have sustanance around the same time 3d was taking over , i still said that UP and the princess and the frog were exceptions , up IS 3d. dont come in here acting like your going to stop everything with one universe changing post , were not retards we know its about story , most of us simply believe that when people started 3D they thought the story didnt have to be as key or something like that because the graphics were so breakthrouhg , however now that 3d has been around a while people are becoming sharper and stories need to have sustanance like before.

If you want to join the discussion and contribute something that not everyone over 9 knows then be my geust .

only real 'REAL' differences i notice are the skin and hair. like of course they are all the same exact mold recolored but you can definitely feel that she's a Disney princess can't you.. just look at her... FEEL IT lol. and if you see that Rapunzel or whatever it is, don't have the Disney feel. ..know where im coming from?

At 2/8/10 01:44 PM, GKoolaid wrote: only real 'REAL' differences i notice are the skin and hair. like of course they are all the same exact mold recolored but you can definitely feel that she's a Disney princess can't you.. just look at her... FEEL IT lol. and if you see that Rapunzel or whatever it is, don't have the Disney feel. ..know where im coming from?

Definatley , shes got a more individual expressive build not only to her body but especially her face , i see a hint of pixar in her face , hust enough to set it apart and make her look extra hawt but not to much for her to get facial features not of this earth

At 2/5/10 02:51 PM, HDXmike wrote: And whose seen the newest one , rapunzel ? holy crap she looks hot.

I donno I think Jasmine still takes the cake

At 2/8/10 02:06 PM, HDXmike wrote:

At 2/8/10 01:44 PM, GKoolaid wrote: only real 'REAL' differences i notice are the skin and hair. like of course they are all the same exact mold recolored but you can definitely feel that she's a Disney princess can't you.. just look at her... FEEL IT lol. and if you see that Rapunzel or whatever it is, don't have the Disney feel. ..know where im coming from?

Definatley , shes got a more individual expressive build not only to her body but especially her face , i see a hint of pixar in her face , hust enough to set it apart and make her look extra hawt but not to much for her to get facial features not of this earth

Nah, That is just production art,
When the time comes and movie comes out, you will see it more like the same style Disney uses.
This is not done by accident though. They do this on purpose to preserve a certain continuity and "look" Disney is known for.

Anyways, anyone remember A land before time?
That was one of my favorite movies as a kid, I just recently went back and watched it.
It holds up pretty well, And damn sad.
This was a pretty big none Disney movie.

Also went back and watched The Secret of NIMH (was on HDNET)
Can't say i remember it allot growing up, So for me was like watching it for the first time.
Over all i was really impressed for a movie that came out when i was born, It was pretty epic in parts. and seemed a bit ahead of the curve for action animated animals.

I think im going to go study A land before time, The movement of the big dinosaurs was amazing in terms of weight, mass and fluidness.

is fluidness a word? is now

At 2/9/10 06:45 PM, Ani-x wrote: Anyways, anyone remember A land before time?
Also went back and watched The Secret of NIMH (was on HDNET)

These are two of my favorite Don Bluth films, but I think his best work was done on An American Tail. Unfortunately Bluth started going downhill from there with Thumbelina and The Pebble and the Penguin. I also have a general distaste for a lot of the character designs in Bluth's films, I find some just plain ugly and confusing, and they have way too many ridiculous mustaches.

Yet I have to say, Don was a major part of my childhood, as much as I now think 'All Dogs Go to Heaven' is a poorly made film, I loved it as a kid and watched it over and over.

Speaking of Don, he's got a club sort of thing, where for 8 bucks a month you can participate in live conferences with him every Wednesday and post on the club forum with him. I'm not sure how active he really is, but I'm definitely enrolling as soon as I get some money to spare.