At 8/8/11 12:53 AM, sandwich-eater wrote: I also thought Elfy would've scored a bit higher.

Thanks. I actually thought so too.

Thanks. I actually thought so too.

Truth be told, I thought mine and yours should have scored alot higher in Originality. There was nothing wrong with the other 2 scoring like a 4, but perfect 5's across the board for a 300 parody and an Internet Meme over 2 things who tried to incorporate an Internet Meme Theme in an original way getting like 3's is a little strange to me. I'm also curious why S. Peach gave me a 3 for Animation. I'm inclined to agree with her if she lists her reasoning.

At 8/8/11 01:32 PM, DaveBruno wrote: I'm inclined to agree with her if she lists her reasoning.

I was thinking the same about Tom Fulp. He gave me 7 points less than the otherwise unanimous score of 22, which would have put me at 88 otherwise.

Elf and Sandwich,
You have done nothing to take advantage of the medium of animation

I am no animation expert, but I loved when sandwich made that impossible bridge part, I honestly tought "cool! those type of things can only be done on 2D cartoons".

At 8/8/11 05:31 PM, PinkSkull wrote: I am no animation expert, but I loved when sandwich made that impossible bridge part, I honestly tought "cool! those type of things can only be done on 2D cartoons".

I agree in the sense that it was a bit of an understatement to say "nothing," especially in sandwicheater's case. Apparently lots of the subtleties in my animation were missed, such as the eyes pointing in two different directions on several occasions, in addition to illogical appearances and happenings, such as accidentally throwing a knife into one's stomach.

...Or maybe I'm just a sore loser. That makes sense, too.

At 8/8/11 05:31 PM, PinkSkull wrote:

Elf and Sandwich,
You have done nothing to take advantage of the medium of animation

I am no animation expert, but I loved when sandwich made that impossible bridge part, I honestly tought "cool! those type of things can only be done on 2D cartoons".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUzBIR-dO wg

It can be done in live action. What can't be done in live action is how you interact with it. Yes you can have an impossilble shape painted on a wall or something, but if you're not interacting with that shape at all it might as well not be there.

I'll give you that the background was impossible and could only exist as an abstracted image (it's in your review, actually), BUT- sandwich's characters made very little interactions with the backgrounds, nothing a live action actor couldn't have done composited on a background. If you had a wide, slow motion shot of the guy defying gravity, twisting and turning shapes as he passes through dimensions, then yes, that would be something a camera can't do. What you had there were what, 4 shots? One close up shot of the character running, framed so that we couldn't see his legs or how it interacted with the impossible shape. The actual jump itself took less than a second and lacked anticipation or follow through-- animation mechanics aside, it flew by way too fast for me to appreciate what just happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbjxwaZZV BE
^^ not an abstracted background, but the way the character moves through it wouldn't have the same feel if it were done in live action

Again, your cartoons weren't the absolute worst things in the world, but you really need to think about why what you're animating would be better as animation and not as live action, and what that boils down to is pushing poses, bending things ways they're not supposed to be bent, having illogical motions, being grotesque or ultra, ultra appealing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uuCta4wy P4 <-- a horse can't do this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRT86ZggC Ek <-- This movie is probably the most frickin' adorable thing I've ever seen. If you want to get into character animation, I can't think of a better example of how motion in animation helps define a character

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpOPyjmB8 SI <-- this is just silly.

These things can't possibly be done in live action because the acting that these characters can do cannot be emulated by someone wearing a horse/bear suit (the Muppets work at a different level of charm than animation does), and that's why these make perfect sense that they're cartoons.

Moving onto more modern examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb 1U&list=FLbO5NAIYIBzw&index=289 <-- Backgrounds fly out and change with the mood of the cartoon. It's very hard/doesn't make much sense to do this with live action

http://youtu.be/yzdewvHTFyQ <-- scenes that defy physics, non humanoid actors

http://youtu.be/YkWJDos13vw <-- outrageous physics/framing would be hard to emulate using a camera. The complex visual style and the outlandish character designs also wouldn't feel the same with actual people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj4RBmU-P Io <-- perfectly composed, abstracted backgrounds, non humanoid characters, freakin' sexy (and impossible) lighting

If your ultimate goal is to make the next Family Guy, by all means, use cartoon visuals as a vehicle to carry voice acting and your script. I'm just saying you will save yourself a lot of effort by making it live action video instead, in fact it might make a very good skit!

http://youtu.be/j_QHCzAkUII <-- You don't need cartoon visuals to tell

And again, I need to point out that I come from a heavy bias that animation is bringing life to an otherwise lifeless drawing through motion and animation, and you're more than free to reject anything that I say

whoops. Last link should read as "cartoony visuals to tell a story, so if you're just going to tell a story without pushing poses or having abstracted backgrounds, do something like this and it will be better"

The funny thing is, I was going to use the penrose stairs but I didn't because I realised they were in Inception.

Anyway, you have a point Thor, and I'll be entering next year with a lot more experience.

At 8/8/11 11:43 PM, ThorClodofBlunders wrote: If your ultimate goal is to make the next Family Guy...

Oh, god no.

But I can now see what you mean. Thanks for the lengthy clarification!

I agree with Thor, but I have one addition to add to it.

As much as I like Tex Avery wild takes an abstract animation (and I do do it on occasion, just not often.) I believe your animation should fit the piece you're making. Like I think Sandwich could have gotten away with doing a Tex Avery style cartoon and it would have been fantastic. Mine I kind of wanted to be a parody of the Job Market, so I wanted something a little more realistic. Truth be told, my major influences are Don Bluth and French Animation, like The Illusionist and anything Gobeline's makes. Take for instance, this movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPdLrxxo4 mg

This is the trailer for the Illusionist, a french animated movie that came out last year. There's no dialogue in the entire movie, and its animated very realistically. You could argue that that's boring, but I found it so life-like that if it was done any other way the movie would not have been nearly as charming as it is. Its not rotoscoped, per say, its just hardcore referenced. I like this movie because the characters are Caricatures of everyday people, which you cant do in real life, but they move like people in real life. The trailer isn't the best way to show people this movie, but its definitely one of my favorite animated films of all time.

To me, animation is bringing drawings to life. You can bring life to the drawings in a number of ways, you can make them exaggerated and fun, or you can make them realistic and believable. Its really up to you. I realize you said we weren't doing anything wrong and it was merely how you viewed things, and I agree with you. Alot of the younger crowd may see animation as a way to tell a skit like Family Guy, because alot of cartoons these days are just that. Its a shame really, and I vow to prove to you that I can make something a human actor cant do this Final Round. Hell, the idea I have doesn't even have humans in it, so lets see how that goes :)

^^ Yes.

But keep in mind there's a difference between realism and BELIEVABILITY. Sylvian Chomet tends to move on the more believable side of animation, but his outlandish character design is what makes it a cartoon

The old lady in The Triplets of Belleville, for example, has one leg that is much longer than the other. She makes up for it by wearing a really high heel-- this affects the way she walks and performs

Alot of the younger crowd may see animation as a way to tell a skit like Family Guy, because alot of cartoons these days are just that. Its a shame really,

that's why I've been loving adventure time, it's so imaginative!

I watched ALL of thor's videos, they were awesome, my youtube favorites list has grown larger today