PDA

View Full Version : Has the art of storytelling progressed as a result of 3d computer animation


strong120
08-22-2005, 03:48 PM
Hi everyone,
I am in the process of starting to write my computer animation dissertation at university. The title i have come to choose is " Has the atr of story telling progressed as a result of computer aimation". I have started to research this but was wondering if any of you out there had any thoughts on the subject, i.e studios that do story telling justice or those who ruin the art.
Any thought or suggestions would be welcome.
Thanks

kydjester
08-22-2005, 10:09 PM
just to get the post thing started --


no -- CG animation has allowed studios to bring new worlds and wonderful characters to the big screen. Two examples come to mind -- Finding Nemo was set almost entirely underwater in a very believable ocean -- it allowed the audience to admire the wonderful advancment in technology while maintaining a highly realistic view by giving the world and characters more emotion and a sense of life.

to me the emotion that is given off by the character and settings is best represented in 3d animation. This example is probably best seen in Shrek -- When the orge is mad you see it , you feel the excitment of the donkey and the spunk and vide that world shows.

3d animation have advanced storytelling because it has allowed the creators to take us to worlds we only see in our dreams and because of that I will stand for the 3d animation as doing the art of story telling justice.


(i still live Anime and I hope old traditions don't die but adapt)

fabianv
08-22-2005, 10:38 PM
just to get the post thing started --


no -- CG animation has allowed studios to bring new worlds and wonderful characters to the big screen. Two examples come to mind -- Finding Nemo was set almost entirely underwater in a very believable ocean -- it allowed the audience to admire the wonderful advancment in technology while maintaining a highly realistic view by giving the world and characters more emotion and a sense of life.

to me the emotion that is given off by the character and settings is best represented in 3d animation. This example is probably best seen in Shrek -- When the orge is mad you see it , you feel the excitment of the donkey and the spunk and vide that world shows.

3d animation have advanced storytelling because it has allowed the creators to take us to worlds we only see in our dreams and because of that I will stand for the 3d animation as doing the art of story telling justice.


(i still live Anime and I hope old traditions don't die but adapt)

I agree with everything he said... just no comments about the anime.

strong120
08-23-2005, 12:58 PM
yer i understand what your saying, but i was thinking on the other hand, big film studios now in some respects seem to see cg as a way to make easy money. There are lots of terrible movies with almost no story behind them, that are totally pushed on the animation/effects alone, when people go to see these films (dare devil/hulk for one example) they are dissapointed. so you could arguee that in some cases cg has in some respects push the story backwards. Although i agree with what you said about shrek, there are certainly storys/films that could not have been told without the use of cg

joshmckenzie
08-23-2005, 10:38 PM
There are lots of very entertaining and enjoyable 3D animated films, but no, I don't think 3D has advanced the art of storytelling. Is there something significantly new in the way stories are being told using 3D? It doesn't seem that way to me. In fact, a lot of movies seem to have very slight storylines (there's a difference between slight and simple - simple is fine by me).

If anything, you notice more and more a very "textbook" approach to storytelling. It's easy to spot the beginning, middle and end; the moment of conflict, the start of the quest, the hero's self-doubt (which he more often than not has to neurotically verbalize to the audience), the strain in the relationship between two friends (and the inevitable resolution where their friendship deepens or they learn the value of their friendship); the constant talking, especially from the key "comic" character (and most of these films have a key "comic" character).

I realize lots of stories naturally contain these elements and it's about how these stories are told. Some movies manage to do it with a bit more polish - but often you can see these moments sign-posted so clearly that there are few surprises. Next time you watch an animated 3D film, see if you can spot these moments yourself! (Gah! I'm too cynical!).

JMcWilliams
08-24-2005, 12:40 AM
yer i understand what your saying, but i was thinking on the other hand, big film studios now in some respects seem to see cg as a way to make easy money. There are lots of terrible movies with almost no story behind them, that are totally pushed on the animation/effects alone, when people go to see these films (dare devil/hulk for one example) they are dissapointed. so you could arguee that in some cases cg has in some respects push the story backwards. Although i agree with what you said about shrek, there are certainly storys/films that could not have been told without the use of cg

After the success of Lionking, hordes of media companies came running in looking to make big cash on 2D films... so we ended up with a bunch of bad 2d movies. 3d is just the new thing and because some people are successful making 3d movies then people think that the medium is what is making it successful. they'll get bored of 3d once thier crap films bomb and move onto something else.

This will continue with every new thing that comes about.

This is a very cool video that you should find very interesting and relevent (particulary from about halfway through, but I really recommend you watch it all. A bunch of pixar guys, including Bird, Stanton....
http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1114720561

strong120
08-25-2005, 11:42 AM
thanks JMcWilliams, i am just watching that link u sent now, seems to be a very interseting video.
All the research is comming along nicely so thanks to everyone for ur thought and comment. keep em comming.

Smartypants
08-25-2005, 05:05 PM
Since you asked for opinions, I'll toss in my $0.02:

I do think the art of storytelling has progressed, but I don't think the advancement of visual effects has had a specific impact on that. I think the proliferation of media like film and television has, however.

I'll pose the argument made in the book Everything Bad is Good for You: How Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573223077/qid=1124985231/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-1648419-8154517?v=glance&s=books) by Steven Johnson.

As an example, television shows have grown more complex and challenging to the viewer. Some may doubt that claim, considering recent reality shows, but consider the plot complexity of modern dramas. A show like 24, for example, might have as many as seven or eight plots going on at one time, each interconnected with the other. This is not as straightforward as earlier television, which might have only one or two plotlines going on.

However, does more complex storytelling mean better storytelling? I don't know.

Personally, I think that the art of storytelling has advanced more rapidly recently because there are rewards for doing so. The craft of storytelling has been very analyzed, practiced, studied, and learned lately, because you can make good money at it.

The problem is, people seem to like to hear something new. But studios shy away from taking risks. They'd rather make a movie they feel is a safe bet than tell a story that has no precedent, that does not fit nicely into a "niche".

As for visual effects, it's just window dressing. In some cases, I think storytelling comes out better because the director is limited and must be creative. Look at Hitchcock, for example. The guy is a master filmmaker and a lot of his techniques are practically set in stone as filmmaking rules today. But he was very limited technically, by today's standards.

Ok, I've rambled on long enough. Good luck with your thesis.

Icarus
08-26-2005, 06:48 AM
hmm.. Just my opinon aswell :)

I have noticed that there seems to be an overwhelming sence of story that the objective audience can relate to, i guess that you can always bang out some brillant animation but if you dont have a story (short story, or feature film) that the audience can relate to it wont sell.

so i beleve that the advancement in 3d and Another Mediums that a story can be relay'd that it needs and requires a story, so the audience and relate and connect with, otherwise its another flop...

TyR-

motoxpress
08-31-2005, 04:51 PM
In my view, 3D animation is no different than a film camera - it's a powerful tool for storytelling but not part of the equation for telling a good story. The fact that you can do a very poor job with 3D indicates that it is not the tool but technique that moves a story.

No doubt we can tell some stories now that could not be told before but it's not because the story was weak but that our ability to realize it was.

-gl

mangolass
08-31-2005, 11:54 PM
I'll pose the argument made in the book Everything Bad is Good for You: How Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573223077/qid=1124985231/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-1648419-8154517?v=glance&s=books) by Steven Johnson.

As an example, television shows have grown more complex and challenging to the viewer. Some may doubt that claim, considering recent reality shows, but consider the plot complexity of modern dramas. A show like 24, for example, might have as many as seven or eight plots going on at one time, each interconnected with the other. This is not as straightforward as earlier television, which might have only one or two plotlines going on.

I read an article by that guy ~ sounds like he's full of it. He was arguing that video games made kids smarter. I would have believed him if he said shooting games improved certain kinds of reflexes needed to be a fighter pilot or something, but he was trying to generalize way beyond that.

TV shows needing to jump around between different threads as way to keep~up with ADD~type channel flicking where kids would be trying to watch 3 shows at once otherwise. To simply stop in one place and let a drama play~out would require too much dedication on the part of impatient audiences, so they cut around allot between things. If they focused more on depth, had the courage to slow down and focus on something, instead of constantly flickering between mindless plots like 24, I'd say they were more engaging for intellegent audiences.

LT

Skirnir
09-01-2005, 12:51 AM
I read an article by that guy ~ sounds like he's full of it. He was arguing that video games made kids smarter. I would have believed him if he said shooting games improved certain kinds of reflexes needed to be a fighter pilot or something, but he was trying to generalize way beyond that.

I don't know how he said videogames made kids smarter and Im too bored and tired to go searching for the article, but I could throw in a few things he or anyone else might have meant or can see.

Your right on the reflexes, and skillwise advancements of games(in they military they use videogames to increase the adaptive abilities, skilltraits, and perspective precision of their troops). Also surgeons who play videogames tend to have more precise surgical abilities.

However, he might have meant more "knowledgeable" or "wise" rather then smart(though both are "smart" traits. There are many forms of "smart" IMO, I would say approximately 20 subbranches. IQ, Adaptiveness, Reaction, Knowledge, WIt, Cleverness, etc.) For instance, if you play RPGs or any game that isn't an RPG but has a good story. THese games tend to derive their facts from stories of myth, religion, and in some cases(especially with weaponry, historical fact). Though a writer or director can bend the definition or idea of such things, if you were to play multiple games with the same names and weaponry, and were to research such things, you would soon find that what the games had in common in those "Beings/things" stories are very very accurate. Perhaps this is what he meant.

CGTalk Moderation
09-01-2005, 12:51 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.