Anime....?

Well, the lecture did touch on anime... I seem to remember a heavy emphasis on the comparison of Miyazaki and Bambi, in other words American animation vs Japanese animation... and hey, I've just found something easy
I can blog about :) ahemmm....

It seems that Japanese animation is heavily stylized, meaning that how it looks no matter what you watch seems all very similar e.g. big sparkly eyes, triangles for noses etc.... probably why its so popular, because its different to american animation which seems most of the time to resemble real-life only in cartoon version.

Anyway, i got a whole heap of emotion from that lecture- I did cry when bambi's mother died, and i still do- but I also cried when Butterfree left pokemon:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AY1Mjg0sTQ
I got the impression that Bill was maybe suggesting that american animation tends to be more emotional than japanese animation- when you watch miyazaki that may be true, his style and the subject of his films tend to touch more on the odd and artistic side of animation rather than the emotional side. I believe that, depending on the emotion the voice actors bring across and the animation of faces in particular, any animation- no matter where it originates- can bring a tear to one's eye. Animation doesn't need any specific style to bring through emotion, its all about how animators can manipulate their style to get the effect they want.

2D vs. 3D

I found that last 3D film creepy O.o genuinely. Well what i got from that lecture is how the power of 2D and 3D compare- 3D seems much more versatile in how much you can see e.g.- you may notice more in a 3D film than you would a 2D film, because you get a lot of different perspectives. However 2D in some cases can be more creative and have more effect- 2D artists arent burdened by making sure their scenes look right all the way round, their work is flat-on, so their minds aren't so clouded with getting things accurate. It all really depends on the minds behind the animation though- if you have an over-active imagination theres a good chance you'll create something with a heavy psychological effect, if not, it may look pretty, but not necessarily contain any real narrative or moral.

That's what I thought, anyway.
p.s......who would put meat in a clock...? O_o very confusing piece of animation, Bill. Very. Very artistic though.

Blood, Violence and Gore- Oh My!

I'm not a fan of screen violence- but when its necessary I can appreciate it. For instance:

(skip to 5:58): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyR-su0cELY

Not a scene I like to watch at all but I understand why its been made so realistically- because the truth is that sort of thing (unfortunately) happens in this lovely world of ours. Sylvester Stallone didnt want to 'tone down' or 'hollywood-ise' Rambo 4 because he didn't want the audience to grow naive over what really happens in third world places like Burma- an understandable move- but a wise one?

Depending on who you are, screen violence could be good or bad- of late, screen violence has been frowned upon especially for games because they are seen as a bad influence on the younger generation- blowing things up in Call of Duty may be fun, but as we know, in real life its a whole different story- which is what a select minority fail to see.

Some of us, i.e. those who are born strong-willed, without mental illness and aren't abused at a young age will learn to appreciate screen violence but not necessarily like it- unfortunately the others I mentioned in the fore are sometimes influenced by it too much. For instance, the famous case of James Bulger who was murdered in 1993- his killers were both young boys who'd been apparently influenced by the film 'Child's Play 3' and subsequently murdered James to 'mimic' what they'd seen in the film. The film obviously cannot be blamed entirely, but when it comes to people who are (clearly) already ill-minded, it only takes one nudge to push them over the edge.

So should on-screen violence be banned? Its not all about how well its done either- I remember Bill telling us about that guy who went on a rampage after playing Doom- and Doom is hardly realistic. The effect of screen violence is psychological; what we perceive will either horrify us, influence us, or maybe have no effect on us at all. Cases where people are influenced by screen violence are quite rare- but how do we know who to ban and who not to? We don't, of course- the nicest person you see across the street every day could turn out to be a prolific killer. Not even certificates on games or films work- yes, children arent allowed to buy them but they can watch/play them through other means. The question we have to ask is; is the sane people's entertainment really worth the influence of killers?

GENRE :D

Yes, I did put a smiley next to the title. And I capitalized the word GENRE. Hey look, I did it again :) I love genre. It's a word I've come to know and love and one that I've known for a long time now. Defining genres helped me through the days of Media Studies and Drama, and I am eternally grateful for this borrowed french word :') anyway enough of this mush. The lecture was better this week if not a tad long- but better none the less. I especially liked when Bill discussed how it isn't possible to trace a path in the history of genre- I completely agree. Genre seems to just do what it wants, there has been no real 'development'- although in more recent years most animations and games are multi-genre'd, partly thanks to film/game-making progresses which have enabled us to experiment with many things in the editing process. However, back in yester-year there were some films that were quite specific in terms of genre. Just check out the picture below.

Clint Eastwood is most famous for his old westerns, and there was very little else in his films that could be compared to another genre apart from 'western'. However in some cases (this being one) simplicity of genre is welcomed- over doing genre in some films can only end up churning out cheesy, tacky entertainment. Some games and films are all the better for their simplicity. The same cannot be said for Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, as shown below.

This film combines and mocks so many different genres that I couldnt physically sit here and explain each one, but in a nutshell: Film, comics and games. These are the mother genres, the big ones- Scott Pilgrim divides down into various other sub-genres but these three are the bread and butter. Films like this are made to be tacky and cheesy, its what makes them worth watching, and the various genres are what make this happen. Genre is the mother of media, without it we'd be very lost.

Oh yeah, there was some other stuff about how the digital world could be taking over the physical world, but we already know about that hoo-ha. In some ways yes, in terms of animation and games and how the , in other ways no. Simples.

Media is in a state of 'Newness'

A strange lecture to say the least- but I do understand the relevance. I think. I suppose Media is always being renewed, especially in Animation because of the graphic improvement and so on. What I thought about after that lecture was whether this 'newness' state will ever stop- meaning will we reach a point and no longer be able to progress? Well we've gotten this far. And I also snapped to attention when Bill discussed how the line between comsumers and producers is fading- what with the rise of youtube and other medias where consumers essentially 'make' them. Hmm, perhaps the media will die out eventually because people will learn how to entertain themselves too well. We can only pray- I can't stand the sight of Big Brother any longer.

Structuralism

There are 10 types of people in the world..... those who understand binary and those who don't.

Just a little joke. If you don't get it then fair enough- but it just reminds me of the term binary opposites. Ah I still remember learning about good ol' Levi Strauss in Media Studies not long ago. I paid particular attention to the idea of binary opposites in that lecture- so much that I unfortunately didn't really grasp anything else. You can't help it when something takes you back, y'know?

The list that Ivan wrote down were very good examples of Binary opposites- particularly the idea of good and evil. Ever watched Constantine? Awesome movie. Anyway, in that movie, there's this chap:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2365/2278012810_b50ff5b1f2.jpg?v=0

That's Papa Midnight, played by Djimon Hounsou, and in the film he plays a particularly intriguing character. The plot in a nutshell: Ongoing battle between heaven and hell, woman gets possessed by the Devil's son, guns, demons, blah blah.... but anyway, Constantines job is to fight for good, purity, heaven. Midnight however, is 'neutral'- he's not on the side of heaven or hell. Why? He believes, which I think is scarily true, that Heaven and Hell are the same thing- groups with different beliefs that oppose and despise each other.

Which begs the question- are there ever 'exact' binary opposites? Things that are completely and totally different? Of course not. Does that make everything anomolous?

We got into a rather interesting debate about things that are anomolous in the seminar- Darth Vader came up as our main example (good for me- I always have an input for star wars) and why is Darth Vader anomolous? Well in the concrete sense, he's neither machine nor man- which makes him seem more sinister I think. When I was younger I thought he was a guy in a cool suit, not a guy who uses the suit to live because he was horrificly burned and had his arms and legs chopped off. It horrified me. Anyway, he's also anomolous in the abstract sense- He started off 'good', then did some evil stuff, and became 'evil'- why do I write 'good' and 'evil' like that? Because he never was entirely good or evil- he was good with evil intentions, and then vice versa.

So in the media sense; why are binary opposites good to include in media texts? They create balance and harmony, and they bounce off each other to create humour, conflict, etc. But would they have the same effect if they were exactly opposite? No. Everything would be predictable. And boring. And there is no 'boring' in animation, let me tell you.

Everything must be slightly anomolous- if it isnt, its obviously on the wrong planet and needs to go home.

Intertextuality

I've come to the conclusion that we're going to be learning a lot of new terms over the next three years that end with 'ity'. Good, those kind of words usually have interesting meanings. However out of all the 'ity' words I'm sure I don't know, Intertextuality is one I've actually stumbled across many times. For some strange and unknown reason, whenever I think of that word I immediately think 'icon'. Why? Because when intertextuality is used its usually to refer to/imitate something iconic, something that a lot of people have connected with or know very well because it was famous for something. Like what Ivan showed us in the lecture; the repetition of the famous line by Charlton Heston in the new Planet of the Apes adaptation, and how the meaning of it was changed around. We feel somehow impressed by this- probably because we all chuckle at how Heston very badly acts out that line in the old film, and remember this amusement when he says it again in the newbie. However, would it have been the same if they'd gotten another actor to play that old ape dude, and HE said that line? noooooo. And I have a perfect example of how much that would've failed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eleoJabi2os

Now watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZqCJvYzqpo

andddd this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2cZNnOW9Y4


See a pattern there? Not hard to spot I'm sure. 'Come with me if you want to live', the famous line spoken by Michael Biehn in the iconic classic, The Terminator. Yeah, its iconic for a lot of reasons (even animation, ironically ^_^) and it doesn't hurt to have the 'James Cameron' label slapped on it either- I'm sure that after Avatar millions of people (who must be insane anyway) rushed to watch it because 'OMG!! James Cameron did it! He's AWESOMEEE O.O' or something like that. So anyway, besides 'I'll be back', that was probably the key line from that film, because it summed up the plot and the relationships between the characters and blah blah- then helloooo, whats this? It's been used again in Terminator Salvation. Not by the same actor- owh, that's a shame :( buttt, by the same character- that's not so bad. Actually, it's quite good- since the film is set before the original, and then we think 'heeeey, that's probably how that line from the first film came about!! that's clever ^_^' and thennnnn.......you probably watched that third youtube vid too. And all of a sudden- ah, the line's been killed. Why? number one- Sarah Connor Chronicles just sucks in general. Number two: not the same actor (shes female for a start) and number three: not even the same character. what the actual hell??? They can't do this, they've tried to recreate an awesome line from an awesome film in an almost completely new context, and its failed miserably. Which is where my point concludes: Intertextuality is awesome if you do it right, and can make new media seem very clever and get more viewers from the people who appreciate the 'inter-text' too- however, use it wrongly and it will make your animation, film, comic (whatever) bomb badly. Don't use the old and loved stuff idly!!

That's what I've conjured up from that lecture. The thoughts just come to me, what can I say. If I'm wrong I'm wrong :)