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?