Genres of Animation

[sb4]

I was just musing about some of the genres of animation I'm aware of, and how it affects where we put our learning effort into A:M.

 

For example, the TAO manual has wonderful "top 10" tips for animating that encompass the qualities of squash, stretch, overshoot, etc.

 

When I think of those ideas, it brings to mind the old "Looney Tunes" cartoons that dominate my early memories -- Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, et al. They really embodied so many of those tips -- and it was interesting how, for example, a character could even temporarily change those qualities to more fully express the emotion of an action. I can image, for example, Daffy Duck shooting upward like a rocket, hitting the ceiling, then descending in the trajectory a feather would take -- temporarily changing his weight for comedic effect.

 

And the anticipation / overshoot qualities of Wiley Coyote as he charged off a cliff, hovered in the air until he realized there was no support, at which time, gravity is cued to operate and he plunges downward. Suspending physics for comedic effect.

 

I would think that type of classic cartoon animation requires incredible study and learning from the masters.

 

At the other end of the spectrum, we have Avatar (there are better examples I'm sure), which I would describe as "Realism", where we are concerned more with photorealistic modeling and strict obedience to physical laws. In some ways, the new animator can probably get headway faster here, since there are clearer "rules" you can follow to build your animation. I'm not saying it's easier -- lots of detail and hard work to obey physics -- but the mission is clear what you have to do. At least I feel I would have an easier time approaching it. For example, if I need to animate a kids soccer game, I would video some kids from various angles and use rotoscope to help me animate the characters.

 

Then we have "Rescue Heroes" cartoons. Sort of modern, low budget tooning. Characters are stiff, not much of the classic cartooning concepts of overshoot, squash, stretch. Minimal animating and articulation. Lots of recycled actions. Supposed to approximate reality, but mainly tell a story with plot and dialog. If you can work out a formula for yourself, this could be a very efficient format to get started animating with A:M, and then work up to the other genres.

 

I'm sure there are many other genres as well, but I'd better get back to learning A:M...

 

Cheers,

 

-SB

[robcat2075]

I would think that type of classic cartoon animation requires incredible study and learning from the masters.

 

What impresses me most is that they learned it without the instant playback we have today. If they wanted "now" they had to be satisfied with flipping a few pages in their hands. Anything more meant an hours or day wait for film to be shot and developed.

 

The other thing that is impressive is that at the start there were no masters to learn from and yet a few of them started seeing the potential that hadn't been found yet. I think Disney was a part of that because even though he wasn't animating anymore he could see that it could be better and could point out what needed to change. If I could have any job it would be at Disney from 1927 to 1937 when they were discovering all this stuff.

[Rodney]

The ability to visualize a scene in our heads seems to be a victim of the increase in visual stimuli we see constantly these days.

In his lessons on animation, Don Bluth stresses that the first thing you should do when animating is put your pencil* down, close your eyes and 'see' the animation play out in your head. This is tough for those of us not use to visualizing internally... I can't consistently do it myself... I get more of a general feeling of the motive forces but I tend not to see the images clearly. It's as if I have a blind spot right where the animation is playing and I have to look slightly to the side to see the imagery playing. In many cases, we are so reliant on having all of our visuals supplied (read: force fed) to us that we've forgotten how to visualize ourselves. And Previsualization (establishing a plan to follow) is critical in animation.

 

At any rate, this to a large extent is why animators of old could proceed the way they did.

When the moviola finally became standard and people would crowd around it to see their animated sequence play out, Milt Kahl was known to skip those sessions and say, "I don't need to see that... I animated it!" In other words, he was experienced enough and knew the timing and animation well enough that he could manipulate the scene in his head. This ability to turn things around in virtual space inside his head made him the go to guy when others were struggling to animate their scenes. Other animators would take their sequences to Milt and he'd draw one sketch that suddenly put everything into proper perspective. He could masterfully visualize the necessary 'golden poses' in a scene that the action move into, out of, and through in the scene. (Note though that he could not tell others how he did this... he could become very frustrated with others when they didn't 'see' the same thing.

 

Another interesting thing about Milt was that outside of his animation work at Disney he didn't draw/animate. He pursued other artistic endeavors.

 

As far as genres go, I can't think of any genre that cannot be applied to animation.

Animation sits at the crossroads of information and communication. It is a catch-all for all of them.

 

*substitute 'mouse', 'stylus', 'sharpie' or whatever you prefer to animate with...