Consistently Inconsistent.
Age 34, Male
Keepin' it real
who cares anyway
Chicago, IL
Joined on 4/1/04
VERY interesting points. Luis compiles it well and I think he's right. If you feed the viewer the easiest most "relateable" objects then they won't be of concern in the movie and more important will be inflicted upon the story and characters.
I don't really have anything else to say...but, uh, good points.
ha thanks, yeah I guess putting in something a little to detailed or true to life could throw off the flow of the movie. I never really thought about it like that, if something's just there and not out of the ordinary then focus doesn't come off the what's really important - characters and story.
I think nowadays people just put those types of things in, just because its the first thing that pops into their heads when they think of that object, so they draw it. They probably don't even consider the possibility of putting in something more realistic, mainly because there is no point. Sure they could put a more realistic interpretation of that certain object and people would still understand what it is, but since it wouldn't matter either way, they'll just include the more recognizable object.
Plus those more unrealistic interpretations of objects could supposedly make a more comedic setting, like a metal can vs a giant plastic rolling one.
Yeah that's what I sort of initially thought...but I kind of wanted to write about it anyway so I did.
I've rarely seen actual metal trash cans in my life, and I've only ever used one once. Yet even I am guilty of placing them in my cartoons...however, the metal can is a very urban object, while the plastic home can is quite suburban, and I'm rather fond of drawing cityscapes. But it goes beyond that. Why do I know how to draw an anvil? There are no blacksmiths in my cartoons.
Somewhere along the line we can probably chalk it up to inadvertent exposure. The idea of including these objects basically came along for the ride when we watched cartoons at some previous point in our lives. Like Luis said, it's not that these are archetypal objects, but rather very clear visual cues that work because A) Viewers don't have to think twice about what the object is, and B) We the creators apparently don't even think about it either.
Yeah, I did think about that urban vs. suburban point when I was writing the example, I originally used the example of an alley with a dumpster and stuff but it actually did kind of make sense to use metal cans. Animations and cartoons must be some of the only things keeping these visual cues alive, I wonder if kids would still know what some of the stuff in old cartoons were if they hadn't been integrated in the cartoons they watch today.
By the way, I really enjoyed your cityscape level in Fancy Pants 2, that level felt huge.
For the most part the most impressionable animations where the ones with non-narrative. Like Tom and Jerry and The Old Disney Toons. Those cartoons transcend most barriers, so its natural when animation became more main stream artist would reflect what influenced them most. And what influenced them most where cartoons dated in the late 30s early 40s . At Time where women actually cooked with with broccoli and eat french bread fresh from the bakery. A place where plastic didn't exist, and garbages from those meals where dumped in Tin garbage cans with saucer lids. ^_^
I definitely agree with you about how it all started, I was just wondering about why it's still here? I guess the impressions left by Tom and Jerry and the first saturday morning-types were so strong that they've just carried on through the years, with each new animator looking up to the greats until it just became one long chain.
they sell tin can trash containers at ikea.. for anyone interested....
I think we have one of those for dog food.
I think a large part of it may be down to the fact that these 'platonic' versions of things make them easier to recognise. With a plastic wheeliebin, it becomes nigh-indistinguishable from a bunch of other objects. I hypothesise that it's all about interesting shapes - just like old rotary phones are more visually interesting than modern ones.
Another point I think is that with a litte divorce from reality, we're more prone to accept the rubber limbs and distorted bodies that are a large part of animation.
I think animation's all about visual interest and expressionism rather than realism, and choosing obsolete-but-more-interesting graphical symbols is just an extension of that.
Good point, I didn't really think about applying it to animation as a whole - at that point the whole argument kind of falls through. The last sentence or two really sums it up nicely, I can definitely see where you're coming from.
I have a metal bin exactly like the one you've drawn... so does everyone else in my street :p
But more to the point of the subject, I think we use generic icons like that so the viewer has to think less about the individual drawings and more of the cartoon as a whole; putting in realistic details would distract from the main subject of the cartoon. It's the same reason why you can almost immediately identify the bad guy in films - he'll be wearing darker, concealing clothes, he'll be in the shadows, and the camera will look up at him to make him look more poweful and dangerous. The audience then doesn't have to think too much about who the person is, as they have immediately identified them as the bad guy, and can absent-mindedly enjoy the plot and action of the film.
Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but I do Media Studies so it's in my programming :)
Chinatown?
yep, I love that movie.
Hello!
hi?
Luis
Well... i think that animation has always been one of those things that is never really out to recreate reality the way a still life painting does.. its more of a series of visual shortcuts to lead to you believe that characters are moving the way they are or that they are in the settings they've been placed in... so to make it accessible to everyone they use generilizations of nonessential objects for the sake of connecting with all sorts of audiences across all sorts of cultures.. it just makes sense to take advantage as an animator of the accepted 'norms' of the general public's perception of things... i think if you were to use a 'real life' trash can or like in your movie: 'Good Morning' where you have that deodorant stick... it complicates my life as a viewer cause we start to try to FORCE mental connections with the object BECAUSE you made it so true to life and not the iconic representation. I dunno you bring up a very interesting question though.. you should bring it up in the Reg Lounge or point people over here.... ITS SO LONELY POSTING HERE..
ConAir
I was actually gonna do that, gotta update my sig first though.