Recently, I have been busy with cleaning up my apartment, taking classes in Photography and Drawing, and spending time with family and friends as much as I can. That isn't to say that I am making an excuse. I really should just update my blog more often, and therefor I will be making no more excuses, and I will just update my blog.
From here on out, my posts will overall be shorter, but I plan to continue to do movie reviews at least once a week. I have a lot of things to talk about, and am anxious to get started again!
First I would like to get people used to who I am, and what I think about.
For one, I have a BA in Digital Art at George Mason University, I have a passion for animation and film, and I am currently attending SCAD for animation, and I hope to get an MA. I like to have and share my opinions with others, and I respect everyone's opinions as long as they are logically sound. I believe in skepticism and you should investigate things on your own, and not just listen to rumors. I am often proven wrong about things, and so I admit I am not always right, but I take these opportunities to learn and adapt my opinions.
Animation for me is a pure form of film as art. Of course I love traditional film, with sequential photographs synchronized to sound, but animation is taking the limitations of photography out of the picture. With animation, you are only limited by your skill and your imagination. Granted, budgets are a major part of this as well. Animation is all about being visually stunning, each and every element of the image being painstakingly crafted, so the overall visual field is a work of pure imagination and talent.
Animation is old, older than photography. The original attempt at animation date back thousands of years to cave drawings which depicted movement through multiple limbs in different positions. There has even recently been discovered a bowl in Iran that dates back 5,200 years that uses a form of animation called a zoetrope. Throughout the ages, people have tried to mimic movement in art, from Phantasmagoria to the Thaumatrope to the Phenakistoscope. Animation made it's mark in film 1900 with "The Enchanted Drawing", which depicted a man drawing a face, and then interacting with the face and other drawn objects. 6 years later, the same man, J. Stuart Blackton, created the first fully animated film with "Humorous Phases of Funny Faces". The oldest films date back to the 1880s, meaning that animation has been a part of cinema since the very beginning.
Today, animation is seen as something more for children than adults. True, there are the few adult animations like Heavy Metal and Fritz the Cat (among others), but the biggest industry for animation not solely aimed for children or families has been the Japanese Anime industry. Today, you are as likely to find an anime intended for an adult audience with an 18+ rating as you are to find one for a small child. Despite this, animation still suffers from an identification crisis. Adults don't watch "cartoons", and anime is for "fanboys" and "perverts". Luckily, this has not held back the animation industry, although it has had many rough times. Even Walt Disney himself grew tired of making animations, and focused on live-action films such as 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Mary Poppins, and Davy Crockett.
For me, I like to explore animation not only for the innocence and whimsy they often portray, but also the art, the technical aspects, and the various themes. I embrace animations for older audiences, and find joy in truly family films.
I will talk more about all aspects of animation, while I continue on my quest to earn an MA and find my way into the animation industry.
Other topics I will cover include video games (or interactive media/interactive animation), 3d (or stereoscopic), theaters, film, and even IMAX. If you haven't read it yet, check out my explanation of IMAX using the search bar.
Briefly, I will mention 3D and IMAX, as per requested. I feel 3D (stereoscopy) has a place in the future. It has been around since the 1800's as many early photographers wanted to explore depth in their work. I both like it and dislike it as it stands now. There are times when 3D is used correctly, and actually can add another element to the visual field, however it has been abused too much and turned into a gimmick. This of course hurts the reputation of 3D. When a film is made with a 3D camera, you usually get a decent 3D effect, however it seems that today there are more "3D" movies coming out that are only made 3D in post-production, which is an atrocity and usually is a gimmick to add $5 to your ticket. 3D can cause headaches, eye strain, and can even be bad for children's eyes. And yet, people still go to movies to see 3D films, and 3D has started to invade homes more than ever. I suspect it will be here to stay, even if it starts to lose money. I can only hope they perfect the technology, and stop making 2D films and then converting them into 3D! Either make your film 2D, or 3D, don't fake it! I can't blame anyone for getting turned off by 3D, with the massive price tag and gimmick factor it has lately been sporting.
"But wait, I saw Harry Potter/Batman/Transformers/Superman/Spiderman/etc. in IMAX and heard it was filmed in IMAX." Sure you did, and the pope wears a thong. Seriously though, what you usually run into with major films are either IMAX DMR (or "upconverted") films, or partially filmed in IMAX films. The first is a way to take movies like Apollo 13 and make it look better on a large IMAX screen through a complex upconverting process. This actually cannot add any more detail to the image when it is on a large IMAX screen, it only makes it not look as bad as it would had it not gone through that process. As for partially filmed in IMAX movies, usually only 1 or 2 scenes in a film will be made with an IMAX camera, in the IMAX format. The rest of the movie (about 95% of it) will be with a regular camera and probably upconverted as well. Any film that is made with only IMAX film will look far more crisp and detailed than the upconverted films, and will always fill an IMAX screen, while the others will not.
So it is my hope that the IMAX format starts to become more prevalent, and more IMAX format theaters open, rather than Digital IMAX. I enjoy seeing the big screens and seeing big movies on them, and I have never run into a Digital IMAX theater I didn't like, but is it worth the extra money? Probably not. It is not as gimmicky as 3D, unless you see a 3D IMAX movie. However, when it comes to home theaters, which is where most people end up watching movies anyways, IMAX filmed movies will look no better than any other HD movie.
So to sum up:
3D = bad, but with potential, but heading in the wrong direction to get any better anytime soon.
IMAX = be wary of what you are watching and where.
IMAX 3D = hole in your pocket.
Till next time! ADIOS!
No comments:
Post a Comment