tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19218379.post6692267416928984423..comments2023-09-11T01:08:04.956-07:00Comments on The Blackwing Diaries: Dog days of summer-animal analysisJenny Lerewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06668171465801333811noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19218379.post-61662829258781427522007-08-15T20:56:00.000-07:002007-08-15T20:56:00.000-07:00I've never been too picky about whether non-humans...I've never been too picky about whether non-humans talk to humans in animation - the medium seems tailor-made from the beginning to be a Puss-in-Boots kinda experience, but I don't like the lack of basic, good writing in so many new animated films. If you have a reason for talking critters, for chrissakes have good dialog come outta their mouths, not just weak-ass jokes and rapid-fire blather. As a kid, it wasn't important to understand the why of it, just as long as the characters had interesting things to say - I lost interest rapidly if talking animals were there just to be there. <BR/><BR/>I do appreciate the detail movements that good animated films have - there was plenty of "rattiness" to Ratatouille according to my rat-owning sis-in-law, not to mention the approval of foodies regarding the kitchen scenes, which together of necessity were most of the film. I would go to see a Brad Bird film in a heartbeat just based on his previous work, but so much of the other dreck is repetitive and looks like it came from a massive swipe file somewhere. The other aspect I find grating is the inability of the producers and writers of many of these lame efforts to understand lasting value - a film that can be watched as a generational experience, and not be so tethered to smart-ass, marginal current events, musical trends, and personalities that will prolly be in the dustbin of history way too soon to be appreciated by the viewers' grandkids. A rat will always be a rat, and badly written animation will always be just that, and slamming the two together just to sell a product wouldn't result in a masterpiece like Ratatouille - it would just be another waste of time and money like so many other attempts lately. Sorry, rant over.Vanwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14606489784189165989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19218379.post-65693693616152980162007-08-14T00:18:00.000-07:002007-08-14T00:18:00.000-07:00In most films animal/human communication seems to ...In most films animal/human communication seems to depend on some premise that permits it to happen. The Blue Fairy appoints Jiminy Cricket to look after Pinocchio and being magical, we can presume she done something to enable him speaking ot humans. In Doctor Dolittle, he has studied very hard and acquired the knowledge of animal speech. But in Ratatouille, there is no magic fairy to enable speech and Linguini hasn't studied hard enough to learn Rat. Perhaps there will be some device in Bee Movie that creates a premise for the bee talking to a human.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17347494426830373650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19218379.post-78894046948291736142007-08-13T21:56:00.000-07:002007-08-13T21:56:00.000-07:00An interesting topic that nobody ever seems to thi...An interesting topic that nobody ever seems to think much about. One of the other articles on Michael's site that relates to Ratatouille is Ed Hook's article about "inter-species communication" where he points out how strange he thinks it is that in an upcoming animated movie a bee has a conversation with a human woman. Not to start a controversy or anything but if I remember correctly Jiminy Cricket talked to Pinocchio (who wasn't a human, I know) and also talked to Lampwick as well (who was human, for a while). It seemed to work out okay for that movie, anyway.mark kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11953166248647413142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19218379.post-76969260403635204002007-08-13T21:02:00.000-07:002007-08-13T21:02:00.000-07:00I think perhaps we're overlooking the obvious.In W...I think perhaps we're overlooking the obvious.<BR/><BR/>In Walt's day, the story artists were the screenwriters. We understood animation, and how to use the medium. Today, most animated films are written by Hollywood screenwriters who simply don't get it.<BR/><BR/>That's been my experience, anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19218379.post-39475462400617931702007-08-13T18:59:00.000-07:002007-08-13T18:59:00.000-07:00Hi Jenny,First off, thanks for the kind mention of...Hi Jenny,<BR/><BR/>First off, thanks for the kind mention of my blog regarding this topic. It really is an important subject to consider before getting too far into a story for film. I agree with you that some traits of the animal should be incorporated into its cartoon counterpart whenever possible, as there should ideally be some reason for having "cast" that particular animal in the role in the first place. Although, as in the case you cite of Timothy in "Dumbo", sometimes it is not pragmatic to overstate these animalistic qualities. I think that with Timothy, just the fact that he is a tiny little animal who has had to survive in this human-size environment is enough to justify his streetwise, somewhat scrappy persona. (That and the fact there's this myth we've developed about elephants being inherently terrified of mice!)<BR/><BR/>A film clip I always show in class when covering Anthropomorphism is the animated soccer game sequence from "Bedknobs and Broomsticks". If you analyze the humour in that clip, you'll notice that every gag is built around either the physical aspects of the beast, its particular way of moving, or its personality (or at least, perceived personality) traits. Some examples: the trail of flame created by the speedy cheetah; the kangaroo hopping down the field as it dribbles the ball with its feet; the ball becoming impaled between the tusks of the warthog, etc. Also, the choice of animals to represent each team was considered carefully, so you've got the relatively docile animals as the meek "True Blues", while the "Dirty Yellows" team is comprised of aggressive,vicious beasts who would likely be their predators in nature.<BR/><BR/>I also like this clip as it's a perfect example of what I've defined as category #3 on my handout sheet, in that all of the animals retain their distinct animal physique and appropriate size relationship. (Notice how even the elephant is allowed to keep its big clumsy drum-like feet, rather than attempt to turn the front ones into hands.) In fact, you could take any one of them, strip off the soccer uniform, place them back down on all fours, and they'd be animal characters that could work just as well in a film like "The Lion King". <BR/><BR/>It is attention to things like this that makes me appreciate just how much thought went into the development of so many of the Disney features.Pete Emsliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01451607722482352366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19218379.post-77605584326014887572007-08-13T12:13:00.000-07:002007-08-13T12:13:00.000-07:00I see where ya'll are coming from but I suppose th...I see where ya'll are coming from but I suppose the question of how to treat animal characters is really dependent on the time and situation as well as "does it add anything to the overall story".<BR/><BR/>I think to some degree story ideas for animal characters are only as good as your observations of real life (ie if you are going to be telling a story about Rats in a sewer you might want to seriously look at rats in a real sewer as much as possible). But research aside many animal characteristics are hard to translate to characters that convey human emotions. For example, Dogs are essentially greedy little bastards with no inhibitions and they only understand basic emotions like reward and punishment. All of the complex emotions that we would like to transfer onto them are essentially creations of our own psyche. <BR/><BR/>I think you can try to deduce how animals might react if given the ability to talk and emote, but I also think that it is easy to try and read to much into some characters. Remember that even complex characters on screen are essentially a distillation of very basic human emotions and are not at all complex compared to reality. <BR/><BR/>It can be very easy to over complicate a character by adding to much detail.TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005243985222801761noreply@blogger.com