What's the point of stop-motion if they use 3D printing for their models anyway? CG has gotten advanced enough to the point where it can replicate the stop-motion aesthetic pretty well. Just look at LEGO Movie.
Isn't this just extra work for the sake of it?
Other urls found in this thread:
While Lego movie it's great, it only looks like stop-motion to the layman.
An art is an art. Just because robots do it better there's no reason to stop performing it.
that's just as retarded as asking why not all animation is rotoscoped
i've been saying this forever. i don't understand at all anymore. why are they 3d printing out every frame?
also, why does this movie make everyone's eyes so high on their head? did they just fail basic design?
no, that's like asking why rotoscope when you can take live video footage and run it through a rotoscope filter.
now i feel that all 3d art should be 'hand' posed using hand capture, because fuck cursors, but.. it should still be done on a computer. why bother with drawing in pencil and ink when you can just replicate that in photoshop?
Because the medium itself colors your perception of a thing. There's a show airing in Japan right now called Thunderbolt Fantasy. It's a fairly generic wuxia-like magic martial arts story. The music is okay, the fights are pretty cool, the tone is standard but fun. Even has a cliche "evil guys want the magic sword" plot. But what made people notice it was the fact that it's performed with Taiwanese puppetry. And the puppetry is really very good. Could it have been a normal toku show? Probably. Even uses a lot of the same effects. But the actual impact of the show wouldn't be the same.
Good art will always impress, and part of that is the actual material used to produce it. This isn't to say CGI can't impress with the effort it took. Like people have said, the Lego Movie is a testament to good art in CGI. But it would take just as much work to make Kubo look as good and as "authentic" as it does with CGI, as it did to do it with stop motion. Why put in the same amount of effort to fake it as you could to make it legit. Remember, a lot of shit in the Lego movie would've been harder or impossible to do the same in traditional stop motion. Like those fake smears and inbetweens. Maybe not totally impossible, but difficult enough tat CGI was justified.
And, you know. They already have experienced stop motion artists working for them. Why fire them all and get a new team to do the exact same thing?
It's not so much printing every single frame so much as they have a greater freedom with lipsync and expression options with the 3D printers versus how they had to hand-sculpt Jack Skellington faces back in the 90s.
You underestimate them.
I'd imagine that it's so that after the models are printed they can manually add texturing and effects that would otherwise be available only to high level CG.
Also maybe for a certain hand-hewed aesthetic.
Those are just guesses though.
It's not the same.
What point is there to criticizing how they produce their stop motion models? Would you rather the animators mold the characters all out of silly putty with their hands?
Can't wait to see Kubo in theaters. Haven't seen if they released any clips yet, but I'd rather avoid those.
>LEGO Movie
>Stop motion aesthetic
No. Fuck you.
Yes, actually. Not silly putty, but I respect manual craft over digital, it's just a pet peeve.
Why make animation at all when you can just make live action
Stupid OP
Use question marks.
It's still handcrafted work for the most part though. 3D printing is just face parts and some of the inner workings.
>people calling the LEGO Movie good
>Isn't this just extra work for the sake of it?
Art isn't known for efficiency nor is it necessarily needed.
Well what didn't you like about it?
The live action segments
Don't get me wrong, the animation was good, but the story was forced, bland, and appealing to the lowest common denominator. I didn't laugh once and was ready to bolt the theater when it was done,which was unfortunate, I was really looking forward to it before it came out
Animation, particularly stop motion, is a pain in the ass, so it's good that people are finding inventive ways to facilitate the tedious process and keep stop motion alive, instead of resorting to just straight up making CG movies.
There's numerous reasons why Laika sticks with stop motion
>Laika's CEO is an animator who founded the company as a pet project
>The studio has mastered a niche art form that makes them stand out from other animated films
>There are some things that can't be replicated in 3-D so there's a possibility the animation would lose some of its charm
>Professional stop motion animation is becoming harder and harder to come by these days so they may wish to keep the technique alive
Because the process is completely different.
They're not printong out every single frame. Just the models. They're still posed for each frame as before.
>Laika's CEO is an animator who founded the company as a pet project
It helps that he's the son of the founder/chairman of Nike
Definitely. Laika was not made to make a profit, this is very much a passion project.
Screw you man, the live action bits made me feel.
>They're not printong
Well, they're not.
there was rumour Laika wants yo do a 2d movie soon, I really want to see some hand drawn animation on the big screen again
>there was rumour
>i don't like the good parts
>MUH CONTRIVED FEELS
Fuck off. You're contributing to the decline of entertainment.
>Why make animation at all when you can just make live action
cause you can't make a live action video game
>I have shitty opinions: the post
If most people were entertained by it, so it isn't declining anything.
Thats what YOU think!
FMV video games were discontinued for a reason you pus guzzling chum goblin.
>Most people in the 1500s believed the Earth was flat.
>Clearly, this means the Earth is flat.
You are the walking talking death of Western society.
they only rotoscope the parts, there are still puppet frames that they hand place every frame
the shape of the earth is less subjective than the quality of a piece of media. you really can't compare them
was watching some behind the scene 30 second clip and the fucker was like it takes 1 week to capture 3 seconds of stop motions for a lot of the scenes
youtube.com
here it is
>lol like y dont they just use computers and stuff for like the whole thing lol wat are they a bunch of nerds
This is what you sound like.
>i like to filter posts through retarded nutshells to feel superior about my low intelligence since i often can't participate in actual discussion with something noteworthy since i'm so busy taking dick in my ass.
That's what you sound like.
I vastly prefer Stop motion over 3d because of how much detail they put into the background, environment and character expressions.
Yeah you could put just as much effort into a 3d film but for some reason they don't as much and the environments never really shine for me as much as they do in stop motion.
idk maybe I just feel like stop motion is special because of how much time they put into it
Why post a pic of Plato and talk about the 150s
i think medium doesnt matter , as long as it tells good, engaging story it's a good movie.
awesome! i cant wait to see it next mon..
>release date in my country: 2nd of december
Of course but every medium has its strengths like for example the fast pace of comics makes creating action scenes that flow into each panel easier as well as telling visual joke.
Well it kinda matters since a story in a visual medium and a story in a written or verbal medium would be different.
I mean just take that lil clip of the giant skeleton here
If this was a book or book on tape, they'd spend half a page describing this monster but in a visual medium instead of describing it they just show you.
Lighting and texture renderers in CGI tend to age pretty poorly and at best look like old videogames. Stop motion films have limitations with design because they can't approach organic realism, but from a toylike aesthetic the textures and lighting effects are more true to life because they're photographs of things that actually exist. Also, CGI films typically cost more to make because produces love making movies fast and CG allows lots of people working on different jobs simultaneously.
And as said
The creation method of a piece of art is never really fully divorced from the audience's understanding because any imperfection shows the seams. Elements that fail to maintain perfect verisimilitude reveal the craft of the product and that informs how an audience appreciates the craftsmanship in the context of the effort put into the piece. Consider a basketball player who can make a half court shot eight out of ten times, is that more or less impressive than a man who builds a machine that can make half court shots nine out of ten times? Both are impressive achievements but the audience contextualizes the effort involved in terms they can understand.
More people have failed at drawing than they have at coding rendering algorithms so there's an impression about the difficulty in thousands of well rendered drawings. (Alternatively, more people have a kid cousin who can draw really well than who have a kid cousin who codes in python, so where do you think you get off asking that much money for drawings?)
Wait, this movie is stop motion?
Looking at the commercials, I thought it was just another CG animated movie.
Nah man Laika still rocking the stop motion and pumping every movie the greatest stop motion ever created.
Laika's stop motion is incredibly smooth.
You could probably make an argument that they should animate more roughly to justify the use of the medium, in a way, telling them to not master their craft. I'm sure you can understand the dichotomy here.
It's like arguing that there's no point in hyper-realistic painting.
In the case of LAIKA though, the majority of main audiences don't know they exist. And a lot of general moviegoers assume the film is CG. The only way for them to know otherwise is little tidbits they include in their films as bonus features, like at the end of BoxTrolls we see the guy animating during the end. But that would require the audience to sit through credits.
For the basketball player, people can physically see the action happening with the person. For LAIKA, it's a lot of "behind the scenes" knowledge that many people will never discover or appreciate.
It's not contrived, you're just a douche.
Because cloth and hair are still a motherfucking nightmare for computers
>Hey, do you want to come with me to watch Kubo and the Two Strings when it comes out
>No thanks. The characters in those stop-motion movies always look ugly to me. And the animation creeps me out.
I need new friends.
It really doesn't help the genre when stop-motion is stagnated to be "Tim Burton creepy stuff". Even Laika's first two films were that. Fuck, people thought Coraline was a Tim Burton product.
It seems like the public conveniently forgot all the Christmas stop-mo shorts that were around. Maybe the name "Nightmare Before Christmas" is fitting after all.