![]() ![]() Sorry to change the topic, but hopefully to stay on the broader underlying topic here… The motion is, in terms used by Chuck Jones, believable as opposed to realistic. ![]() While an animator can pick them out, they're invisible to the audience because all of them are based on motions we've experienced in life. Anticipation, stretch and squash, overshoot and recoil, line of action, follow through, overlapping action, drag, staggers, slow ins and slow outs, contrast in timing, etc. The principles of animation are all here. All of that is accomplished purely through motion. We can empathize with the character's experiences. ![]() Yet the way the four sack moves presents us with a character that is indisputably alive. ![]() The above is stripped bare: no sound, no colour, no texture, no face, few details. Animation also veers between stylization with no resemblance to human behaviour or a leaden attempt at realism that fails to achieve the complexity of live acting. These days, motion is either limited and cliched or buried under textures and effects. I'm including it here because it is a clear reminder of the expressive power of motion. The above animation is by Ron Zorman, who did it with TVPaint. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |