The Changing Definition of Modern Animation

As technology and techniques evolve, so does animation, an industry that’s gone through as many changes as live-action filmmaking. To get an idea of how far animation has come, you only have to cue up an older animated film like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and compare it to a newer piece like Rango.

And animation techniques continue to advance. Consider The Adventures of Tintin, which debuted last year. On the surface, the average viewer would likely classify Tintin as an animated film.

Yet as a result of this year’s Oscar nominations, some are questioning what animation means—and where the line is drawn (no pun intended!) between animated and live-action films. Tintin was left off the Oscar nominations for animated films, although that could have more to do with a lack of votes as opposed to whether or not Tintin fits the criteria for animated films.

So what makes Tintin different from other animated films? As Helen O’Hara writes for Empire States, “Those who consider Tintin live-action do so on the basis that there were actors who provided the basis for the characters’ performances. They not only voiced the characters, as in traditional animation, but made every decision for their movement and expression as well.”

Despite the heavier influence of actors, the fact remains that Tintin characters were completed and polished by animators. And using voice actors to influence animated characters is nothing new. Animators video the voice actor in order to rely on the visual reference when capturing certain facial expressions or body language.

Using Tintin as an example, O’Hara points to a larger industry issue: animation vs. live-action films, and how these classifications influence award nominations and industry recognition.

“The best thing to do, it seems to me, is to get rid of the animation ghetto and start considering the animation form alongside live-action films on an equal footing,” she writes. “…the current system is bizarre and unjust; animated films are being overlooked on their merits.”

As someone who’s spent much of my life in the animation industry, I’ll always be a champion for this artful approach to filmmaking and that it deserves as much acclaim as other techniques. Technology will continue to evolve, and so, too, will animation. More and more filmmakers are pushing the envelope when it comes to creating animated films, and that innovation should be celebrated, not isolated.

Image via The Adventures of Tintin official site

Written by Brenda on Feb 10, 2012 in Animation, Filmmaking | 6 comments

http://justatad.wordpress.com/ Corey Atad

Great post. I’d asked you about this on Twitter and it’s nice to see you go into more detail. Interestingly, when I asked you on Twitter if you thought there was a totally successful all-CGI motion-capture film you said “Avatar”. Which, of course isn’t all CGI, though you might have just misread.

Avatar is an interesting case, though. Here you have a movie with way more animation (motion-capture or otherwise) for the characters and the environment than, say Alvin and the Chimpunks, which was eligible for an Oscar for Best Animated Feature based on its use of animated characters alone. Yet Avatar was sold by Cameron not as a motion-capture animated film, but as a live-action film with motion-capture used as a special effects tool.

Now, I can partly see the distinction between Tintin and Avatar on the level that Tintin is its own fully virtual animated world, whereas the world of Pandora in Avatar is meant as an extension of the “real” live-action world of our planet. But then I just wonder is the line too blurred? Well, they were always blurred.

Snow White had its human characters largely rotoscoped. The 50s sci-fi movie Forbidden Planet contains a number of effects shots that were done with 2D animation techniques (animated by Disney as I recall). Much of modern visual effects is done using CG animated characters, often not even motion-captured. Avatar is not animated (a distinction chosen by the director) but Alvin is animated. So not only is the line between motion-capture and key-frame animation blurred, the line between what is animation and what is live-action has been completely blurred in the world of modern effects and computer rendering.

There were people this year calling for Andy Serkis to get an Oscar nomination for his work on Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and while I love the sentiment, I don’t entirely agree. If Serkis wins, does that mean the Academy is just honouring him, or would they include the dozens or hundreds of artists who literally altered and adapted his performance digitally? It’s a conundrum. The blurring of the line.

I do want to say that I think that while the ghettoization of animated features at the Oscars is unfortunate, it does do good. It’s not like before the award was created animated features were treated with that much respect artistically, Beauty and the Beast being the lone slight-exception. Take a look at the 1995 awards. The Oscars had no problem nominating a family film, Babe, for Best Picture, but they didn’t lend the same favour to Toy Story. The nice thing about the Animated Feature award is that it highlights these animated films that wouldn’t otherwise be highlighted at such a ceremony. This is true of Rango, and it’s especially true of films like Chico and Rita and The Secret of Kells. Separating the categories isn’t ideal, but some good does come of it.

Sorry for the super long comment, it’s a topic I really enjoy dwelling on.

Anonymous

Hi, Corey.
My bad about AVATAR. Oddly when I think of it, I only think of the animated aspect. Hmmm. I guess I like that particular shade of blue.
I know, I am very torn on the subject myself. Yes, I think animation should be considered filmmaking and not just kiddie faire… that has been an annoyance to me for years. However, I agree – animation wouldn’t get the time of day at the Oscars if it didn’t have its own category. I still haven’t quite forgiven Liza Minnelli or Shirley MacClaine for their snarky comments about Beauty and the Beast during the Oscars that year.
I’ve often wondered that instead of a separate category differentiating between animation and live-action, if there should be a different category for characters that are a combination of live actor and animators – maybe limiting the animator to the lead(s).
Another thing I’ve wondered is if it would be folly or judicious to have an award category of Best Picture for Children and Best Picture for… the grown ups.
I dont’ have the answers, but like you, I enjoy pondering it.
I think this is the longest response I’ve given so far!

Pingback: Can Anything Be More Inspiring? | Brenda Chapman
http://theaterbalcony.wordpress.com/ Theater Balcony

Great post Brend

Brenda Chapman

Thanks!

Deliagosman

Enjoy your blog Brenda
What’s interesting about Rango and Snow White is even though they may seem very different visually, how they made both films are very similar.
Rango was storyboarded on paper, then all the actors were assembled for 3 weeks where the character acting was filmed in live action then it was given to ILM who key framed the animation using the live reference. That’s pretty much the pre 60′s disney methodology.