Kajenx 2012-09-10 06:44:27

They didn't like it? It's funny, what else does it need?

People think too much about art...

I-smel 2012-09-10 09:10:59

Here's an example of what your teacher was trying to say that isn't completely slow and boring:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkykBaUxGB8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkykBaUxGB8</a>

Also 3D isn't a medium.
You're ON TO SOMETHING here, but I think you've missed the real point. The things you're talking about are like goofy lil gimmicks. It's something you can only do in cartoons, technically, but it's not what cartoons are good for or best at.
What you should read, buddy, is JohnK's blog on "specific acting". John Kricfalusi loved cartoons for the sake of expressing thoughts and emotions through the shapes of the characters.
<a href="http://johnkstuff.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/specific%20acting?updated-max=2011-10-21T16:37:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=2&by-date=false">http://johnkstuff.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/
specific%20acting?updated-max=2011-10-21T16:37 :00-07:00&max-results=20&start=2&b y-date=false</a>
He knows cartoons can be WAY better at this than anything else, and would twist n squeeze dudes into pictures that speak a thousand words. He's a big fan of classic actors who are the closest thing to this in real life.
He HATES cartoons that don't take advantage of it, and it's like "why did you bother animating this if everyone's gonna be so stilted?"
So yeah: You'll like reading about that.

PPKs 2012-09-10 17:39:48

I do not share the same idea as John Kricfalusi about cartoons and animation. It's about expressing thoughts and emotions like he said, but I'm not going to twist and squeeze characters or making dumb faces or doing a visual gag just to remember you that you are watching an animation.

If an animation can also be translated easily to a live action, that doesn't mean its bad. It's not about using the medium correctly, It's about conveying your message correctly. That is the purpose of doing an animation.

Gianni 2012-09-10 22:34:23

Art can be done however somebody wants to do art. Like you said, there's no right or wrong. Writing and acting are both forms of art, as well as animation. There's nothing inherently WRONG about fusing the worlds, and I don't really see it as "not taking full advantage of the medium", but perhaps it's more "not putting the medium in the spotlight, with no other mediums featured in the project."

Picking The Proud Family is a bit of an unfair choice, since if I remember right, that show was pretty mediocre. As it would be expected to be, since it was a cartoon pumped out for the sake of generating income like a lot of commercial network shows, entertaining children with the type of basic dribble a child would have no deep critique of, and was potentially conceived when some concerned rights-obsessed fellow said "Hm. This station needs more black."

I'm not attacking your view on it though, I do like your idea, and I think there are some artists on here that fuse the varied arts with ways that deeply explore all of them, especially with some really weird and crazy animation styles coming about. I just think you should be careful not to come off as basically saying "Fuck writers and actors, they're just weighing glorious animation down."

Some artists or animators will focus on one specific field, opting out of bringing in other elements, and some really beautiful things have come from that. Also, some really pretentious things with relatively poor production quality, which the author tries to justify by basically saying "You just don't get the beauty, man." It really goes all ways. Art comes down to simply doing what you like to do, and always improving with your skill of the task.