| [ |
mood |
| |
 blah |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
[kamelot][karma] |
] |
Animations ranging from Disney's first "Steamboat Willie" to modern day graphics that could almost be mistaken for a real human actor have affected the viewer and the way they respond to what they are seeing. Due to the way the audience and myself reacted to animations such as Chris Landreth's seemingly experimental "The End" versus the more realistic approach provided by Square Picture's "Final Fantasy," we perceived just how an animation could affect the viewer into either being engaged or discouraged from the story.
When discussing in class how technology was extremely limiting on artists in the past, we also discussed how animators, such as those from Pixar's "Toy Story," who instead of deciding to animate complex characters, stuck with the idea of toys. It never really occurred to me, when watching "Toy Story," that Pixar had any obstacles in creating these characters. What really surprised me however, was even though they were "toys" instead of realistic human characters, they were still capable of evoking emotions. However, when watching "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within," even though the characters were created with more realism, they still lacked a sort of connecting element to them, making the audience not so engaged in the story as it should have been. Although, in a way, I feel biased when making this assumption, because I side with the half that did not enjoy the story, but still enjoyed the animation (at the time). However, I know a ton of people who still like this movie and will swear to it being a masterpiece. Then again, when "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children" came out on DVD, there was a giant fan base that reacted so strongly. Even though it was basically a sequel to a video game, which a lot of people who have not played it, will not understand. However, that leads this to the point of, "Is it always necessary to have the audience completely understand what is happening, what a certain character does and what they represent?" For me, it kind of takes away from a story, when every bit is explained. For example, upon watching Chris Landreth's "The End," where most metaphor's were supposedly explained at the end, then it just seems like a parody. When hearing each metaphor's purpose, it really made me think about the way a viewer would "search" a movie. I say "search," because, when hearing a lot of people talk about movies they always add an "I wish..." or an "I expected..." and in the end, it seems that no one can really please a viewer. When someone watches a movie, looks at an art piece, they each have their own interpretation and expectation for what they are looking at.
When looking at James Duesing's piece, I had mixed feelings. Duesing's piece, although crudely animated, still contained an engaging story. However, seeing the rough animation style at first, you do not expect much from the animation so your eyes just kind of wash over it and focus more on the story (which most likely was the artist's intent). So the bit of expectation still lay in the piece, however it wasn't an expectation for something better, but for the animation style to remain constant, to not interrupt the flow of the story. However, when viewers experienced the first "Final Fantasy" movie, they expected things to be so life-like and for the story to be so fantastic, that they set their bar too high to enjoy the story. In a way, I experienced that. When I first saw it, I admit, I thought it was amazing. However, looking back at it now, and realizing how technology really changed since then, instead of looking at the movie and simply "watching" it, I began "analyzing." So, in the end, I really think it is all up to what the viewer "expects" and their own personal idea of what is watchable and what is unbearable.
|
bouncy
uncomfortable