4 ms·
To go a little bit further on this argument: I was dissapointed because the whole point of making this film turned out to be for nothing. Instead of animation,
by vincvinc 3y ago
To go a little bit further on this argument: I was dissapointed because the whole point of making this film turned out to be for nothing.
Instead of animation, it felt to me like just a live action film with a fiter. Sure, the filter in this case took many man-hours to produce, and as stills felt pretty, but there was something vital missing.
I found this hard to put into words, but here goes:
Actual animation thinks about how to present perspective, movement, character, etc. This film chose to paint over moving pictures, and in that way literally took over all the 'real' visual elements without making any choices in them. Compared to almost any anime, it feels lifeless and an under-use of the medium, IMO.
- iainmerrick 3y agoRight, it's almost entirely rotoscoping. I don't think that makes it intrinsically bad or less worthy -- e.g. "A Scanner Darkly" is rotoscoped and I thought that was terrific. But in this case I totally agree, they didn't add anything beyond the one big gimmick.
- Hoasi 3y agoIt's all about the story. Does the style used serves the story? It would be much simpler to experiment with such a film about Van Gogh today with the help of machine learning. But the story has to live up to the visuals. Art and story must complement each other in a way that makes the style use undeniable, not just a gimmick.