The best of animation

[Andy Turnbull]

As opposed to a which is better thread following the chat in the Up thread. Let's just have us cite examples of the best of animation and see if we can get folks to check it out if they haven't or post their thoughts if they have.

I'd like to kick things off with my personal favourite cel-animation. It is the Fleischer brothers Superman cartoons - more info here and here.

They are quite simply breathtaking. The first time I saw them was on a random video compilation which had a half dozen or so of these cartoons when I was about eight or nine. The gorgeous painted backdrops, lush colour and pioneering use of rotoscoping combine to make dense little features.

As an aside the short The Mechanical Monsters features the first Transforming robot.

The cartoons are in the public domain and there are several cheap versions available on DVD. The recent releases of the Christopher Reeve Superman films handily had a remastered set of these episodes. Half with the four disc Superman and the other half on the two disc Superman 2. Although these remasters are being packaged and released on their own at some point soon.

If you have even a passing interest in Superman you will enjoy them. Indeed it's thanks to the cartoons that Superman can fly.

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Everyone knows what I'm going to say - the very best Warner Bros. cartoons, directed by the likes of Tex Avery, Bob Clampett, Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng and Bob McKimson. Together with Mel Blanc's voices, they made their characters come alive in a way that I haven't seen done by any technique since.

They would draw key images of poses and facial expressions that, if you freeze on them, are more dynamic and expressive than any still images of the same characters drawn for comics or as standalone promotional material - every piece of Looney Tunes homage art that I've seen, e.g. in Looney Tunes comics, has been inferior in terms of giving the characters life, to pictures drawn by the master directors that are only intended to be glimpsed for a fraction of a second. A silent Road-Runner comic strip made up entirely of key stills from a Chuck Jones cartoon would have more life and characterisation than any Road-Runner comic strip that I've seen, which has been drawn as a comic strip.

Then they took these simple but expertly judged key images and had teams of animators do the bits in-between to create motion - but the director then added the second key element lost in recent decades - timing. It's like charisma - you can't teach it, if you haven't got it, you'll never get it, and these guys had it.

Throw in the Carl Stalling music, Mel Blanc's voices, and you have animation in the truest sense - everything comes to life.

Just play this YouTube clip and freeze frame at random to see the care that goes into individual drawings, showing character movement and expression, and show me anything that compares in modern animation.

Lesser masterworks of animation in my experience include Miyazaki's work - Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle - but his talent wasn't really for the animation (i.e. bringing of life, through poses, expressions and timing of movement) so much as gorgeously imaginative three-dimensional settings. Similarly 'Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas'.

'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' was excellent, and achieved great things in merging cartoon and live-action, but the timing of pause and movement, and the poses and expressions, weren't up to Golden Age Warner Bros. standards.

Probably the best work in terms of judging when to pause and when to move, i.e. timing, that I've seen in recent years has been Nick Park's model work, in Creature Comforts and Wallace and Gromit.

Martin

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jun 26, 2009 22:01:58 GMT Andy Turnbull said:

I'd like to kick things off with my personal favourite cel-animation. It is the Fleischer brothers Superman cartoons - more info here and here.

They all seem to be on YouTube.

As is the Looney Tunes homage to Fleischer Superman:



Martin

[Hero]

I've been seeing Fleisher Superman stuff in the poundshops for quite a while and should have picked up some episodes ages ago. The only stuff I've seen are cutaways and clips on Smallville boxset extras. The art style is pretty darn decent, and I can tell it paved the way for other toons beyond it.

Who came first. Stooperduck or Duck Dodgers?

[Kingoji]

I can't let a thread like this pass me by without mentioning the obvious.

Akira is a true masterpiece.

[legios]

I would have to second or third (I've lost track) Andy's nomination of the Fleischer Superman cartoons. The level of craftsmanship in them is just truly outstanding - both in terms of the animation (which is visually more impressive than a lot of modern work), the richness of the backdrops - and in the way they squeeze every drop of value out of their running time. They are short 'toons but absolutely full of incident. In many ways they remain the benchmark for superhero cartoons to this day.

In terms of Direction in animation I would have to cite Miyasaki-sensei as one of the greats. He has an eye for scene composition and for story flow that I have a lot of respect for.

Karl

[Andy Turnbull]

I feel I must rewatch them tonight.

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

I dunno, I've just watched a second Superman cartoon, and I agree that their merits are similar to those of Miyazaki, in the care that goes into each frame, and the smooth movement. However, the characters themselves don't convey the sense of individual personality and genuine life that I associate with the literal meaning of the word 'animation' - unlike the Looney Tunes characters, which - like the Muppets and Wallace and Gromit - appear as real, living, self-aware characters with real emotions. There's something a bit too stylised and polished in the characters in the more lavish productions that results in them remaining moving drawings rather than jumping out of the screen at me.

Maybe it's simply that it takes a spirit of silliness to create life from moving drawings and lumps of plasticine.

Martin

[Deleted]

Although I'm not a fan of the Looney Tunes cartoons (I used to love them as a kid but I just grew out of them unlike most other kids shows I watched as a kid) I do enjoy a bit of Wallace & Grommit. The train chase is a truly magnificent piece of animation and it took my breath away the first time I saw it.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jul 6, 2009 22:46:37 GMT @zudobug said:

(I used to love them as a kid but I just grew out of them unlike most other kids shows I watched as a kid)

*** splutters outraged ***

I grew into them when I was about 20. And they were never intended as kids shows, they were made and screened originally in cinemas for all ages. They're basically slapstick/wordplay, like a mixture of Chaplin, Keaton, Laurel & Hardy with Inspector Clousaeau and the Goon Show, which may not be everyone's cups of tea, but you wouldn't say they were made particularly for kids.

Martin

[The Doctor]

I find the Looney Tunes to be extremely finely crafted indeed (amazing artistry involved), but as an adult I do find them a chore to watch. Dunno why. Bought a DVD once and just couldn't watch it all. Adored them as a nipper.

-Ralph

[Andy Turnbull]

Quick someone hold Martin back!!!

I always loved the Looney Tunes, my mum and maternal granddad were big fans and it was imprinted on me in my very early youth. To this day the three Bugs, Daffy and Elmer cartoons can have me in tears of laughter.

Bugs - "You're a dirty skunk."
Daffy - "I'm a dirty skunk? I'M A DIRTY SKUNK?"
Bugs holds up sign saying "Dirty Skunk Season Open" and Elmer promptly shoots Daffy in the face.

Priceless!

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

*** calms down ***

Thank you, Andy. Have some karma.

Martin

[Andy Turnbull]

Many thanks.

It's a shame that the Looney Tunes stuff is now only on Cartoon Network and it's channels. It was always good when they used to have scheduling issues during daytime tv and they would cheekily throw in a WB cartoon to plug the gap.

Fond memories.

Andy

[The Doctor]

I don't think they're rubbish!!!

I still have a lot of residudal childhood affection for the shows. I just don't get the same feeling from then now as I did then.

-Ralph

[Deleted]

Me too. I'll still watch them to this day but I won't enjoy them as much as I used to which is odd coming from someone who is obsessed with watching 80's kids shows!

[kayevcee]

I love Looney Tunes as much now as I did when I was a kid. Perhaps more, since I can appreciate the artistry and timing that goes into all of them.

To be honest, I look at most of Warner Bros' output as the gold standard of (American) animation- their superhero franchises are some of the best things on telly and even the spinoff series like Zeta Project and Static Shock, while not all that great, are at least competently written and produced. The best of their series, like Batman:TAS and Justice League just blow the mind. Even their comedy stuff like Animaniacs and Freakazoid possess a zany charm and an animation budget and quality that Transformers hasn't had since Mainframe was in charge.

-Nick

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Fleischer's Superman and Bugs Bunny both feature in this DVD set:

www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/whvanimationcollection.php

Not for me, since I have most of them in others sets, but may be of interest to people with a wider taste in the golden age of hand-drawn animation. (Be warned though that there are two versions, one with the 15 Oscar winners and one with the 15 winners plus the 26 nominees.)

Here's a question for this thread: How important do you guys rate the voice characterisation of a cartoon character?

Clearly I don't think a cartoon or plasticine character needs a voice at all to come to life (Road-Runner/Coyote, the Pink Panther, Gromit) if the visual characterisation is good. However, if a character does have a voice I would say that it needs to be something special. A brilliantly drawn cartoon with mediocre voice acting is brought down to the level of the lesser talent.

Looney Tunes had Mel Blanc, Wallace has Peter Sallis, the Muppets had Jim Henson and Frank Oz, Creature Comforts had real people talking naturally. In The Goon Show (on the radio), Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan created cartoon characters with their voices in the absence of any visual animation.

Looney Tunes cartoons were pretty lifeless after Blanc died - his successors all sounded like people doing impressions of the characters - they almost looked like cartoons which are dubbed from a foreign language.

What about non-comedy animation? Do the voice talents need to be geniuses? Is great animation spoilt by bad acting?

These days the fashion in animated movies is to get celebrity names to voice cartoon characters (and CG robots). It rarely works for me, since their talents are usually not in this area. It seems more like the name is just there to put on the poster and sell the film rather than because the voice is best for the character. But there are exceptions.

Thoughts? Does the voice need to be as good as the visuals to do the visuals justice, or can a character come fully to life with great visual animation coupled with mediocre voice acting?

Martin

PS Here's an '18-rated' Looney Tunes cartoon, definitely not for kids. Neither directed by one of the greats nor voiced by Mel Blanc, so it doesn't really come alive for me, but still might raise a chuckle:

[Deleted]

I agree that having celebrities voicing cartoon characters does nothing for me even though they did it in Transformers the Movie. A good character voice can actually improve a cartoon in my opinion and actually give a bit more life to the show. In the early nineties a cartoon series of the Tintin comic books were made and these were largely faithful to the original books but what I really enjoyed was the voice acting. The voices seemed to be perfect for the characters they represented and added to the charm. No other cartoon that I've seen has had this kind of effort made to find the right voices.

[The Doctor]

Voice acting makes or breaks animation, for me. When the voice fits the pictures it's gold.

-Ralph

[legios]

*MEEP! MEEP!*

(Roadrunner would wish to argue that he does too have a voice, just not a lot of variety in his dialogue) :-)

For me voice acting is fairly important. It can have a huge influence on how I feel about a show. A good voice cast can lift an otherwise mediocre show and can turn a good show into a classic. Vice-versa, poor voice acting cuts a show off at the knees.
Superb voice acting is the reason I am fond of the old Thor cartoon for example - it can only be described as animation with the greatest sense of charity but the levels of melodrama provided by a voice cast who are putting their all into it lift it far above the plane it would reach from its visuals alone.

Whether it is in comedy in drama the quality of the performance is absolutely vital. It is more than just being able to read lines well, it is a matter of being able to create a real sense of a character vocally. Just giving a line-reading is pretty much the worst thing you can do in animation, if you don't create a sense of the character existing in between frames then you just get someone saying the lines in time with the animation and that sucks the magic right out of it. When a character has dialogue then the way that dialogue is delivered is as much a part of the whole art of constructing that character as is the physical performance of the animation. If they don't match up for some reason then the resulting dissonance can harm a production immensely.

It is why I am oft-dissappointed when actors are picked based on their profile in live-action performances, because these things are often very different performance styles and often someone who hasn't worked in the voice world hasn't developed the necessary skillset compared with people with more experience. It saddens me to see people chosen on the basis of their name recognition and as a result denying that work to actors who are much better suited to it. Sometimes it works - there are some predominately live action actors who do have the chops for it- but a lot of the time it doesn't.

To arrive, eventually, at the short answer - the voice acting is every bit as crucial as the physical quality of the animation. If one is lacking then it makes the other shine a little less bright. Voice actors rarely get a lot of credit, but they are a fundamental part of most animation as far as I am concerned.

Karl

[Deleted]

I'm of the opinion that the only celebrities that have done well at voice acting are the ones that have portrayed cartoon characters similar to the kind of character they have played in live action movies.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Howl's Moving Castle - Calcifer the fire demon had a very appropriate nasally lilting voice in the Japanese version - almost Mexican, reminding me of Speedy Gonzales. Then Disney or whoever dubbed it into English and gave the role to... Billy Crystal, using his normal voice. What the-?!

Billy, I liked you as Miracle Max in The Princess Bride, but... gah. Terribly miscast here.

Martin

[Bogatan]

One reason I've never loved most of dreamworks output is that promoting the film means telling me who the celebrity voices are. Really if thats the best you have to offer I really dont feel the need to watch. Pixar and Disney may have some big names, but they dont get pushed to the foreground and most of Pixars end up with animators or other production members in the final product because the voice worked to well to replace.

The Lassetter dubbed Miyazaki films films do seem to get promoted too heavily for my taste, but convincing a wider western audience to view the films may require that approach and still its top notch work and the original dubs are on the DVD so harm done.

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Here's a masterclass in what can be done with cheap and simple animation. Made in 1977, so I'm not going to save it up for the 1980s A-Z thread. Besides, it's too cultured to be fully appreciated by children.









More eps on YouTube.

Martin

[Deleted]

Although it was made in the 70's it was repeated in the 80's and remember enjoying watching it back in the day. It was one of those bizarre cartoons that only the 70's could have dreamed up and is a classic as far as I'm concerned.

[Deleted]

Did anybody hear that Roy Disney had died in late 2009? This news had completely passed me by until I read an obituaries section in yesterdays paper. As some people may know he was the successor to the great Walt Disney himself (he was Walt's nephew) and he was the head of the company for many years. His wikipedia entry can be found here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_E._Disney

[Grand Moff Muffin]

After careful consideration, the single piece of animation that I have the greatest respect for in all the world is not now a Warner Bros cartoon.

Is there anything that modern animation techniques can teach the masters of half a century ago? Every sequence in this is a gem.



Martin

[Grand Moff Muffin]

A speedy run through the evolution of cartoons:



Martin

[Toph]

I have no clue how this is the first time I've seen this thread.

Miyazaki (and Studio Ghibli) is truly the master of our time.

I've said this elsewhere, but I think what sets him (them) apart is his ability to find the magic and wonder in the mundane. The locations are as much a character in the story as the characters, if not more so. His worlds look lived in.
I've never been to a japanese bathhouse (obviously), and I know they don't actually look like that. But the bathhouse in Spirited Away feels like a place I've been to. I can almost smell it. I can almost feel the steam. The chipped, faded paint on the aging wood. Can almost hear the creaking of the floor under my feet.
The house from Totoro. The shop from Whispers of the Heart. Howl's Castle. The flooded town in Ponyo. It's like this in nearly every Ghibli film.

The magic in the mundane. Very few western filmmakers (live action or animation) have ever understood this in the way that Studio Ghibli had mastered it.

I think one of my favorite underappreciated masterpieces is The Book of Life. Just... Gorgeous.
The Prince of Egypt, I was just thinking last night about how stunning that movie was.
Kubo and the Two Strings. Anything Laika, really.

As for celebrities doing voice acting, I don't mind them at all if they have something to contribute. Celebrities who can do actual voice work like Alan Tudyk, or understand how to project and actually act through their voice like Kevin Klein and Will Ferrell, or just have a wholly uniqueness to their voice like Gillian Anderson of course all get my vote.
Not terribly interested in someone who's cast exclusively for their name like Drew Barrymore or Matt Damon. (Much as I love Titan AE, they just sound bored next to Nathan Lane and Janeane Garofalo. Which is sad because I know that wasn't their intent. They just didn't know how to act exclusively through their voices)