Walking my Dinosaur

That awkward moment when you know exactly what the next key frame of an animation should look like, know exactly why it should look like that and know the motion involved… But can’t get your hand to understand that information.

This would be so much easier with a CGI rig because you can just drag the control points and let Maya do the work. But that’s why CGI is cheating. 

Note: I’m kidding. CGI has it’s own challenges, I know.

Six hours of work… Still not finished tweening. x~x

I should get used to drawing more. It’s been nice watching a drawing slowly turn into an animation, though. 

Video Game References

I did a short animation for one of my friends.
... Like... Just now. Well, I finished just now (at 3:45am) anyway. Love adding those fine details in postproduction.

MAGICAL TIME ADVENTURE!

I stepped into the TARDIS and went to look at some wonderful things from the past!




Ie: I went to view the Betty Smithers Collection with NóNamé.

Alternate Essay

I miss back when I used to write for fun.

Animated Maniacs and Looney Tunes

The Warners (Yacko, Wakko and their sister Dot) are three rubberhose-style characters designed to look like the cartoons of the 30's (black bodies with white faces was a pretty typical look for the earliest cartoons, the stark contrast making their faces easy to read in black-and-white). This is because they were designed to become the new Looney Tunes of the 90’s, as stated by direct Rich Arons in the Animaniacs Volume 2 DVD extra ‘They Can’t Help It If They’re Cute, They’re Just Drawn That Way’.

The exact species to which the Warners belong is unidentified. They utilise very wacky, off-the-wall while their bodies are rubbery, stretchy and very malleable - much like the cartoons of the Golden Age. They move with a lot of squash, stretch and bounce and have musical talent which fit perfectly with the era they were supposedly created for. Without other characters calling them "children" or "kids", it's clear that the Warners are young children, despite them not looking very human. They have a youthful energy (an excessive amount of it, in fact) and generally behave like human children. They have been known to cry loudly to get adults to do what they want[1], mock authority figures by pulling silly faces or making childish comments and have frequently displayed a naive attitude to historical (‘Hooked on a Ceiling’, 1993) or political figures whilst having knowledge of current celebrities. To me, this suggests that they are tweens or young teenagers. Yacko, being taller than Wakko or Dot, seems to be the oldest and his understanding of innuendo implies that he is a young teenager. Dot can be placed as the youngest sibling as Yakko expressively refers to Wakko as having “middle-child syndrome” (‘Survey Ladies’, 1993). Wakko’s behaviour in most cartoons does seem to be attention-seeking, as he is often spotted eating bits of the set during a scene.

Animaniacs was the second most popular show on Fox during its original run in 1993, so why must one describe the Warner Brothers (and the Warner Sister) as the introduction to an essay such as this? Stars like Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse, also highly popular in their time, remain popular to this day while the Warners seem to have become more of a cult following than characters we are all naturally aware of.

During the Second World War, Bugs Bunny’s character became more defined and thus more popular for the Looney Tunes franchise. He was seen as a reflection of America itself and its role in the war, taking a passive approach until he was motivated to take revenge. With his Bronx accent and wise-guy attitude, he brought inspiration and fighting spirit to a nation at war[2]. On top of that, his catchphrase of “what’s up doc?” is so memorable there isn’t a person alive who doesn’t know it. So what does Bugs Bunny have that the Warners didn’t? Wakko has a recognisable accent (albeit, a Liverpudlian one[3]), Yakko has a catchphrase (“Good night everybody!”) and Dot is cute.

---

[1] Gray, R (2007). Babies Not as Innocent as they Pretend. Telegraph. [Online]. 1^st July. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3298979/Babies-not-as-innocent-as-they-pretend.html [Accessed: 26/11/2011]

[2] (2005) ‘Looney Tunes Go to War!’ [DVD extra] New Wave Entertainment

[3] ‘They Can’t Help it if They’re Cute, They’re Just Drawn That Way’ [DVD Extra]

Failing Imminent

Behold the sorry state of my essay so far!

The Wacky Warner

Wacko Warner and Anthropomorphism Or Something

The Warners (Yacko, Wakko and their sister Dot) are three rubberhose-style characters designed to look like the cartoons of the 30's (black bodies with white faces was a pretty typical look for the earliest cartoons). The exact species to which they belong is unidentified. They utilise very wacky, off-the-wall while their bodies are rubbery, stretchy and very malleable - much like the cartoons of the Golden Age. They move with a lot of squash, stretch and bounce and have musical talent which fit perfectly with the era they were supposedly created for. Without other characters calling them "children" or "kids", it's clear that the Warners are young children, despite them not looking very human. They have a youthful energy (an excessive amount of it, in fact) and generally behave like human children. They have been known to cry loudly to get adults to do what they want[1], mock authority figures by pulling silly faces or making childish comments and have frequently displayed a naive attitude to historical (‘Hooked on a Ceiling’, 1993) or political figures whilst having knowledge of current celebrities. To me, this suggests that they are tweens or young teenagers. Yacko, being taller than Wakko or Dot, seems to be the oldest and his understanding of innuendo implies to me that he is a young teenager. 

The three Warners are all stretchy, insane and hyperactive. However, they each have their specialities. Dot leads in being cute, Yakko has puns and innuendo and Wakko is the king of slapstick and visual humour. They also have their own outfits to set them apart from each other. Without their outfits, however, the three look almost identical. So how can one tell them apart? The most unique of the three siblings seems to be Wakko, perhaps down to “middle-child syndrome” (‘Survey Ladies’, 1993).

---

[1] Gray, R (2007). Babies Not as Innocent as they Pretend. Telegraph. [Online]. 1^st July. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3298979/Babies-not-as-innocent-as-they-pretend.html [Accessed: 26/11/2011]

Mewtwo - The Human Within

I decided to watch an animated movie today.

'Pokémon The First Movie: Mewtwo Strikes Back'

It's the best the Pokémon animated series has ever been. The animation was as limited as you'd expect from an anime of the 90's and the CGI remastering was sloppily inserted over the top of the original in a very obvious way (with pixelisation and missing frames when scenes change) but it's still a very charming movie that holds a lot of nostalgic feelings for myself. About halfway through the film I stopped remembering watching it as a child when it was first released and started really getting into it. See, even fifteen years later 'Mewtwo Strikes Back' has the same impact it had on me when I was in primary school.
Mewtwo is very easy to relate to for someone like me, despite being the villain. This is because he has some, though limited, emotional depth. He was created by cloning a creature called Mew in a laboratory to serve a mob-boss. The first thing he sees when he awakens from being created is a group of scientists congratulating eachother. They outright state that he is the result of an experiment and there are more tests to come. Mewtwo is disgusted with the way humans treat Pokémon (Pokémon are this world's equivalent to animals, and Mewtwo is one of them). With this, he decides to take vengeance and destroys the laboratory. He is shortly found by the mob boss, Giovanni, who talks him into becoming his partner. Throughout this whole scene, it is very easy to see humanity within Mewtwo and to connect with him on an emotional level. His motives are clear in both his words and his expressions. Giovanni later locks Mewtwo in armour that "focuses" his power for training. The armour covers Mewtwo's face and his humanity is lost. The emotional connection is broken as Mewtwo works for Giovanni to poach and steal Pokémon. It soon becomes clear to Mewtwo, however, that Giovanni does not consider him an equal. Mewtwo wonders aloud about his purpose, the destiny he seeks. Giovanni states that "you were created by humans to serve humans, that is your purpose." Mewtwo denies this purpose, he refuses to serve. He destroys Giovanni's headquarters and vows to take revenge on all humans.

Mewtwo builds a cloning facility on an island and uses psychic powers to create a huge storm. He challenges trainers to get to the island through the storm. When three trainers make it, he steals and clones their Pokémon. He intends to wipe out all humans and Pokémon with his storm and rule the world with clones. This will be his revenge and his destiny. Things change when one of the trainers, Ash, steps up and is shortly followed by Mew - the Pokémon from which Mewtwo was cloned. So begins the battle between the clones and the originals! The two sides are willing to fight to the death, almost destroying eachother in the process. Ash stops the battle by obstructing the attacks of Mew and Mewtwo as they converge. He is turned to stone in the process. The two sides, clones and originals, weep for the loss of a life. Mewtwo realises that it is not the circumstances of ones birth that matters, but what they do with their life. The tears of the crying Pokémon revive Ash and end the storm and it's a generally happy ending with a moral about racism or something.

Now, I recently tracked down another version of the film that was quite different. It turns out a lot was cut from the movie when it was dubbed and broadcast for American audiences. In fact, Mewtwo's story was a lot deeper and explored more thoroughly, making him less of a villain and more of a misunderstood individual seeking a place in this world.

When Mewtwo was being "grown", it met a child within its mind. This was a human clone, communicating with him psychically. He also met Charmandertwo, Squirtletwo and Bulbasaurtwo in the same way. However, the four soon died as the cloning process failed. The young Mewtwo, who was growing up alone without a world to live in, finally met someone and saw their world, only to watch them die and have that beautiful world taken away. When he grew up after years of artificially induced sleep, his first sight was that of a cold steel room with scientists talking about their latest experiment.

Mewtwo's role as someone without a place in this world is the running theme of the original cut of the movie. Even in the final battle, Mew (who is shown as the side of justice) states that Mewtwo and his clones do not have a place in this world, are inferior and should forfeit their lives. This makes Mewtwo the most misunderstood villain I've encountered, and I love him for it. All he seeks is acceptance and to find his place in the world and a place for his clones. When Ash ends the battle by intervening, Mew and Mewtwo realise that all life is precious, no matter what, and that everyone chooses their own destiny.

So now, after fifteen years of feeling like I don't belong in this world, I have fallen in love with Mewtwo. He may have been portrayed as a villain, but the true depth of his character means he can never be assigned to such a black-and-white classification. He is a very "real" character, with his own problems to overcome... And he isn't even human.

Wacky Wakko

Poor Wakko, such a misfit...
Anyway! I've been thinking over some questions to address relating to this character.

• What IS Wakko?
• What sets Wakko apart from his siblings, who all look very similar?
• If Wakko is so unusual, then why can we relate to him on a human level?

Academiacs

By now, I should have a character I want to write an essay about. I do. As you've seen, I've written an extensive blogpost about Wakko and his siblings. I should also have thought of a question to address, some key points to raise and probably some academic sources to draw information from. No. See, there's a big gaping hole of information here.
If I wanted to write about Bugs Bunny, there's a million academics publishing books by the thousands with varying opinions and perspectives addressing millions of different things. Did Bugs Bunny help America through the Depression? To what does Bugs Bunny lend his popularity? Does Bugs Bunny's inner-humanity affect how we relate to him? There's a lot people want to write about that rabbit. He had a huge impact on the older generation, those who're now in their 40's and 50's. The same goes for Mickey Mouse. If, for some reason probably involving brain enemas and a bad concussion, I wanted to write about Mickey Mouse - I'd have a near endless list of sources to turn to and questions to address. However, I just had to go and pick Wakko from Animaniacs. This was a horrible choice. I love Wakko. He's insane, cute, wacky, funny and someone I can relate to somewhat. But he was invented too recently.
One is hard-pressed to find academic writings of characters who were invented after the Golden Age of Animation. Animaniacs was a 90's cartoon, and that's what is making this difficult. Even though Animaniacs was more popular with teens and adults in its time, nobody wanted to write about it. There's a few witterings about educational value or animation style - but nothing about the characters. None of them seem to have been as inspirational as Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse.
So where does that leave me? I can't change that, because I need to make references and cite sources rather than writing a block of sheer opinion. At the same time, I can't just give up because I kind of need to earn a grade. Even worse, it seems much too late to start looking into different characters because I just don't have a lot of time where I'm not making characters. Maybe its a time-management issue, or maybe its a motivational issue. Either way, this research project is becoming gruellingly hard. If I were to change to Bugs Bunny, I already have a series of feature-length documentaries I could look at. However, that is also a problem. They're feature-length, and I don't have time to watch five two-hour documentaries interspersed with full-length cartoons. At the same time, it would feel weird for me to talk about a character whose popularity seems to stem from his efforts during the war-time era of which I was not a part. A modern-generation kid talking about The War doesn't seem right. I can only talk about what other people have said and bring nothing of myself to that. So what would be the point in writing it?
I don't know, maybe I just need to look at this differently?
I'd really appriciate the in-put of my peers and followers on this matter. Anyone who comments gets a free cookie.

Tsukumogami

By weird coincidence, I just stumbled upon a Japanese myth/legend/folklore about demons called "Tsukumogami." It is said that when inanimate objects reach their 100th birthday, they are granted life and become aware, sentient beings. According to an article on Wikipedia (where the source is, unfortunately, not cited): "Tsukumogami vary radically in appearance, depending on the type of item they originated from as well as the condition that item was in. Some, such as tsukumogami originating from paper lanterns or broken sandals, can have tears which become eyes and sharp teeth, thus giving a horrifying visage. Others, such as worn prayer beads or teacups, may merely manifest faces and appendages, giving a warm and friendly appearance." So it sounds like they anthropomorphisize upon reaching their 100th birthday. I find that pretty cool! Its a concept I'd love to work with at some point. 

Proud Member of Nōnamé

In our Research group, there was a team of us who wanted to focus on 2D animation and two people who wanted to focus on anime, thus the two groups were fused and then split into Disney and Non-Disney as a way of making numbers even. Myself, Asch, Matt, Jordan and Peter became the Non-Disney group and named ourselves "Nōnamé" for lack of a better name. See Jordan's blog for the anecdote. What anecdote? Why, the anecdote for the poison you just drank. Muwahahaha! So we'll be focusing on a broad range of traditionally animated anthropormorphic characters for our group presentation. We're not sure what our actual subject should be, though. We've thought up a handful of questions to address, though.

• Is the response of the viewer affected by whether the character is organic or mechanical?
• How does an anthropomorphic character interact within a human society?
• Does the emotional depth of the character affect our connection to it?
• Does the morality of the character affect our relationship to it? (In both the morals of the characters, and the morality involved in its existence as a manufactured creature or animal in a human-based society, etc.)
• How are anthropomorphic characters viewed by different age groups? (For example, how would a child see Minerva Mink compared to an adult's view of her?)
• How is anthropomorphism handled in different cultures? (For example, how would a Japanese audience expect an anthropomorphic cat to look?)

Reversal of the Heart

Such a beautiful animation. I've never seen Flash used in such a wonderful way.
The story is beautiful, the style, the way it draws emotions from you... So beautiful.
I love the way its able to draw emotions from the viewer using anthropomorphism in both the normal dragons, and the post-transformation dragons.
Perfect. So perfect.

Anthropomorphism - The Warners

"Dateline: Hollywood, 1930, the Warner Bros. Studio, home to the biggest stars in Tinsel Town. Here at the studio's new animation department, the artists toil endlessly to come up with cartoon stars, ultimately creating three new characters -- the Warner Brothers and their sister Dot. The trio ran amok throughout the studio, creating utter chaos. Finally, they were captured. The Warners' films, which made absolutely no sense, were locked away in the studio vault, never to be released. As for the Warners themselves, who made even less sense, they were locked away in the studio water-tower, also never to be released. Publicly, the studio has disavowed any knowledge of the Warners' existence, to this very day..." - Newsreel of the Stars, Animaniacs Episode 1

The Warners (Yacko, Wakko and their sister Dot) are three rubberhose-style characters designed to look like the cartoons of the 30's (black bodies with white faces was a pretty typical look for the earliest cartoons). The exact species to which they belong is unidentified, though characters within the Animaniacs show often refer to them as "puppy children" despite the Warner's insistence that they are not, in fact, puppies. Within the continuity of 'Animaniacs' (or what little continuity there is), it is heavily suggested that the Warners were created before their time. They use very wacky, off-the-wall humour that would have been out of place in cartoons of the 30's. Saying that, they are also out of place in the 90's as they still retain their rubberhose style. Their bodies are rubbery, stretchy and very malleable - much like the cartoons of the Golden Age. They move with a lot of squash, stretch and bounce and have musical talent which fit perfectly with the era they were supposedly created for. So it is clear that the Warner children are not human beings, or any other animal we know exists. So how do we know they are children? How do they make us relate to them if they're not even animals, let alone human beings?

Without other characters calling them "children" or "kids", it's clear that the Warners are young children, despite them not looking very human. They have a youthful energy (an excessive amount of it, in fact) and generally behave like human children. They have been known to cry loudly to get adults to do what they want, mock authority figures by pulling silly faces or making childish comments and have frequently displayed a naive attitude to historical or political figures whilst having knowledge of current celebrities. To me, this suggests that they are tweens or young teenagers. Yacko, being taller than Wakko or Dot, seems to be the oldest and his understanding of innuendo implies to me that he is a young teenager.

The three Warners are all stretchy, insane and hyperactive. However, they each have their specialities. Dot leads in being cute, Yakko has puns and innuendo and Wakko is the king of slapstick and visual humour. Like human beings, they are not restricted to their specialities, but they're still better at certain things than the others. This makes them more real and more relatable. Wakko's speciality in visual humour seems to give him a wider range of gags to employ on-screen, however. He is often seen pulling faces in the background and eating parts of the set or scenery while Yakko and Dot do their thing. In this sense, the three seem a lot more like actors than most cartoon characters, as it seems Wakko is performing unscripted actions as a child-actor often would. I believe this is also a hint that Wakko is the middle-child (making Dot the youngest and Yakko the oldest). He seems to be more wacky and less mature than his already very immature siblings, as if trying to get more attention from the audience. He has also been seen entertaining his sister while Yakko deals with a plot-centric character, something I would think an older brother would do for his youngest sibling. In the same way, Wakko seems to hold a certain level of respect for Yakko. When Wakko wanted to try out a new gag, he asked Yakko for his opinion before anyone else. This further enforces Yakko's role as the older brother, as well as the way Yakko is often seen looking after his siblings and acting as a leader to the trio. With these close relationships, it is very easy to relate to the Warners as human beings. Even their subtle mannerisms, like the way their expressions are always different, make it easy to see past their tails, puppy ears and red noses and see within them a human family unit of three siblings.