"I'm gonna wreck it!" More video games as art talk.

...can I just say how incredibly excited I am for this movie?

I just saw the trailer for it about two days ago and suddenly I've been launched into Wreck-It Ralph frenzy. What's really exciting for me is not only the nostalgia factor (seeing Chun-Li and Bowser in a Disney movie of all places was slightly mystifying) but also the animation. One of these days I would LOVE to see a whole movie done in an 8-bit style. I know that all of Wreck-It Ralph won't be that way, and I love how the other video game characters are rendered in 3D, but oh man. The animation looks like it's going to be fantastic all throughout. And the other great thing about this is the fact that perhaps Roger Ebert will rescind his comment on how video games aren't art after this is released. I know that it's not a video game in of itself: this is very clearly a movie about video games, but video games are already based on story and plot and structure, as simple as they sometimes are (in the case of old arcade games). They just have an added level of interactivity. And look at how gorgeous the film looks! The designs are basically lifted from popular video games (Hero's Duty looks almost exactly like Mass Effect or Halo, and Sugar Rush is just Mario Kart with a dessert dumped on top of it) so you can't deny that video games themselves have the same high level of visual mastery and magnificence as a feature film, which is already considered art.

And I know it's not a completely novel story idea. The "what happens in the world of ______" trope has been rehashed to death. But I don't care. Not in the case of Wreck-It Ralph. Anything that combines my two favorite things in the entire world is enough to get me excited.

The Power of the Silhouette

They say that any great character has an easily recognizable silhouette. I remember seeing the picture above a while back on the internet, and it got me thinking about just how important character design is, and how, especially in a game, it's incredibly important to model your characters so that a player can easily identify them in a fast paced gaming setting (which is even more important if you're playing a multi-player game).

Now I saw this picture of the Team Fortress 2 classes lined up in silhouette, and I don't know if I feel that they're strikingly different (I mean, they're mostly all middle aged men and very close in height to each other), but you can easily read what role they would probably be. There's the wrench hanging off of the Engineer's belt, Pyro's fuel on the back of his suit, the size of the Heavy compared to the Scout, the ammo and grenades strapped to Soldier... you can clearly tell who the characters are supposed to be (on a side note, I'm trying to figure out if the silhouette on the right is the Demoman or not... he has a collar that covers half of his face, but this lineup might be from an early version of the TF2 characters; the box on his belt tips me off because it could probably be a detonator).

Here's another example of silhouette, but this time from more of a design perspective (and an animation perspective... but of course this could and should be related to gaming as well).

A lot of people have used this example, but it's only because it's a really good example of character design. I'm not too partial to the movie, but each character in Aladdin was created using a certain geometric shape to differentiate them from the other characters. Simple shapes that compose the characters evoke certain qualities about that character. If you gave this sheet to someone and erased the names of the characters from the shapes on the bottom (with the knowledge that these are characters from Aladdin) anyone could guess who they were right away. The simplicity and variety of these shapes makes for a memorable cast of characters.

Clerks: The Animated Series - Design and Style

I really wish that Clerks: The Animated Series had run a lot longer. Seriously, it had so much awesome potential, and I would have loved to see the expanded universe of Leonardo, New Jersey. Plus, well... Clerks is an amazing movie to begin with that had relatable and interesting characters. And I would have loved to have watched more Randal snarkiness. Heh.

But wait, this post isn't supposed to be about me pining for more episodes of a great TV show. I found two really great videos about character design and style that are pretty interesting on their own. I think it's so interesting that they had the hardest time trying to design Jay's character. It seems that a character that's so culturally recognizable and ready to be caricatured alongside his "hetero life mate" would have been easy to design, but apparently that wasn't the case according to these videos.

Mary and Max (2009)

Adam Elliot is one of my favorite animators, and I think every semester I've taken a class in animation I've had to watch his short film, Brother. I love how, even with very limited animation, he can create a sense of character and have an audience be able to empathize with them within minutes. And the same is true for Mary and Max. Even though it's a much longer film than Brother and there's a whole lot more puppet animated movement, the emotions that you feel for the characters are automatically felt through their character descriptions. There isn't too much plot in the story: if you strung together all of the actual storytelling parts it'd be an extremely short movie. But the fun of it comes from how interesting Mary and Max's lives and idiosyncrasies are.

And the look of the film is superb! There isn't much color used at all, mostly monochromatic colors and the occasional red when Elliot wants to make a point out of something rather important and/or sentimental (such as the pom pom that Mary makes for Max that he wears on his yarmulke and the portrait that she draws for him).

The Great Piggy Bank Robbery

Lately I've been thinking a lot about Warner Brothers cartoons… specifically me trying to pick out what exactly I like about the cartoons that inspire me. I've seen a bunch of other writings and blogs on the internet with people talking about their favorite cartoons of all time, and well, I guess I should put my two cents into it as well.

First off, let's get this out of the way. I hate Chuck Jones' Warner Brothers cartoons. Hate. HATE. With a passion.

Okay, yeah, once you've been revived with smelling salts after fainting from that statement, let me elucidate. I know the majority of animation people love and worship this man, and most fo the blogs and articles I've seen concerning this topic ALWAYS have to mention him and praise his name, but I just... I don't agree with any of them. And I guess hate is a very strong word. It kind of comes off as if, when I see a Chuck Jones cartoon, I'd rather slather my eyeballs with hot oil rather than continue watching it. Seriously, though. That's not necessarily the case. It really isn't. His way of designing the Warner Brothers characters is by now iconic, not to mention the fact that he was able to pioneer a lot of terrific devices in animation. But, seriously? Even if he is the guy who made What's Opera, Doc? and introduced Wile E. Coyote on his never-ending futile quest to catch the Roadrunner? He's no Bob Clampett.

Bob Clampett is my hero forever and always.

This is the portrait of a hero who created some of the greatest animated cartoons ever. You can not escape the charm of his gorgeous smile.

To make a point about who is the best in more superficial terms, who are the two hottest animation directors in this picture? One is on the left, but first prize goes to the handsome stud in the front.

I never met the guy, I can't say if he was a big jerk who took credit for things he didn't do (like some people claimed, coughcoughChuckJonescough) or if he truly was a sweet, awesome badass who made painfully amazing cartoons, but I love him. I love his stuff. Put me in front of a TV playing Beany and Cecil episodes and old 30s and 40s WB cartoons and I will drool with happiness all day.

And the characters he brought to life, man. They were so fun! I love Bob Clampett's Bugs Bunny. God, Bugs is such a jerk in his cartoons. He doesn't always have to be a wise ass or the Hero of the Day. And Daffy! Daffy is always filled to the brim with hysteria and craziness and such lovable puerility. I get so jumpy when I watch a Clampett cartoon and I feel like I'm going to start bouncing off of the walls myself (it's like when I watch a Tex Avery cartoon and I feel like running around on the walls or something). But Bob is so much more crazy than Tex and Chuck. He's got surrealism down to a tee.

I don't have a favorite Bugs cartoon because I really don't like Bugs as a character that much (I mean, I like him, but it's not like I have a huge affinity towards the guy). Daffy's my favorite. Daffy is amazing. Even in Chuck Jones' version of the character, he's so vindictive and spiteful and mean and just a huge pain in the neck for everyone to deal with. I always have a soft spot for villainous characters and he fits the bill (no pun intended). He's jealous and greedy and flawed… but not as daffy as he should be. That's why I love Clampett's Daffy. He can be a total jerk, too, but he's a lot more fun-loving about it, the kind of guy who would blow you up with dynamite but french you afterwards. He's so much more like a kid, too. He's got a sense of wonderment around him and a crazy energy of immaturity that makes me love him so much.

So of course, the source of most of my cartoon inspiration has been The Great Piggy Bank Robbery, which you can watch in all of it's glory here.

Why do I even need to explain why this is so great? It's such a super fun amalgamation of childlike imagination and said childlike imagination gone horribly, incredibly wrong. I had to write a paper a long while ago for an animation history class about Bob and touched upon the short as one of his greatest.

"The Great Piggy Bank Robbery, made in 1946, may be Clampett’s most defining short, and is an outstanding example of both his signature brand of dark humor and fast-paced chaos and the characterization of Daffy Duck in his cartoons. Unlike his earlier short, Porky in Wackyland (1937), the tone of this piece is much darker and the action more aggressive than silly. In the cartoon, Daffy Duck, after receiving his latest Dick Tracy comic, giddily fantasizes that he is Duck Twacy, a famous detective who must catch an elusive piggy bank thief. Near the end of the short, Duck Twacy encounters some of his greatest foes: deformed, dark, looming thugs with names like Hammer Head, Neon Noodle, and Jukebox Jaw. From then on his so far silly yet innocent fantasy escalades into an apocalyptic nightmare, as his enemies begin to attack and chase him through their hideout, which has subtly morphed into a large, warped, abstract landscape. Things being to become increasingly abstract as the chase continues, and at one point, Daffy’s body actually breaks apart, and the separate body parts slither back into his full form. Daffy then proceeds to whip out a machine gun from thin air and begins showering bullets onto his enemies as they fall from a doorway one by one. This change in tone may be what makes the end of the short so unsettling, and in a way relatable, to the viewer, since it is almost as if Clampett has reached into the mind of the audience and made them relive one of their own nightmares. Through watching Daffy’s imaginary ordeal, the audience is able to relate to their own emotional fantasies, however idealistic or chaotic they made be."

Seriously, I don't know how anyone couldn't like this cartoon. It's everything, at least in my opinion, that a great cartoony animation should be: fast-paced, exciting, engaging, surreal, and just plain fun. Clampett always makes full use of the medium of animation, something you honestly don't get to see nowadays.

Also, for more Clampett fun and dissection, check these John K. posts out and this post by Kristin Thompson.