Ralph Bakshi and other animators, illustrators, etc.

Geo

So lets talk about the famed animator and moviemaker Ralph Bakshi. The only people I've ever run into who know of the man's name (some of them know the work) are animation enthusiasts, animators, film buffs, filmmakers, etc. For anyone who doesn't know this is the creative genius behind such classics like Fritz the Cat, Coonskin, Wizards (my personal favorite), Heavy Traffic ,and the animated version of Lord of the Rings. He's also responsible for not so good things like Cool World (easily his worst) and Fire and Ice.

First off I wanna say that this man is one of heroes and one of the few animators/illustrators I truly admire (next to Jules Feiffer, Brian Froud, Art Speigelman, Oskar Fischinger, and the great Windsor McKay. I like how he isn't afraid to try anything and how he tried to push animation to it's boundaries and do thing that had not been done before. I also like the gritty style, tone, and characters he uses which differentiates him from almost any animator I've heard of (if anyone knows anyone else tell me). Whatever you may feel about Fritz the Cat and whatever you may have to say about it, you cannot deny that was a landmark in animation and how it changed quite a lot of things in the field. Also considering his background at Terrytoons,, it's hard to believe somebody went the route he did. If anyone knows of his work and has seen it, tell the forums what you thought of it, because I'm pretty sure people who have seen work by him have a lot to say cause he isn't like other animators or filmmakers for that matter.

On a closing note, if like fantasy and science fiction (particularly post apocalyptic, Fallout style sci fi) look up or rent Wizards and I guarantee you'll like quite a bit or at the very least find it interesting because it's a very different film from other similar films and is so gritty that I can't help but feel simultaneously enchanted and uncomfortable at the same time.

gomidog

one of the few animators/illustrators I truly admire

Bah. Snooty boy. Actually, Bakshi, while important, is no where near my favorite animation director. His use of rotoscoping often looks jarring, shots are stylistically inconsistent, scripts are paced oddly, and I feel conflicted about his portrayal of women in some cases. Sure, his work changed views of animation (the first MPAA X rating for a theatrically released cartoon), but personally, I'm not such a big fan. Only a mild fan.

look up or rent Wizards

I remember watching this with my friends from high school, and it created an internal meme about Nazi Wizards. And "I'm glad you changed your name...LOL."

Li_Akahi

I'm going to have to agree with Emily, I can see why he's important but his work leaves a bit to be desired. Don Bluth (when he's not trying to out-Disney Disney) is a much better, and probably more important, animation director.

Geo

I'm going to have to agree with Emily, I can see why he's important but his work leaves a bit to be desired. Don Bluth (when he's not trying to out-Disney Disney) is a much better, and probably more important, animation director.

Did I forget to but Bluth down?! Fuck! I must have been out of my mind if I didn't, I love Don Bluth and his movies (mostly his early and last movies). Secret of NIMH, Titan A.E. and The Land Before Time are my top 3 favorites of his. I think it's generally agreed that he went through a period of suckage in the middle of his feature film career.

gomidog

Don Bluth (when he's not trying to out-Disney Disney) is a much better, and probably more important, animation director.

You know, I'd actually say that Bakshi was more original and probably a more revolutionary figure in when viewed in the context of animation history. Bluth didn't really deviate that much from the American feature animation formula (read "Disney"), and while I like a few of his movies, I find his stuff kind of schmaltzy and derivative. I really do like Titan A.E. and bits of Anastasia, and NIMH is decent if not nearly as good as the book. (Magic? What? Those rats used Science!) However, I feel that Bluth is more of a footnote in the maturation of animation as a medium, rather than a major player. I would argue that, say, the Henry Seleck/Burton partnership is an example of artists helping push the medium to it's limits. Coraline, the Corpse Bride, and Nightmare all experimented new stop motion model techniques and could be considered an example of work showing the marks of an auteur. Bakshi is very distinctive, and while I don't dislike Bluth I think that in terms of importance as an individual director he is lower down on the list.

I think it's generally agreed that he went through a period of suckage in the middle of his feature film career.

All dogs go to Heaven makes me womit. I watched that and Balto as research into dog lipsync.

MrRoboto

BTW, this is the movie about the cat and what I thought was a Nazi themed thing, that kind of is, but it isn't, then again the movie is just a memory from like 13 years ago. Still, the movie is really good, its VERY violent and graphic (fair warning to all of you animal lovers) but I guess it's still worth the watch if you really want to dwell into the adult animated movies. So I present you the case of Felidae

Geo

I think it's generally agreed that he went through a period of suckage in the middle of his feature film career.

All dogs go to Heaven makes me womit. I watched that and Balto as research into dog lipsync.

I assume you watched my favorite scene many times if that was your research, which was when Balto was separated from the sled and he had that encounter with the white wolf. That sent shivers down my spine and it really stands out from the rest of the movie to me.

Li_Akahi

I would argue that, say, the Henry Seleck/Burton partnership is an example of artists helping push the medium to it's limits. Coraline, the Corpse Bride, and Nightmare all experimented new stop motion model techniques and could be considered an example of work showing the marks of an auteur.

By the way, Disney is re-re-releasing Nightmare Before Christmas in 3-D this Friday. Everyone should go see it.

Apreche

By the way, Disney is re-re-releasing Nightmare Before Christmas in 3-D this Friday. Everyone should go see it.

Ahhhhh shiiiiiit.

Kate Monster

I really am not into the 3D versions of old movies and can't stand most new 3D movies. The prices are ridiculous and 3D is usually obvious gimmick to get people into theatres as opposed to pirating or waiting until the film comes out on DVD, rather than a purposeful art choice to enhance the end product. For me, Coraline in 3D was well worth it because the pop-up book/paper doll nature of the aesthetic. However, UP in 3D was equivalent visually to its non-3D counter part. The art and experience were not enriched by the 3D element and the cost was far higher for the 3D version than the non-3D version.

Geo

By the way, Disney is re-re-releasing Nightmare Before Christmas in 3-D this Friday. Everyone should go see it.

Ahhhhh shiiiiiit.

Is this going to be one of the few times you'll get up and go to the theatre, Scott?

Geo

I really am not into the 3D versions of old movies and can't stand most new 3D movies. The prices are ridiculous and 3D is usually obvious gimmick to get people into theatres as opposed to pirating or waiting until the film comes out on DVD, rather than a purposeful art choice to enhance the end product. For me, Coraline in 3D was well worth it because the pop-up book/paper doll nature of the aesthetic. However, UP in 3D was equivalent visually to its non-3D counter part. The art and experience were not enriched by the 3D element and the cost was far higher for the 3D version than the non-3D version.

Even though it doesn't do so, I like to think that those movies hearken back to the days when gimmicks were quite common and a lot of movies were popcorn entertainment and fun which I'll buy into since I never got to experience that.

Kate Monster

What do you mean? All shallow, flashy special effects movies are gimmicky popcorn entertainment movies. You have experienced those, yes/no? Most summer blockbusters are exactly that.
Sometimes the gimmick is the attraction, I get that. However, this gimmick is becoming less and less novel and is being applied to pre-existing films (a practice that is an obvious cash-cow that changes original content for no real purpose beyond making money).

Geo

What do you mean? All shallow, flashy special effects movies are gimmicky popcorn entertainment movies. You have experienced those, yes/no? Most summer blockbusters are exactly that.

I mean like you have a physical thing in front of you or there is audience participation or something like that. I'm talking goggles, smell-o-vision cards, and cheap little things like that.

Kate Monster

What do you mean? All shallow, flashy special effects movies are gimmicky popcorn entertainment movies. You have experienced those, yes/no? Most summer blockbusters are exactly that.

I mean like you have a physical thing in front of you or there is audience participation or something like that. I'm talking goggles, smell-o-vision cards, and cheap little things like that.

Then go see those old movies that were meant to have those elements when they do special showings, don't add it to films that never had it/don't suffer from a lack of it.

Li_Akahi

I really am not into the 3D versions of old movies and can't stand most new 3D movies. The prices are ridiculous and 3D is usually obvious gimmick to get people into theatres as opposed to pirating or waiting until the film comes out on DVD, rather than a purposeful art choice to enhance the end product. For me, Coraline in 3D was well worth it because the pop-up book/paper doll nature of the aesthetic. However, UP in 3D was equivalent visually to its non-3D counter part. The art and experience were not enriched by the 3D element and the cost was far higher for the 3D version than the non-3D version.

I've already seen the Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D and can easily say that it is well worth seeing. It just works and I have found that it's actually more beneficial to see it in 3D due to the sheer amount of detail contained in it.

Kate Monster

To me, releasing a movie in 3D that was not intended to be in 3D is like the "greedo shot first" issue. If someone chose to make a new version of the movie using 3D, whatever- that is a different piece of art. Changing an older piece of art just to repackage it for profit seems like defacing/belittling the original.

Geo

To me, releasing a movie in 3D that was not intended to be in 3D is like the "greedo shot first" issue. If someone chose to make a new version of the movie using 3D, whatever- that is a different piece of art. Changing an older piece of art just to repackage it for profit seems like defacing/belittling the original.

Well if you are so sure of your theory, why not test it out on TNBC? It wouldn't hurt to try.

Kate Monster

To me, releasing a movie in 3D that was not intended to be in 3D is like the "greedo shot first" issue. If someone chose to make a new version of the movie using 3D, whatever- that is a different piece of art. Changing an older piece of art just to repackage it for profit seems like defacing/belittling the original.

Well if you are so sure of your theory, why not test it out on TNBC? It wouldn't hurt to try.

I have seen plenty of 3D movies and I won't pay money to test out a "theory" when it is the practice that I abhor and part of that practice is bilking profits by defacing art work. It probably looks "slick" in 3D, but that isn't the point. If someone painted on an existing work to correct proportions or make the colors more pleasing (not restore it mind you, but alter it from its intended original state) that is deviating from the creator's intent. While this might be pleasing to look at, the art work was still defaced and that is unjustifiable, particularly when the motive is sheer profit.

MrRoboto

To me, releasing a movie in 3D that was not intended to be in 3D is like the "greedo shot first" issue. If someone chose to make a new version of the movie using 3D, whatever- that is a different piece of art. Changing an older piece of art just to repackage it for profit seems like defacing/belittling the original.

Well if you are so sure of your theory, why not test it out on TNBC? It wouldn't hurt to try.

I have seen plenty of 3D movies and I won't pay money to test out a "theory" when it is the practice that I abhor and part of that practice is bilking profits by defacing art work. It probably looks "slick" in 3D, but that isn't the point. If someone painted on an existing work to correct proportions or make the colors more pleasing (not restore it mind you, but alter it from its intended original state) that is deviating from the creator's intent. While this might be pleasing to look at, the art work was still defaced and that is unjustifiable, particularly when the motive is sheer profit.

What if the creator intended for it but couldn't at the time due to budget constraints or technology problems? Or perhaps the original author thinks that the work really isn't what he envisioned at the time and now with more polished skill wishes to tweak and adjust the original work to what he wanted in the first place?

WindUpBird

Or perhaps the original author thinks that the work really isn't what he envisioned at the time and now with more polished skill wishes to tweak and adjust the original work to what he wanted in the first place?

Yeah, do Director's Cuts also count as defacing of the original work? If so, explain why the Director's Cut of Das Boot and Apocalypse Now: Redux are considered the definitive and true works.

Kate Monster

Different editions intended by the author or creator are just that, different editions. Yes, this could fall under an "edition"; however, placing a bunch of old Disney movies and Pixar movies into 3D is merely profit reaping.

Li_Akahi

I don't understand why if you liked Coraline in 3D, why you wouldn't like the Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D. Stop-motion animation works perfectly when it comes to 3D due to the fact that the models already exist on Earth, so it looks fantastic.

WindUpBird

Stop-motion animation works perfectly when it comes to 3D due to the fact that the models already exist on Earth, so it looks fantastic.

This. I saw Toy Story restored in 3D with friends, and it sucked. I will never see another old-CGI to 3D film again. However, stop-motion is a different matter entirely.

Goddamns, I love stop-motion. It's so much more interesting than CGI. We never should have stopped using it.

Li_Akahi

I saw Toy Story restored in 3D with friends, and it sucked. I will never see another old-CGI to 3D film again.

I don't know, I greatly enjoyed the double-feature. The 3D was much better in Toy Story 2, though.

The intermission entertainment was worth the ticket price alone, though. That was freaking hilarious.

I am rather intrigued as to how Beauty and the Beast is going to work in 3D (coming to a theatre near you next Valentines day!), I've never seen a cel animated film in 3D.

WindUpBird

The 3D was much better in Toy Story 2, though.

The intermission entertainment was worth the ticket price alone, though. That was freaking hilarious.

Upon further consideration, you're more or less correct. The only time the 3D popped in the first one was during the snow at the end, I felt like.

Viga

Oh god why didn't I read this thread till now. Animation discussion is like candy to me.

To me, releasing a movie in 3D that was not intended to be in 3D is like the "greedo shot first" issue. If someone chose to make a new version of the movie using 3D, whatever- that is a different piece of art. Changing an older piece of art just to repackage it for profit seems like defacing/belittling the original.

I agree with you on this, but when you said:

Coraline in 3D was well worth it because the pop-up book/paper doll nature of the aesthetic. However, UP in 3D was equivalent visually to its non-3D counter part. The art and experience were not enriched by the 3D element and the cost was far higher for the 3D version than the non-3D version.

I disagree. I seen Coraline in theater both in 3D and non 3D. I felt that the 3D in Coraline didn't suit the stop motion and took away from the beautiful look and feel of the world. The 3D in that movie seemed very gimmicky as if it's not supposed to be there, even if that's not the case. The 3D in Up just enhanced the background and art of the film. Your opinion of the equivalency of the versions of Up just seem like the opinion: "There's not enough pop up whoa it's 3D moments!" I really like that is wasn't because then it seems gimmicky.

All dogs go to Heaven makes me womit.

Hey! That's my childhood you're stepping on. :P
How come? The saccharine ending? The girl talking to animals thing? Big lipped alligator moment? It's my 3rd favorite of the Don Bluth films. (1st and 2nd goes to An American Tail and Land Before Time.)

Goddamns, I love stop-motion. It's so much more interesting than CGI. We never should have stopped using it.

*High five* I do love CGI a lot, but stop motion just has this style I love.


When it comes to Ralph Bakshi, my thoughts are mostly like Emily's up there. Plus, Cool World in retrospect...blarh.

Li_Akahi

Oh god why didn't I read this thread till now. Animation discussion is like candy to me.

This is why we need to do the brief history of anime panel at next year's Otakon.

WindUpBird

*High five* I do love CGI a lot, but stop motion just has this style I love.

Right on. Probably has something to do with the fact that I was raised a a literature and PBS kid, so the first serious pieces of animation I ever saw were the Wallace and Gromit shorts (along with Gorey's awesome intro to Mystery!). Goddamn if Nick Park's work doesn't still bring man-tears of childhood's past to my eyes. And just for good measure: "Cracking toast, Gromit!"

Also, HERTZFELDT. Rejected is one of those things everyone should see at least once. Everything Will Be Okay is probably his magnum opus, but YouTube doesn't have it up anymore.

Geo

HERTZFELDT!!!! Everything Will Be Okay is the best he has ever done!

There is one animated film that I remember had a lot of buzz when it first came out, and rightfully so. But nowadays, no one talks about it anymore which is disheartening. I'm talking about "The Prince of Egypt". I didn't expect much when I went to see it and even though I know it's a fictional story, it was pulled off so well I couldn't believe it. For those of you who care or are interested in either seeing it for the first time or walking down memory lane; I highly recommend you see this movie because the animation still looks pretty damn good even after 11 years and is possibly the animated equivalent of The Ten Commandments in my opinion (except for that new one with Ben Kingsley as God, fuck that movie).

It's to me, what The Iron Giant is to Emily, an animated film that had a good amount of attention when it was first released but isn't really talked about a lot anymore.

Sail

"The Prince of Egypt"

BY THE POWER OF RA!