Moho Forum

"Here's to the crazy ones... the misfits; the rebels; the troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently.
They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo.
You can quote them, disagree with, glorify or vilify them.
About the only thing you can't do, is ignore them; because they change things.
They push the human race forward.
And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do."

while you're out changing the human race here are the 12 golden rules of CHARACTER ANIMATION

1. Squash and stretch
2. Anticipation
3. Staging
4. Straight-ahead action and pose-to-pose
5. Follow through and overlapping action
6. Slow in and slow out
7. Arcs
8. Secondary action
9. Timing
10. Exaggeration
11. Solid drawing
12. Appeal

need more info? ask the guys that invented character animation - frank(rip) & ollie
The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation

I wouldn't say they invented animation. Most influential during modern times.
Here is a cheap run down on the history of animation, though its missing a few points:

http://www.privatelessons.net/2d/sample/m01_02.html

To read a nice article on character animation:

http://www.webreference.com/3d/cg/2.html

The Illusion of Life is more a walk through on the history of Disney animation. I would not recommend it if you are attempting to LEARN how to animate. Though I would recommend it after you have taken the first steps, it is very inspirational, and does contain some nice techniques that Disney and Co. used.

Brian

@Toontoonz:

While I'm struggling with the principles of animation (which I haven't grasped fully yet), it seems you can't be bothered by those principles. I think before you can break with conventions you should first fully (try to) understand them. Toontoonz, I hope you have reached that level of knowledge and ability; alas I haven't.

I'm very limited in what I can do and try to do what was common practice in the 16th century: try to study the old masters and only then try to develop a personal way of doing things. Copying was considered a high art in those days. It forced discipline on the apprentice, because he had to see what methods were used and for what reason. Nowadays, young artists have to develop their own style from day one, must stand out from the crowd and therefore NOT follow tradition (of course, I'm generalizing here, there are exceptions).

I realize that this means that there is a long way to go before I arrive at the point where I can create my first animated short, but I've chosen this path of discipline and want to stick to it. I don't want to rush things at this point.

I always thought that animation's primary function was getting a message across, in the clearest possible way, that everything that wasn't supporting that message should be eliminated. I have recently learned that in media like comics and cartoons the more elaborate the language and the more elobarate the imagery gets, the less clear the message gets.

Putting those two together brought me to the idea that there should be a balance between what you depict and how you depict it, at least in animation. Of course, one can argue where to put this balance, but that one must realize that there IS a balance is obvious to me.

Concerning your references to George Lucas. Yes, I think that he can still learn a few things (most likely not from me, but nevertheless).

I personally think that the CGI in the more recent episodes of Star Wars is rather over the top and certainly not in function of the storyline. The story seems to be not particularly relevant, just an excuse to show off what clever things can be done with computers. While I was a fan of the sequels, I'm a bit puzzled what to think of the presequels. Young people seem to like it ("Movies without SFX are boring."), but I have my reservations.

BTW Star Wars has nothing to do with science fiction (an educated guess of future developments, based on current sciencetific knowledge). What is called science fiction in the movie and television industry, is considered science fantasy by science fiction readers. In a real science fiction, space ships wouldn't create sound when they fly by in the vacuum of space (sound doesn't propel through a vacuum).

FWIW It seems that we must agree that we can't agree on the point of following conventions. I think conventions should be followed, unless there's a reason not to. You seem to think these conventions are just a relic from the past, based on almost forgotten technology, and not applicable to the far wider range of possibilities available to today's computer generation.

If that is true, I can understand why you don't like to be restricted by limitations of computer programs. When you see a particular effect in one program, you want to be abe to apply that in another program. You seem to want total artistic freedom.

I hope you'll find a way to bypass the limitations of Moho and I'm looking forward to watching your animation shorts based on the artistic freedom you seem to seek (No, there's no sarcasm here, I really do).

ralphrubbish wrote:here are the 12 golden rules of CHARACTER ANIMATION

Amazing, isn´t it...not one of them dictates what one can use as far as a drawing tool, how complicated or simple or decorative the art should be in the animation or puts any limits on an artist´s creativity; i.e. all cartoon characters must be simple in design, with a black solid line around them and a solid fill color.

Before these people wrote the golden rules...where did they find out about them? What book did they read them in? How could they even make an animation without having their golden rules? The answer is simple: once you start doing animation all these "Golden Rules" become self-evident.

Kind of like reading on book on hammering before you take to hammer and nail. Golden rule #1 in Hammering: "Hit nail on top with hammer". Duh.

-----------
And a comment or two on the Character Animation rules:
Rule #11: Solid drawing. What does that mean? What is and isn´t "solid drawing"? What are the rules that determine if something is "solid drawing"?

Rule #12: Appeal. Again, what does that mean? You take 100 different people and one can get a different definition from each. What appeals to you does not appeal to your neighbor. How does one measure "appeal"? What are the sub-golden rules for making something "appeal"???

How can you have "Golden Rules" that are vague and undefinable and can be anything to anyone?

I just want to point out that any and all effects/looks can be achieved by animating with an image in Moho. Moho isn't just a vector animation tool.

Brian

Nichod - Very good that you pointed that out!
(I have said it before, I think Moho has almost greater strength as an image animation program than a vector animation program -because of Mohos weak drawing tools.)´

I wonder what all the Disney and other animation books say about the use of using colorful and cluttered images rather than simple drawings? Since Disney and the others never did image animation - how could they even discuss the subject? (Yes, I know the reply - the "Golden Rules" apply to all animation... )

And then when one combines both image and vector drawing really fun things can happen....
Robot Can with Rockets.mov

Toontoonz wrote:How can you have "Golden Rules" that are vague and undefinable and can be anything to anyone?

I believe a struck a nerve somewhere in this thread

I would say that those "Golden rules" are rather esoteric than vague. There is a fine distinction. You have to study Disney (or similar) animation to understand what it all means (by practical application, just reading is not enough). This alone may take 10 years.

According to Illusion of Life

Men had devoted their whole lives to the mastery of these elusive principles.

So it can't hurt to learn something about them by reading and studying certain animation books. I think it's far better than trying to reinvent the wheel yourself.

Trying to answer your questions (source Illusion of Life):

What is solid drawing?

Try answering these questions to check if your drawings are solid:
"Does your drawing have weight, depth and balance?"
"Does your drawing has 'twins'?" (a situation in which both arms and both legs are parallel and doing the same thing)
"Is what you have drawn capable of being shaped, formed (pliable)?"

What is appeal?

"Appeal means anything that a person likes to see, a quality of charm, pleasing design, simplicity, communication, and magnetism. Your eye is drawn to the figure that has appeal, and, once there, it is held while your appreciate what you are seeing."

"The ugly and repulsive may capture your gaze, but there will be neither the building of character nor identification with the situation that will be needed. There is a shock value, but no story strength."

"Appeal communicates emotion through drawing."
___

I'm sure this doesn't completely answer your questions, but it is a start.

I've read somewhere in this thread that the book Illusion of Life doesn't learn you to animate, but I beg to differ. Okay, it isn't a school book with exercises, but it offers a rich collection of ideas, from which you can draw for years to come. You learn that animation is a communication medium par excellence.

Your animation doesn't have to be a 1:1 copy of Disney's (even current Disney animation doesn't resemble animation from the Golden Age of Animation), but the underlying ideas of Disney animation are pretty powerfull stuff, which you apply (or not apply) in your projects any way you like.

These underlying ideas are formulated as the 12 rules of animation.

Nichod wrote:I wouldn't say they invented animation.

Funny that you are saying that, Brian. In the AWN interview with John Kricfalusi he says:

It's beyond me how Mickey Mouse or Walt Disney ever became a success. Disney must have been the blandest human on the planet, it's like he was from another century. When you look at Disney's early cartoons they're the blandest things in the world. Then you see what Fleischer was doing, it's just leagues ahead of Disney.

Obviously John K doesn't like the work of Disney's. But IMO whatever you think of Disney animation, Walt Disney has set the standards for character animation.

Rasheed writes:
What is solid drawing?
Try answering these questions to check if your drawings are solid:
"Does your drawing have weight, depth and balance?"
My Reply: No, maybe, sometimes, could be,yes. Why does it have to?

"Does your drawing has 'twins'?" (a situation in which both arms and both legs are parallel and doing the same thing)
My Reply: No - but I still like it.
And why does it have to be a drawing?

"Is what you have drawn capable of being shaped, formed (pliable)?"
My Reply: What can´t?

Rasheed continues:
What is appeal?
"Appeal means anything that a person likes to see, a quality of charm, pleasing design, simplicity, communication, and magnetism. Your eye is drawn to the figure that has appeal, and, once there, it is held while your appreciate what you are seeing."
My Reply: So in other words, it can be anything.

@Toontoonz: You're acting like a recalcitrant person. I don't like that

I'm not telling you how to create your animation, I'm not telling you to use solid outlines. I'm only asking you to consider something. Visual art is about contents and form, what you want to show and how you want to show it. One cannot do without the other. You seem to want to concentrate on form and forget a bit about contents ("If only Moho could do this...").

I was hoping to convince you to be more subtle in approaching animation, because it could benefit your results.

I wished I had formulated my thoughts and ideas more clearly, because I only wanted to help, nothing more, because I thought this forum was created and maintained to help each other and to exchange thoughts and ideas about animation in general and Moho in particular. I hope I wasn't wrong about that.

I hope you have similar considerations about the Moho forum and will continue to keep the discussions lively and on the subject.

Rasheed wrote:@Toontoonz: You're acting like a recalcitrant person. I don't like that
Visual art is about contents and form, what you want to show and how you want to show it. One cannot do without the other. You seem to want to concentrate on form and forget a bit about contents ("If only Moho could do this...").

I was hoping to convince you to be more subtle in approaching animation, because it could benefit your results..

Rasheed - I do this for a job. I know my art, I am not starting out, I am not a student. I have my own style, I know what I can do. I have clients, I have an agent, I have created illustrations for publications and ad agencies around the world. My art is shown in galleries and in private and corporate collections around the world. (No, I am not bragging, I am establishing credentials.)

Do any artists or animators (whatever their level of expertise - beginner or professional) needs someone (you) who´s entire career in the illustration, art and animation and creative field consists of reading a couple of animation books in the last few weeks and has now deemed himself an art and animation expert telling them what to do???
Do you read a couple of books on medicine and then tell a doctor how to do surgery?
Do you read a book on cars and then tell a mechanic how to fix a car?
Do you read a book on planes and then tell the airline pilot how to fly a plane?
Do you read a book on opera and then tell the soprano how to sing?
Do you read a book on golf and then tell a pro golfer how to swing the club?

I am having a hard time figuring out where you think you get the credibility to tell people how to create art and animation when you have never done it your entire life. All you have done is read a couple of books!

If you don´t like it that people disagree with you, then don´t write things.

I think everyone is being a bit touchy. Relax. Enjoy the discussion about techniques and ideas. And we should all apologize to Venkman for making this an argument as opposed to helpful discussion.

Brian

Who´s arguing? I´m having fun!

Thinking of the observation about Disney's blandness...

My understanding was that his first cartoons became popular because they used sound (Steamboat Willy, Plane Crazy), and people were blown away by that. I can see where the animation wasn't state of the art at the time.

On a similar, albeit seemingly unrelated note, I'm made to think of the animation in South Park. That stuff is really nothing to write home about! The character design, while fun, is not great!

The thread that runs through both these things (early Disney and South Park) is that they both struck a nerve in the "whole-package" sense. Disney with the use of sound and later, color, and South Park by being ridiculously, obnoxiously, offensively funny. Each in their own way were the first to do what they did, and thus captured the public imagination.

I'm sure there's a message in there somewhere about the importance (or irrelevance) of craft and skill in as much as it relates to creating successful animation.

Regardless, it's funny/endearing to see a friendly argument amongst people who, if thrown together in the same room, would probably be fast friends. Not that many people care about this stuff, one way or another! We have to find these isolated venues to even be able to have a spirited conversation about something about which most people are only marginally aware. It's reassuring, in a way. When I talk to my wife about this stuff she gets a patient, distracted look on her face.

Kind regards,