Practical/Visual Response Development work

There isn't a lot in terms of development work, what with the little time I've had to make this, I basically ended up making it the more I went along, if you get me. There are a few details to add, though.

These are the sheets with all the tweets I was gonna quote in the animation. I was originally gonna read out all of them with a distinct voice for each one, but I only had time to record three, unfortunately. This was essentially my script, both to use as reference for each scene while I was sketching them out, as well as to actually voice the characters with (obviously). To be honest, some of these are gold while others I can't really visualise (this is why prefer storyboards over scripts).

These were some of the sketches I made, just to see how the idea will look in my head. As you can tell, that dude with the quiff was meant to be the guy in all the scenes, but it didn't really make sense, since all the notes are from different studios, and I kind of imagined different looks for each producer; perhaps if the design was refined a bit more I could have made that idea make sense. The art was mainly inspired by Chuck Jones and John Kricfalusi's art, since I was only focusing on keyframes, and not actually animating them all (again, time), and that style of exaggeration does a great job at adding character and establishing emotion to still images.

woooooaaahhh foreshortening

I added more negative space on the far right to give the camera room to pan.

This is how they look in the end. I focused a lot more on the composition side of these scenes. I gave the characters room to move around and truly emote within the environment. The backgrounds look like trash, I'm not gonna lie. I wanted them to look extra silly and to shift more focus on the characters. They still don't look good, but they get the job done, at least.

That's everything. It's not much, I know. Hopefully by next year, I'll have more time to plan the next visual response out.

Identity: My Thoughts

Identity has become a very touchy subject recently, what with gender, racial, and sexual identities being a topic of debate among many people. To be honest, it's nobody's business what defines a person's identity, but I understand why some will get irritated by other people over it. People tend to lead themselves to believe that the most basic form of identity is all that matters, when that contradicts the nature of sociology within humanity. Every person has their own distinct nature, personality, mentality, appearance, and attitude, all of which, and more, being the elements of one's identity. These identities are all given labels, because society functions simply by following these labels, I find. It also seems that when some new identity with a new label comes along, or somebody identifies as something else, despite containing all the attributes to a specific identity, society as a whole begins to fall apart because it seems to me like this is a concept that no understands immediately, or that some people refuse to see something like this change.

I believe the reason some people create an identity for themselves is because they get confused about who they really are and an answer to that question as all the more emotionally satisfying. This is a totally legitimate reason to seek an identity, because all some people need to move on from the difficulties of life are answers. And I won't deny that, recently, the internet has become rather infested with people who take advantage of this logic for attention. People tend to deny this but I happen to be close friends with people who are legitimately transgender and/or suffer from mental illnesses, and they don't shove it in people's faces and tell everyone how "oppressed" they are over their identity half as much as those pretenders do. I sound bitter over this but I legitimately get so frustrated when people make up reasons to say they're "oppressed" (that's pretty much a buzzword, at this point, on Tumblr). It only trivialises real-life oppression towards people over their identities.

As mentioned before, a lot of people don't immediately grasp the concept I brought up earlier about the satisfaction of finding an answer to the question of one's own identity. I feel like it should be something people are taught in school or by their parents at an early age. If people understood the reason some girls choose to identify as boys, and vice-versa, or just the fact that there are several more identities out there than what the media leads people to believe but make people less inclined to get frustrated at the notion.

The Producers - Money, Movies, and Who Really Calls the Shots

I referenced this book quite a bit in my essay about whether or not producers are a detriment to entertainment. I particularly talked about the section talking about Dino De Laurentiis, because it brings up a very interesting concept regarding the subject. Basically, the way De Laurentiis works as a producer, according to the book, is that he separates his films into production movies, films in which he funds them solely for profit, and auteur movies, which is pretty self-explanatory. This was particularly interested when the book went into detail about how De Laurentiis and David Lynch collaborated. They both agreed on a contract in which Lynch had to make a blockbuster film (Dune) and in exchange he got to make an independent film of his choice (Blue Velvet), but since Dune ended up being a huge flop, Laurentiis only gave Lynch $6 million to fund his next film.

The reason this fascinated me was because it made me think about why producers would make a film for profits in the first place. Sure, some producers might only care about the money but given Laurentiis' working habit, he seems to put money as a high priority in order to even allow his directors to have the creative freedom they need for their project. Sometimes an auteur will be so overly ambitious when given the amount of freedom they want that they end up needing more money for their films, so the producers can afford to sacrifice quality for cash, in order for art to prevail. This really changed my view on producers as a whole in general. Keep in mind, I've always known what the actual role of the producer is, but I know some work differently to others, and this book even categorises them.

Globalisation and Sustainablility

I don't know what to make of globalisation, honestly. I mean the definitions I hear, the socialist and capitalist, both leave a bad taste in my mouth. They both seem to have connotations of fascism to me. I guess I'm just new to this concept, I mean I've always somehow encountered it but no one's ever really explained it to me. Basically, from what I can understand, the general definition is of globalisation is the act of political and/or sociological influence from one nation to another, operating on a global scale. There are apparently definitions exclusive to socialists and capitalists.

The socialist definition is, and I quote, "The process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones. It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces." So, from what I can gather from this, it basically means every culture applying their social, economical and political standards into one sustainable global culture. This is a very ambitious... no... naive idea. There are far too many things to consider and to eliminate in order for this idea to be successful. I mean there's the ethics of each culture for starters, because different cultures will find some things unethical whereas others won't, causing far more chaos than order. There's also the fact that different cultures succeed in terms of economical stability. Some have a very stable, and even beneficial system as opposed to others which effectively screw over the country, but there are still people that will find reasons to support their bad economy. There's also factoring in political forces, which, again, there are still people that will hold onto their political views very strongly, so expecting everyone to follow one imaginary global view is asking far too much. This goal of globalisation basically forgets that people are not only each unique individuals but also animals that will fight if there is any disharmony, whether that's regarding their views, their economy, or pretty much anything that contradicts what they stand for. That's the reason their are wars and crime in the world, and bringing all these people together would be like mixing the wrong kinds of acids, causing a lab to explode.

The capitalist definition is, "The elimination of state-enforced restrictions on exchanges across borders and the increasingly integrated and complex global system of production and exchange that has emerged as a result". This seems to be the definition people tend to focus on, since it relates to westernisation/americanisation. It basically eliminates any borders that block economical negotiation and exchanges between different cultures, essentially benefitting from their better economy. It's a system which has benefitted the country and its industries for years, but at what cost? Well there's advantages and disadvantages to this system. Firstly, let's just say there's a reason people here "globalisation" and immediately think of the terms "westernisation/americanisation". American culture has become the most dominant and well-known one in the world and it is because of how capitalist the country is.

One thing that brings my piss to a boil is when people start going on about "Mcdonaldsisation". It's basically a term that interprets McDonalds as a dominant symbol of America, as it's probably the most popular food chain of all time and it just happens to be from America, and it's considered a symbol of American society that often finds its way into other countries. They appear in countries all around Europe, Africa, Asia, pretty much every where, really. I still don't see what the problem is, though. I mean I'll accept the complaint that they often buy out smaller independent businesses, as does as Starbucks too, but how is McDonalds affecting society exactly? They aren't taking over every country, they're just there to give people a taste of American culture, much like how places in Briatin like Yo Sushi give people a taste of food from a different culture, and you always have the option of simply not going to one too. It's not affecting other local restaurants because they make a decent wage from tourists, and locals anyway. It's just a god damn fast food restaurant at the end of the day!

American culture has become considered by many as the ideal way of life, and it is because of the way it is portrayed by the global media. The ideal lifestyle by many different cultures is usually what american culture has deemed ideal. And I mean everything. The way they speak, the stereotypical patriotism (not just for your own country but even for America), and the typical portrayal of family life. That's not all, the television shows, movies, journalists, and video games are usually the american too, hence their global success; their portrayals of American life influences society in different cultures. Just listen to what Craig Ferguson says here:

He basically explains that being young, and stupid is considered the most ideal lifestyle, and I would add wealthy to that as well because it supports his theory on "why everything sucks". American youth is portrayed very often in the form of reality shows such as Jersey Shore, My Super Sweet 16, and America's Next Top Model, and the appeal of these shows is that idea of wealth among young people, and it glorifies the notion that young people can be successful without really doing anything of worth or benefit, and just being stupid all the time. This notion has been carried over to UK culture too, with shows like Big Brother, X Factor, and Britain's Got Talent. Not only that but many countries around the world have their own versions of these shows, because American media's glorification of success has had that strong an effect on society around the world.

There are advantages to Americanisation, though. The ideals that they often go on about but never really follow are great. Freedom of speech is one I adore, as well as equal rights to all races and genders. There is also the lesson of working hard to follow your dreams, which really contradicts the glorification of young wealthy idiots from the last paragraph (no wonder this concept if often forgotten). In terms of animation, key area I've been meaning to focus on but just sort of procrastinated, the American style of this, and hell even filmmaking, is probably the best around. Cartoons like Loony Tunes, Tom & Jerry, and Disney all have positive influences on animation around the world. Just look at how anime is often influenced by American media. Cowboy Bebop is one of the best anime series ever and it has very western connotations, within the soundtrack, the western and film noir influences, and the action. The same goes for live action cinema and its influence over there. John Woo, director of Hard Boiled, The Killer, and even went on to make Hollywood films Face/Off and Broken Arrow, is influenced by the western style of action films, and pays tribute to them constantly, while arguably ding what American action films do even better! There are times when Japanese and American styles are combined and work incredibly well together. Pacific Rim and Godzilla are two of the best kaiju movies of the past two years and they were both Hollywood films, but they were mainly influenced by Japanese movies, like Pacific Rim was influenced not just by other kaiju movies but also mecha animes, like Gurren Lagann and Evangeleon. There are also cartoons like the Avatar franchise, Samurai Jack, Boondocks, etc. that are often called "American Anime", since their art styles are that similar to Japan's however, they still incorporate the animation style of the west, following the 12 principles of animation, being animated at 24 fps, and being able to do very exaggerated poses and facial expressions. One thing I will say is that the portrayal of Americans in Japan always brings a smile to my face.

"AMERICA!"

So while globalisation can have its disadvantages, there are still reasons why it can have a positive impact on the world. You just have to know where to look. It's also worthwhile to know what's actually positive and negative about what's being brought over to your culture. I mean Americanisation has its place in history as possibly the most negative lifestyle to influence yourself but it's not all bad. You can still enjoy a McDonalds quarter pounder with cheese while enjoying other people's food, I mean they're a heart attack in a bun but still pretty damn good. I wonder why I talked about America the whole time, though. I guess it's because it's all I was taught about regarding globalisation, like it's the most negative aspect of it, and people have a tendency of only focusing on that. Maybe someday we'll actually talk about the impact other cultures have had on us, and maybe look at the positive impact americanisation has had, while not forgetting the negative ones. Screw that though! They just built a new Starbucks down the street! Time to whine and complain about America ruling the world and poisoning our drinking water with their presence! Us brits are far too PERFECT for american things!

Censorship and 'Truth'

I'm a little on the fence with this subject matter. Granted, I am completely against censorship of the truth, however with art I'm not 100% against censorship. On censorship of truth, there is no good excuse to me on censoring real-world problems. For example, photography depicting what is happening in third world countries, and an army battlefield being manipulated removes any validity that it ever had. This is because the images in a photograph affect the context behind it greatly. True, some photographs aren't manipulated, but images of corpses from enemy soldiers, even citizens of countries, images like that tend to be censored to maintain the view that the soldiers defending our country are heroes, so the idea that they are performing such amoral things wouldn't sit right with people. Although, I would argue that these images would only affect people's views on war, and whether it is really always an ethical way of solving our problems, but no screw thinking about things, let's just lead on that war is right by hiding the truth from people. So you'd think it was just the negative truth being censored right? It actually goes both ways.

Remember the Haiti earthquake from 2010? The news reports covered basically enough (or at least as much as they could) to get an idea of how bad it was for the time, but after a while, they just started making up stories about the Haitians rioting for the aid being given to them and that it got to the point where they just started fighting over empty boxes, as pointed out here by in Charlie Brooker's Newswipe. You can clearly see in the news footage that the Haitians were playfully slamming and chucking the boxes to each other, essentially making the best of the situation they're in. Not only that but they conveniently have no visual evidence of their claims that they're brandishing weapons at each other; they even admit this but follow it up with "it almost doesn't matter" (Yes, lady. Yes it does). I can think of two reasons they would make such bizarre claims like this. Either they needed more viewers and had to tell a more "interesting" version of what was happening to grab more of an audience, or they thought people were losing interest in these events so they had to make up some more negative news about Haiti. I feel like the former is more likely, but I mentioned the latter since it would seem like the fake news reports had the best intentions, but I still find that unethical because lies are still lies, and the ends don't justify the means.

What about censorship of art though? Am I against that? Well... It depends. Some aspects of art may be deemed inappropriate depending on how well it translates to different cultures, and rightly so. Pokemon had that very notorious episode that caused literally hundreds of children to have seizures, so it's no wonder it was banned and was refused to air in different countries. I can't exactly say the same for the way they used to treat moments in the show where they would reference Japanese culture, such as the characters clearly eating rice balls but being called "sandwiches" or "donuts". It used to happen a lot with localised kid's anime, in which 4kids, the company behind the American dubs of anime, would pretend they weren't made in Japan to be more appealing to kid's audiences. I guess they thought a culture shock would be too off-putting for younger viewers. It also used to happen in video games during the 90s when they were being released outside of Japan, Nintendo or Sega of America would make changes to the graphics in order to be appropriate. Final Fantasy VI (among pretty much every other Japanese RPG at the time) would have towns with Bars or Pubs in them, but were changed to Cafes by merely changing the text on the signs!

Trust me, inside it looks just like a bar, nothing like a cafe.

Not only this but stuff like religious references, such as spells called "Holy" or random crosses or something like that, were taking out as well. I think this just shows that the MPAA and BBFC tend to focus on how children's parents respond to material relating to alcohol, tobacco, and other stuff that you'll find in Japanese children's programming and gaming. They are afraid of annoying parents because they'll switch off the TV if they don't like what their children are watching. If you ask me though, that's more of a problem with the parents being too overprotective of their kids, and no TV show, film, or video game should suffer because of their negligence. It's no wonder children's entertainment acts like it has a gun to its head all the time.

Censorship is a rough subject. No matter what intentions people have, there will always be some dominant power that doesn't see it their way and will decide to censor it because of it. Whether the intention is to entertain people or to give people the harsh truth about the real world, someone with enough power to alter how the message is told by changing its connotations will end up getting their hands on it. Some people can't handle the harsh truth though, but it's unfortunately wrong to omit the truth no matter how bad it makes them feel. Would you rather your doctor give it to you straight or let you suffer without you realising it? That's my philosophy. With censorship of entertainment, I'm against censorship of that unless it's something that can genuinely harm people, otherwise, don't touch something that's not yours.