The only place I might disagree with this piece is that it feels a little dismissive of “texture” as an important part of the story telling. It’s tough to invest in a story or a message if the aesthetic doesn’t appeal to you. Now, that’s a far cry from “ermahgerd that’s kid crap/
-
-
But trying to get into shows like Adventure Time and Steven Universe simply didn’t work for me because the aesthetic wasn’t appealing. Not because it’s “for kids”. Same applies to “adult” animation. Could never get into Rick and Morty either, largely b/c of the aesthetic
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @abollmer @the_moviebob
But our interest in aesthetics / texture are largely just abstract, nonsensical limits we place on ourselves so that we can "fall into" a movie and they have nothing to do with text-based storytelling. I actually talked about it last weekhttp://observer.com/2018/05/the-two-crucial-filmmaking-elements-causing-all-your-movie-feuds/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
maybe its the slightly condesending tone, so I might be confused/wrong, but texture to you does seem to be just "bad" text? I would argue aesthetics is part of the text in visual storytelling,everything is the text.Wouldn't clean/good storytelling just be your way to "fall into"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
i make the argument that aesthetics have a visual language of communication beyond tone, but specificity of message (this shot means this, this means that) and confusing the two is to confuse what visual language is really about.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
And I say it's confusing because text just seem like your "fall into", clear storytelling seem like your limit? For example why dismiss the artsy guys for not "falling into" Spielbergian swelling strings, for wanting a not overly manipulating visual communication? Why so above?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pod_hard @FilmCritHULK and
Are you a long time reader of Hulk's?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ProjectMarcel @FilmCritHULK and
Nah, on and off I'd say... I used to read him alot before, I think the screaming wore me down, so I missed out on the switch to lowercase. How come?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pod_hard @FilmCritHULK and
I was just curious because if you're familiar with his tastes you know he actually has a great appreciation for art cinema and the naturalistic style artsy guys like. I think what he is talking about in the article is the marriage of texture and purpose.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ProjectMarcel @pod_hard and
Yeah, it's a really reflexive thing because I don't know how to call about people for being above manipulative cinema without sounding like I'm above them, but I really think they're feeling above things... so catch 22. But Jacky Ido's point is spot on,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
In the end for me, whether natural or unnatural, I like clarity and purpose of communication. Which doesn't mean I need things to be single minded at all, I just think there's a huge difference between being multifaceted / complex and being vague.
-
-
Replying to @FilmCritHULK @ProjectMarcel and
I think I agree with you mostly, there is something I cant put words on...which is a bit funny, because I am being vague :) I just want to thank you for replying to my confused ramblings.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.