Someday I'll post in full my semi-trolling take that animation should have made all live-action film obsolete decades ago, in much the same way that cinema should have made live theatre obsolete https://twitter.com/loudmouthjulia/status/1264781496688226306 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Or, at least, you can have animation as one end of the spectrum and live theatre as the other end but live-action film is an awkward hybrid of the two media that should not exist (With nonsense like the "live-action" Lion King remake I even kind of actually believe this)
5 replies 1 retweet 24 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @arthur_affect
I hadn't considered this before. It really is kind of odd that live-action films didn't replace theatre, and animation didn't replace live-action films. Now I know what I'll ponder when i'm not sleeping tonight.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MKP0tter
Well, I mean, in a practical sense it's because for most of animation's history animation has been very expensive and difficult
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @MKP0tter
To go back into troll mode, a film camera is a cheating, dishonorable way to avoid paying a team of animators by automatically drawing 24 pictures per second without any human being spending any effort or care on rendering any individual frame
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes
If CGI was a lazy shortcut for the true effort and grit it takes to be a traditional animator, surely the film camera was even more so I mean there's no creativity to it! The picture just looks like the thing you pointed it at!
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.