Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 9350255" data-attributes="member: 7808">I feel like the advent of using computers for everything (and I do mean everything) is pushing us towards an era where terms like &quot;cartoon&quot;, &quot;comic&quot;, &quot;anime&quot;, &quot;graphic novels&quot;, and even &quot;live action&quot; are a description of visual style and/or aesthetic rather than the technique used to make them.People colloquially call the 2019 version of the Lion King live action, but it's 100% animated.&nbsp; The &quot;live action&quot; Beauty and the Beast remake is blatantly more CGI than live action.&nbsp; Meanwhile, we call movies like Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Phantom Tollbooth animated, even though they probably have more live action film in them than the Star Wars prequels, which were basically just actors against a green screen with everything non-human added later.&nbsp; Can you really give a technical reason why The Smurfs or Alvin and the Chipmunks would be considered live action while Space Jam: A New Legacy is considered animated?&nbsp; I can't.So, yeah, I'm okay with calling Avatar: The Last Airbender or Castlevania anime.&nbsp; It's the style.&nbsp; It fits.&nbsp; I've been arguing about whether something is technically anime since The Last Unicorn, and the world just keeps getting more gray.I absolutely love me some Windsor McKay.&nbsp; But I was under the impression that silhouette animation predated his hand drawn stuff.&nbsp; Do you happen to know what things like The Adventures of Prince Achmed were called at the time of original release?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 9350255, member: 7808"] I feel like the advent of using computers for everything (and I do mean everything) is pushing us towards an era where terms like "cartoon", "comic", "anime", "graphic novels", and even "live action" are a description of visual style and/or aesthetic rather than the technique used to make them. People colloquially call the 2019 version of the Lion King live action, but it's 100% animated. The "live action" Beauty and the Beast remake is blatantly more CGI than live action. Meanwhile, we call movies like Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Phantom Tollbooth animated, even though they probably have more live action film in them than the Star Wars prequels, which were basically just actors against a green screen with everything non-human added later. Can you really give a technical reason why The Smurfs or Alvin and the Chipmunks would be considered live action while Space Jam: A New Legacy is considered animated? I can't. So, yeah, I'm okay with calling Avatar: The Last Airbender or Castlevania anime. It's the style. It fits. I've been arguing about whether something is technically anime since The Last Unicorn, and the world just keeps getting more gray. I absolutely love me some Windsor McKay. But I was under the impression that silhouette animation predated his hand drawn stuff. Do you happen to know what things like The Adventures of Prince Achmed were called at the time of original release? [/QUOTE]

Verification