I'll risk driving the comment section thing off topic by saying: I'm not a fan of downer endings.The way Charlie Branson ended left the same "taste in my mouth" as the way Akira ended. Don't get me wrong, I love the succer-punch endings of the early M. Knight Shyamalan movies, but all of them had a resolution of the base conflict. I can see the purpose of an unresolved conflict in pseudo-documentary movies like like Charlie Branson, but I don't see how they work in fantasy gengre movies like Akira (even though it addresses very real urban blight) or, dare I say, Watchmen.
I'm surprised you haven't yet commented on how Ubisoft has complete creative control over the Assassin's Creed movie. That could end BADLY
antecedentless/I think they mainly appear in "social-realistic" genre movies, like Wachmen, and their purpose is to lend even more realism to the story; things don't always work out in real life.
>That could end BADLYJordan Mechner had a heavy influence on the Sands of Time movie. I'd say that worked for the better.
Oh come on! The Rush Hour movies were fun!
I'll give you that some of Akira's cult status is undue, as far as it works as an actual narrative.However, part of the reason it retains its status is because it is an example of simply amazing cell animation. This thing came out in 1988, and it still blows away most modern animation. The stuff Disney was producing at the time (and now) can't hold a candle to it. It's not just the detail and the fluid animation, it's the craftsmanship.While the narrative may fall apart in the third act, it is still an amazing piece of animation. It's one of those that should be studies by animation students, alongside Fantasia and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. (Yes, I realize Rabbit is Disney, but it was actually made with care, unlike the fully-animated features being produced at that time. Don't believe me? Jump forward to Beauty and the Beast and look at the horrid design, in that.)
My main memory from watching Akira way back when was, yes, the animation was fluid, but the character design... the women seemed androgynous. The chase scenes were intimately animated but the draw distance where kept short.Even accounting for infation, the cost of labor and the cost of a decent standard of living have grown dramatically since 1988. It is just not financially feasable to fund the kind of careful inbetween animation that was done during the 80's. Much inbetween work is done mostly if not entirely by computer these days. When it is not, it is rare to see more than 4 frames between poses.
>infationspeaking of fat, the characters in Akira also seemed rather bubbly and wide. They where porportioned more like dolls than humans.
You forget that Japanese animation isn't 24 frames per second, either. They already use fewer inbetweens. Also, there's almost no such thing as domestic hand drawn animation. Simpsons, Family Guy, all that stuff is shipped to Korea. Disney was really the last one that did it, in-house. And it went to shit, before cashing in on the CGI stuff.Yeah, the character designs in Akira are kinda goofy, but it was that way in the comic, too. But I was never talking about its design, I was talking about the quality of the animation and the background effects, without the help of computers.
Post a Comment