Introducing: Channel 27 sting. Biggety.

I can't say I've talked much about the following project on here much. So to make up for it I'm even including a video clip(!) Yes, that's right I'm posting another one of those bad boys. So, on to business, this clip was a project for my 3D animation class. We had to produce a sting for a TV station, real or otherwise, made from 3D (obviously.) For those who don't know what a sting is, it is the bits that advertise the actual station and it's shows. Importantly, the logo of the station is shown/advertised. Okay, before I really go to town on my jive-talking/fire-walking of this clip, I'll post the video up. SHAKIRA SHAKIRA:



There he is look! Okay, as you can see for a 3D project it's pretty 2D. I'm still a bigger fan of traditional animation over modern 3D. At least, I find traditional stuff easier to do alone. I'd probably try more complex 3D stuff if I was working with a group. Probably anyway. Furthermore, currently, my 3D modeling isn't at a great level I would like to improve that before planning stronger 3D stuff.

So, already roasted, my video needs some bigging up I think. In planning the sting I made sure I worked to my level. I wasn't planning Toy Story 3. As long as I made it an interesting enough concept *and* something that could be viewed as a professional production, my aims would have been achieved. Which I dare say I did. So there.

I think that my prioritizing of the importance of character made my sting what it is. I have a theory that I've considered quite a bit since taking on 3D work. That is that, the less a character looks human, the more character it has. On the flipside, if a character looks realistic the audience will see the flaws and other issues that stop it from being totally real. For example, it seems like it is easier to see human characteristics in R2D2 than a human character from, say, Final Fantasy: Spirits Within.

Reading that back it doesn't make much sense but I'm pretty sure I'm on to something. I'll revisit this theory later in this blog because it is rather important to a lot of my animation work. And because I'm sure I'll be able to explain it better. And I know the theory has legs. Honest.

Introducing: After Death

Still holding? I figured out how to post! (Thanks Henry, check his video entry.)



Okay, that's After Death. The guy dies, upsetting his dog. Spits out an egg, which turns out to be a representation of his little soul (aww!) Which turns out to be a very small part of the old doggy. Repeat. I took inspiration from the quote "Time is not important, only life." Deep.

What I tried to do was work with time on the initial audio, the ticking clock. In mentioning that, I originally wanted to have imagery of a clock face but, when the sound of ticking is just as recognisable, it wasn't necessary. The dog was added to lighten the mood a little - the grim reaper scene seems umm... a bit grim. The audio track is also quite foreboding to boot.

Oi oi! That's that done. Now, expect a few more videos to arrive in here and spice this place up like the bottom of a bag of McCoy Crisps. Steak flavour. Keep busy you cow.

Seminar exercise; Still Image Narrative Deconstruction

Boring title I know but this needs a bit of explanation before we get to brass tacks. Or something. In our direction class we (the class) were asked to produce a short narrative using only still images. These had to be produced with time, audio and image composition in mind. Now, having watched the results I need to comment on how I thought the project was tackled. But first, I should point out I've have made mine and I hope to upload it onto this blog in the next post. Let's hope my html knowledge holds out. And then you'll be able to see an example of a final piece. Also, I might link to, and comment on, other people's clip as they also use blogger. If I'm feeling sexy. Hear me now:


It seemed as a whole the class tackled it in a similar fashion. Functional, and about people or situations of people. On other words, nothing was experimental. It seemed very little symbolism was used. I'm not saying that's a bad thing mind, I guess its done in more art-based courses, it's just a favourite style of mine (I'll leave the judgement of my piece for the next blog entry.)

For me, since the project was limited to still imagery the use of sound is extremely important. As is the edits. Now, generally, the class work produced ranged from functional to an afterthought in my opinion. The still images/photography rarely went wrong. It seemed to be frequently a strong point in fact, using framing and juxtaposition of props. However, I think more consideration of audio could have been useful.

There were examples of animation also in the works (Ed Walsh's; the rolling of the joint reminds me of a Jan Svankmeyer.) Which I always love. And it's entirely within the brief since animations are just a load of stills right? (yes, I'm probably trying to justify mine) But then, others stuck close to the brief and used the still imagery as a way to tell the story. I have a really good example but I've forgotten who did it. It was a story of a night out that ends up on drugs, it was good because it cut really professionally and it knew where it was going. Good use of comedy to. I'll link it as soon as I find out who did it so apologies to the person in question. It's definitely worth a watch.


Okay, I think that's that. Now, I'll try make the next post my video and maybe give it a brief comment. Hold on to something firm.