Talk:List of films with live action and animation
Please add
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Film: Filmmaking Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Please add
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Animation Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
wrong date
I just saw a live action and animation movie from 1934- "Hollywood Party" wth Jimmy Durante, Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy and Mickey Mouse in a live action and animated sequence. Whassup with your dates. Thirties, not forties! Dcrasno (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC) 04:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcrasno (talk • contribs)
Define the combination
Before making any changes to this article, I wanted to gather some opinions. Frankly, I do not think that special effects films, like the King Kong and Godzilla remakes should be lumped in with films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I also have doubts regarding, say the James Bond films. I propose that the list of films should pretty much be limited to films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, where the viewer is aware of the combination, not films where animation is used for snazzy title sequences or where it’s simply used as a special effect. 67.239.63.243 (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Read the first sentence at the top of the page.
AllSome of the films that you removed fit that description quite clearly. If you need further input you should start a conversation at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and/or the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation. MarnetteD | Talk 13:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)- I should add that this list could be pared down but you have removed titles that quite clearly belong here. I have posted requests for comment at the two projects that I mentioned above so please wait (as you statede that you were going to do) until more input has occurred. MarnetteD | Talk 13:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- If I had to define it, I would certainly only include films where the animation is just as prevalent as the live action. If a film merely as a stunt scene performed in CGI that really isn't an "animated" film. King Kong is just as animated as it is live action, as is Transformers (I think people get hung up on the fact that traditionally "animated" means cartoon). But Casino Royale, Extract, Jackass 3D, etc. are not really animated films. They are live action films that had an animated sequence or scene. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I should add that this list could be pared down but you have removed titles that quite clearly belong here. I have posted requests for comment at the two projects that I mentioned above so please wait (as you statede that you were going to do) until more input has occurred. MarnetteD | Talk 13:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that special-effects films don't belong, it should only be films where the animation is intended to be perceived as animation, and there should be a significant amount of both techniques (not just an opening sequence, for example). Exactly where to draw the line can be difficult, but I'd rather see a tricky borderline film included than rejected. I like that many entries have explanations of how and to what extent they belong in the list. Smetanahue (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. It certainly makes sense that the Bond films should be removed. Smetanahue could you please clarify for me (because I might be misreading your words) what style of animation you are referring to. Do you mean only cell animation should be included? Or can stop motion animation like that done by Ray Harryhausen be included. And what are your thoughts on the CGI animation that Bignole mentions? You are right about the explanations being a good - maybe some could be added to the entries that don't currently have them. MarnetteD | Talk 15:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- What I assumed Smetanahue meant (and what I fully agree with) is that if the animated elements of the film are intended to be seen as animation, and not as an effect used to render something which is meant to be as "real" as the live action parts, then it belongs here. For example, the live-action Transformers movies shouldn't be here, as the CGI characters are intended to be part of the same "existence" as the actors - however, in, for instance, Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Cool World, there is a clear break in what is meant to be portrayed as "real" and what is meant to be seen as deliberately animated. Perhaps the Bakshi Lord of the Rings would be a good gauge to use - it's rotoscoped, and so appears cel animated, but there also cel animated effects used to enhance it. However, they're meant to mesh together so as not to seem separate entities, and so the film is not intended to be seen as a mixture of live action and animation, but as a live action film with special effects. Or, for example, the use of matte backgrounds in live action films (especially the animated background mattes seen in Hellraiser II) could strictly be considered "animation", but they're simply effects meant to compliment the live action. Basically what I'm trying to say is that if the animation seems deigetic, then it doesn't belong here. If it's non-diegetic, then it does. GRAPPLE X 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- The history section of this article would seem to give a good description of what the creator and ensuing editors of this page were aiming at and it looks like there definition is not as specific as the one that some of you seem to be describing (and my apologies if I am misreading or misunderstanding what you are saying.) If I am reading you right then I think that this means that you would remove King Kong from the list. But that films technique would be enhanced by Harryhausen and these films are called "stop motion animation" and, thus, fit into the scope of this list. I hope that I am coming to understand what you are driving, but, I lean towards the wider inclusion of films as described by Bignole. This makes me wonder if this article might be a candidate for being split into smaller lists with a more specific description of the reasoning of the films included. MarnetteD | Talk 17:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think if you keep it open for films like King Kong or the other Harryhausen films, you would be obligated to allow any film which uses an animated special effect, such as the Peter Jackson King Kong with its CGI ape or The Terminator with its scale-model animation. If there's going to be a split, then a list article with the "non-diegetic" animation, such as Cool World, would probably be better accompanied by categories for the animated special effects, or else a comprehensive list for those would be far too unwieldy. GRAPPLE X 17:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that on the other side of the spectrum, I think Polar Express shouldn't be here either. I know it used real actors in stop motion, but stop motion is just another form of animation, meaning the entire film was animated. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think if you keep it open for films like King Kong or the other Harryhausen films, you would be obligated to allow any film which uses an animated special effect, such as the Peter Jackson King Kong with its CGI ape or The Terminator with its scale-model animation. If there's going to be a split, then a list article with the "non-diegetic" animation, such as Cool World, would probably be better accompanied by categories for the animated special effects, or else a comprehensive list for those would be far too unwieldy. GRAPPLE X 17:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- The history section of this article would seem to give a good description of what the creator and ensuing editors of this page were aiming at and it looks like there definition is not as specific as the one that some of you seem to be describing (and my apologies if I am misreading or misunderstanding what you are saying.) If I am reading you right then I think that this means that you would remove King Kong from the list. But that films technique would be enhanced by Harryhausen and these films are called "stop motion animation" and, thus, fit into the scope of this list. I hope that I am coming to understand what you are driving, but, I lean towards the wider inclusion of films as described by Bignole. This makes me wonder if this article might be a candidate for being split into smaller lists with a more specific description of the reasoning of the films included. MarnetteD | Talk 17:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- What I assumed Smetanahue meant (and what I fully agree with) is that if the animated elements of the film are intended to be seen as animation, and not as an effect used to render something which is meant to be as "real" as the live action parts, then it belongs here. For example, the live-action Transformers movies shouldn't be here, as the CGI characters are intended to be part of the same "existence" as the actors - however, in, for instance, Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Cool World, there is a clear break in what is meant to be portrayed as "real" and what is meant to be seen as deliberately animated. Perhaps the Bakshi Lord of the Rings would be a good gauge to use - it's rotoscoped, and so appears cel animated, but there also cel animated effects used to enhance it. However, they're meant to mesh together so as not to seem separate entities, and so the film is not intended to be seen as a mixture of live action and animation, but as a live action film with special effects. Or, for example, the use of matte backgrounds in live action films (especially the animated background mattes seen in Hellraiser II) could strictly be considered "animation", but they're simply effects meant to compliment the live action. Basically what I'm trying to say is that if the animation seems deigetic, then it doesn't belong here. If it's non-diegetic, then it does. GRAPPLE X 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. It certainly makes sense that the Bond films should be removed. Smetanahue could you please clarify for me (because I might be misreading your words) what style of animation you are referring to. Do you mean only cell animation should be included? Or can stop motion animation like that done by Ray Harryhausen be included. And what are your thoughts on the CGI animation that Bignole mentions? You are right about the explanations being a good - maybe some could be added to the entries that don't currently have them. MarnetteD | Talk 15:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I found an interesting video where Roger Ebert talks about animation: [1]. I think he makes some excellent points, and his definition seems to be the most sensible one to go by- it has to LOOK like animation to be animation. If it’s used as a special effect, it’s not animation. So again, films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit definitely make the cut. Films like King Kong (that use animation as an effect) or the James Bond films (which only use animation during the title sequence) or Annie Hall (which has an animated cutaway that lasts for less than a minute) do NOT belong. I think the animation should not only obviously be animation, but it should also interact with the live action. You could probably lose 90% of the films currently listed, without hurting the article one iota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.63.243 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Title
Is there a better title for this article? It doesn't just include films; it lists TV shows as well. Alphius (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's because people have been adding TV shows without paying attention to the article subject. I just removed a bunch of entries which were not films. There's probably an article about TV shows with live action and animation, though I haven't checked myself as of posting this. JayHubie (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Define "animation"
The list appears to include films with traditional hand-drawn animation as well as modern CGI animation (the Star Wars prequels, for example). Given the number of films which have used CGI even a little (e.g. Live Free or Die Hard used some, but is hardly thought of as "live action and animation"), this list could become immensely cumbersome and I think would lose it's intent. So how should "animation" then be defined? JayHubie (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Motion-capture
It seems motion-capture technology to animate a character will exclude that movie from this list. The many characters Andy Serkis has lent his talents to (Golum, King Kong, Ceaser) and other movies (The Mummy, etc) seem to fit in this category, but are not listed.
The Avengers, which uses motion capture for The Hulk, is on the list while the other Hulk movies since 1990 that used computer animation to create the character are not.