Honestly I feel that animation leaves a lot more of artistic freedom than live action. You can do a lot of crazy shit irl, but it has to stay within the laws of nature. With animation, however, you can just ignore that, and therefore make way more stunning scenes, visual metaphors, all that jazz, and leave a much heavier hitting impact.
Depends on the person really. While stunning animated visuals have more freedom, they are also very heightened to the point where it takes away the realism and therefore lessens the impact. Live action can arguably be more impactful because it's grounded to realism. It's what your own eyes would see if you were there. No flashy animation to mask the "fake" reality. I would say that generally speaking, animation excels more in action whereas live action excels more in character driven stories such as Breaking Bad.
I want to make sure everyone understands that this is the first part of a two part video. I do not have some crazy preference for live action. I think both live action and animation are equally capable of creating great and terrible art. This video is simply me talking about the strengths of live action and therefore I may express somethings that I feel animation is weaker at. The next video will be all about the strengths of animation. In the meantime I’d love to continue the discussion in the comments. :)
You've gotten really good at making videos man. I was engaged the entire time, and while I might not agree with all of your points, they all had substance behind them. Great video, I look forward to part 2.
5:30 I slightly disagree with statement that you can't do a "borat like movie, documentary style" in animation... Look at "Fritz the cat" by ralph bakshi for example - Many dialogues there weren't scripted - of course, there is a script, but i'm mainly talking about scenes with characters casually talking on a street - Many of these dialogues weren't actors saying dialogues - bakshi actually went out on the streets, with a microphone, and recorded people just having conversations, "documentary" style... Basically most of the movie "dialogue" was recorded on the streets of New York. Bakshi also invited few activists to his studio, and just let them speak about whatever they want - And then edited the recording and animated characters to the recording. EDIT: Also, there was a short animation created by cartoon network few years ago, about a teenage kaiju/monster going to the school and talking about his life...
The only problem is that animation is taking less risk is often seen as child entertainment. Not to mention that the majority of popular adult animation are just sitcoms.
is there ever going to be a Part 2? cause this just feels like you're just ripping the hell out of animation as a medium without there being weaknesses to Live action or strengths and weaknesses to animation. Also, alot of contradicting points there. you're only talking about animation as a lengthy film hour and 30+ mins, when there is so much to animation than that. There's short films, there's shows, there's also the widespread of anime and what that did to the horror/gore/action genre in animation. There's also video games. Alot of your points are more of a standpoint of "i don't think itll be the same in animation" but you haven't really gone to see stuff like it in animation. the period pieces point you make can be easily contradicted with war and conflict movies in animation such as Grave of the Fireflies and Waltz with bashir. Long One shots are used in animation, I'd recommend Cannon Fodder (1995). Some shots can be a one-take-irreversible, like Stop motion, a very time consuming medium that takes so much for it to be shot. Your point for Michael Haneke is a really good one, however you mention and show clips from Perfect Blue which that movie was experimental and of its time. It can easily be debunked by something like Red Dead Redemption, which in that you can watch an NPC go through an ENTIRE DAY of actions, not idling or repeated. And if you want to compare movie with animated movie, The Breadwinner is a good example of just characters and stuff happening in the background while the main stuff are happening. I think your points are valid, but your arguments are not weighted and you are referencing animated pieces that are a product of its time and are less funded. Sincerely, an Animation Major that is writing about the effectiveness of animation and stumbled upon your video while researching
I appreciate the comment. I address some of this stuff in part two, like the thing about the grave of the fireflies, maybe it'll clear up some of your issues with the first part. Although I don't really agree with the point your making about long takes existing in animation. While movies like Cannon Fodder exist, the process to creat a long take with animation is very different then live action, so I think it's completely legitimate on my part to admire oners in live action as something unique to the medium. Animated Oners are very different to me.
Haven’t seen either yet, but I’ve heard good things and I’m looking forward to both! Although from my limited knowledge of the films I believe you would be correct.
I can only imagine an Animated breaking bad as some sort of Looney Tunes cartoon, where at the end instead of baby blue playing it just zooms in on Walt with the that’s all folks credits.
This is such a great video, it really shows the strengths of live action and debunks most of animation elitists who say animation is better in every way. I mean I even prefer animation, but I really love live action.
Edit: heavily disagree with almost everything. I feel like live action is a medium with limits, your actors, your props, your sets, these are all limits to a writers imagination. Animation however has none.Its your pen and the paper. Do what you want. An animator can make a character 'act' (show emotion) like a live actions actor. Action scenes have flow, scenes like cowboy bebop, the hand-to-hand fighting in naruto, or zipping around the streets in Spiderman:into the spiderverse (which looked infinitely better than any other of the live action films). Movies like Redline show the immense potential of animation with the proper budget and staff that live action simply can never replicate. Of course live action has it's charms. But my main point is simply that animation can do what live action does, but live action can't do whatever animation does.
There is limits. It’s called authenticity, which animation, no matter how hard it tries cannot replicate. There’s an awe to live action. It’s like instruments vs electronic music. Both have their advantages and disadvantages
Also horror cannot be replicated in the same way with animation. You have to approach it in such a different way, and film just works better for horror.
@@thomasffrench3639 you can say it has authenticity, but when i watch live action i just think: that's a person acting as a character nothing more. just because it has real humans in it doesn't make it have authenticity imo. meanwhile in animation that's the actual character experiencing this stuff. i know you're gonna say something like "its just drawings" so dont. and its probably harder to make an actual scary horror movie with animation but i have seen it be done. and most of this guy's points are all something like this: look how hard this shot is to get perfect, all the props they had to get and the sort. imo just because something is "hard" to achive doesn't make it better. in animation you can get all those thing by drawing. and an amazing animation sequence is better than some acting and "cool" special effects. this is subjective tho. and we all know of the freedom in animtion is way better than live action. and animation (anime) in general has way better writing than live action. anyways everyone is gonna have a preferance that suits them.
@@Void-qd2qy I agree. I guess what I meant to say that it holds more weight metaphorically. Things just more visceral in live action, although it’s easier to get connected with animated characters because they are more simplistic than realistic ones which we connect with more. That’s why you see more people crying at animated moments like Up and One Piece.
Well, this reminds me of a "Killing Monsters" cinematic from Witcher 3. There's an epic fight scene that gave me goosebumps, and I think the reason is that it's an interesting blend of it being so well made that it looks almost like realism, but the medium and the animation allowed it to have angles and camera motion that would be almost impossible to achieve live action. (Do take all this with a grain of salt, I'm not an expert and they probably also used live action tracking? Dunno.)
Honestly there's so much overlap between different ways of making movies that i've kinda stoped comparing them in terms of quality bc it's all so subjective. I persobally relate more to cartoons but i have no idea why, so instead of fighting abt it i just think ppl ought to give movies of different mediums a chance either way, bc there's so much to learn and emulate and pottray no matter which process of fil making u gravitate towards. Like so many people meet in the middle w 3d anyway and don't fcen know it. And where's the line between special efects and stop motion for instance?? Like.. i sometimes too feel i would enjoy a story more if it was animated, but that's bc i Like animation, like i get what makes it tick. So i get discurraged when people don't like it or don't find it realistic or engaging. I think 2d is great bc of the lvl of control u have in setting up a scene. When ur used mainly to animation as a medium live action doesn't look real it just looks sloppy, which isn't true. And i think it's the same way for ppl who are used mainly to live action, it feels stiff and unreal to them bc they're used to watching the micro movements of actors, but i find it distracting. It's honestly quite interesting. And w shows like arcane it's Very Real looking bc the acting is stunning, like being an animator is like being one hivemind actor. It's genuinely super cool. It takes a lot if work from the cinematographer of a live action movie to make a movie Beautiful imo. A lot of live action feels washed out to me bc u'm used to vibrant colours as the Norm in animation, and it's Cool that technology has advanced so that more live action movies these days are able to be more colourful and diverse and Frankly artistic. Like animators are so overly artsy it's honestly kinda crazy but yeah !!! I just think it's cool. And i clearly have a preference but i'm learning to appriciate live action for what it is and i do rly think movie fans benefit ftom not just watching one type of medium.
I've only watched part 1, but man do I disagree with action being better in live-action. First, the difficulty of achieving a given scene isn't really important. In a movie watching experience we should be considering how a scene makes us feel rather than the technical virtuosity it takes to pull of a scene. Film is about communicating some idea to the viewer - whether that's a central theme, an emotion a character is feeling, or just a sense of physical motion - the purpose is the viewer's experience. Honestly, I think if your mind is on the film making itself then you've kind of been pulled out of the experience of the film. Second, while I think action in LA films can be great in its own right, the potential for communicating weight and movement and speed is just so much higher in animation. Because it doesn't take place in the world of normal physics, it has the ability to move with a speed and fluid motion that LA can't really achieve. Animators can distort character's faces and appendages to accentuate the weight of a punch. They can frame things in artful ways that would be essentially impossible with a film camera. But most of all, because we're in the realm of the unreal, our minds buy all these things without a second thought. We see the ideas communicated by the animation choices, rather than seeing a reality and trying to imagine how we'd feel inside that world. Animation is abstract and representational in a way that film rarely is, and that allows it to create action scenes that aren't bound by our sense of reality.
@@MichaelMan2000 a RUclips channel whose done really good reviews of the movies you show in this video. (Great one btw I'm ready for the next parts) figured you might be a fan, check him out!
i gotta say i really disagree with the action. For me animation just has this itch and effect that live action(apart from matrix and a few others) cant hit at all
Honestly I feel that animation leaves a lot more of artistic freedom than live action. You can do a lot of crazy shit irl, but it has to stay within the laws of nature. With animation, however, you can just ignore that, and therefore make way more stunning scenes, visual metaphors, all that jazz, and leave a much heavier hitting impact.
I agree, which is why animation is great for fantasy stories
Depends on the person really. While stunning animated visuals have more freedom, they are also very heightened to the point where it takes away the realism and therefore lessens the impact. Live action can arguably be more impactful because it's grounded to realism. It's what your own eyes would see if you were there. No flashy animation to mask the "fake" reality.
I would say that generally speaking, animation excels more in action whereas live action excels more in character driven stories such as Breaking Bad.
I want to make sure everyone understands that this is the first part of a two part video. I do not have some crazy preference for live action. I think both live action and animation are equally capable of creating great and terrible art. This video is simply me talking about the strengths of live action and therefore I may express somethings that I feel animation is weaker at. The next video will be all about the strengths of animation. In the meantime I’d love to continue the discussion in the comments. :)
You've gotten really good at making videos man. I was engaged the entire time, and while I might not agree with all of your points, they all had substance behind them. Great video, I look forward to part 2.
5:30 I slightly disagree with statement that you can't do a "borat like movie, documentary style" in animation...
Look at "Fritz the cat" by ralph bakshi for example - Many dialogues there weren't scripted - of course, there is a script, but i'm mainly talking about scenes with characters casually talking on a street - Many of these dialogues weren't actors saying dialogues - bakshi actually went out on the streets, with a microphone, and recorded people just having conversations, "documentary" style...
Basically most of the movie "dialogue" was recorded on the streets of New York.
Bakshi also invited few activists to his studio, and just let them speak about whatever they want - And then edited the recording and animated characters to the recording.
EDIT: Also, there was a short animation created by cartoon network few years ago, about a teenage kaiju/monster going to the school and talking about his life...
The only problem is that animation is taking less risk is often seen as child entertainment. Not to mention that the majority of popular adult animation are just sitcoms.
Can’t wait for that part two this analysis was perfect for a project I’m doing right now
is there ever going to be a Part 2? cause this just feels like you're just ripping the hell out of animation as a medium without there being weaknesses to Live action or strengths and weaknesses to animation. Also, alot of contradicting points there. you're only talking about animation as a lengthy film hour and 30+ mins, when there is so much to animation than that. There's short films, there's shows, there's also the widespread of anime and what that did to the horror/gore/action genre in animation. There's also video games. Alot of your points are more of a standpoint of "i don't think itll be the same in animation" but you haven't really gone to see stuff like it in animation. the period pieces point you make can be easily contradicted with war and conflict movies in animation such as Grave of the Fireflies and Waltz with bashir. Long One shots are used in animation, I'd recommend Cannon Fodder (1995). Some shots can be a one-take-irreversible, like Stop motion, a very time consuming medium that takes so much for it to be shot. Your point for Michael Haneke is a really good one, however you mention and show clips from Perfect Blue which that movie was experimental and of its time. It can easily be debunked by something like Red Dead Redemption, which in that you can watch an NPC go through an ENTIRE DAY of actions, not idling or repeated. And if you want to compare movie with animated movie, The Breadwinner is a good example of just characters and stuff happening in the background while the main stuff are happening. I think your points are valid, but your arguments are not weighted and you are referencing animated pieces that are a product of its time and are less funded.
Sincerely, an Animation Major that is writing about the effectiveness of animation and stumbled upon your video while researching
I appreciate the comment. I address some of this stuff in part two, like the thing about the grave of the fireflies, maybe it'll clear up some of your issues with the first part. Although I don't really agree with the point your making about long takes existing in animation. While movies like Cannon Fodder exist, the process to creat a long take with animation is very different then live action, so I think it's completely legitimate on my part to admire oners in live action as something unique to the medium. Animated Oners are very different to me.
When you gonna drop part 2?
IT'S OUT
Surprised you didn’t think of Ghibli’s The Wind Rises (2013) or Grave of the Fireflies (1988) as animated period pieces.
Haven’t seen either yet, but I’ve heard good things and I’m looking forward to both!
Although from my limited knowledge of the films I believe you would be correct.
your vids are super underrated keep it up
Still waiting for part 2 :3
I can only imagine an Animated breaking bad as some sort of Looney Tunes cartoon, where at the end instead of baby blue playing it just zooms in on Walt with the that’s all folks credits.
i think when keeping ^period pieces^ in mind, point goes to Disney for that one
There are tons of period pieces in Animation.
This is such a great video, it really shows the strengths of live action and debunks most of animation elitists who say animation is better in every way. I mean I even prefer animation, but I really love live action.
Great video! When do you plan to upload the next parts!
Edit: heavily disagree with almost everything. I feel like live action is a medium with limits, your actors, your props, your sets, these are all limits to a writers imagination.
Animation however has none.Its your pen and the paper. Do what you want. An animator can make a character 'act' (show emotion) like a live actions actor.
Action scenes have flow, scenes like cowboy bebop, the hand-to-hand fighting in naruto, or zipping around the streets in Spiderman:into the spiderverse (which looked infinitely better than any other of the live action films).
Movies like Redline show the immense potential of animation with the proper budget and staff that live action simply can never replicate.
Of course live action has it's charms.
But my main point is simply that animation can do what live action does, but live action can't do whatever animation does.
There is limits. It’s called authenticity, which animation, no matter how hard it tries cannot replicate. There’s an awe to live action. It’s like instruments vs electronic music. Both have their advantages and disadvantages
Also horror cannot be replicated in the same way with animation. You have to approach it in such a different way, and film just works better for horror.
@@thomasffrench3639 you can say it has authenticity, but when i watch live action i just think: that's a person acting as a character nothing more. just because it has real humans in it doesn't make it have authenticity imo. meanwhile in animation that's the actual character experiencing this stuff. i know you're gonna say something like "its just drawings" so dont. and its probably harder to make an actual scary horror movie with animation but i have seen it be done. and most of this guy's points are all something like this: look how hard this shot is to get perfect, all the props they had to get and the sort. imo just because something is "hard" to achive doesn't make it better. in animation you can get all those thing by drawing. and an amazing animation sequence is better than some acting and "cool" special effects. this is subjective tho. and we all know of the freedom in animtion is way better than live action. and animation (anime) in general has way better writing than live action. anyways everyone is gonna have a preferance that suits them.
@@Void-qd2qy I agree. I guess what I meant to say that it holds more weight metaphorically. Things just more visceral in live action, although it’s easier to get connected with animated characters because they are more simplistic than realistic ones which we connect with more. That’s why you see more people crying at animated moments like Up and One Piece.
@@Void-qd2qy also anime writing is a mixed bag, just like live action television.
Incredible
Well, this reminds me of a "Killing Monsters" cinematic from Witcher 3. There's an epic fight scene that gave me goosebumps, and I think the reason is that it's an interesting blend of it being so well made that it looks almost like realism, but the medium and the animation allowed it to have angles and camera motion that would be almost impossible to achieve live action. (Do take all this with a grain of salt, I'm not an expert and they probably also used live action tracking? Dunno.)
Honestly there's so much overlap between different ways of making movies that i've kinda stoped comparing them in terms of quality bc it's all so subjective. I persobally relate more to cartoons but i have no idea why, so instead of fighting abt it i just think ppl ought to give movies of different mediums a chance either way, bc there's so much to learn and emulate and pottray no matter which process of fil making u gravitate towards. Like so many people meet in the middle w 3d anyway and don't fcen know it. And where's the line between special efects and stop motion for instance?? Like.. i sometimes too feel i would enjoy a story more if it was animated, but that's bc i Like animation, like i get what makes it tick. So i get discurraged when people don't like it or don't find it realistic or engaging. I think 2d is great bc of the lvl of control u have in setting up a scene. When ur used mainly to animation as a medium live action doesn't look real it just looks sloppy, which isn't true. And i think it's the same way for ppl who are used mainly to live action, it feels stiff and unreal to them bc they're used to watching the micro movements of actors, but i find it distracting. It's honestly quite interesting. And w shows like arcane it's Very Real looking bc the acting is stunning, like being an animator is like being one hivemind actor. It's genuinely super cool. It takes a lot if work from the cinematographer of a live action movie to make a movie Beautiful imo. A lot of live action feels washed out to me bc u'm used to vibrant colours as the Norm in animation, and it's Cool that technology has advanced so that more live action movies these days are able to be more colourful and diverse and Frankly artistic. Like animators are so overly artsy it's honestly kinda crazy but yeah !!! I just think it's cool. And i clearly have a preference but i'm learning to appriciate live action for what it is and i do rly think movie fans benefit ftom not just watching one type of medium.
I've only watched part 1, but man do I disagree with action being better in live-action.
First, the difficulty of achieving a given scene isn't really important. In a movie watching experience we should be considering how a scene makes us feel rather than the technical virtuosity it takes to pull of a scene. Film is about communicating some idea to the viewer - whether that's a central theme, an emotion a character is feeling, or just a sense of physical motion - the purpose is the viewer's experience. Honestly, I think if your mind is on the film making itself then you've kind of been pulled out of the experience of the film.
Second, while I think action in LA films can be great in its own right, the potential for communicating weight and movement and speed is just so much higher in animation. Because it doesn't take place in the world of normal physics, it has the ability to move with a speed and fluid motion that LA can't really achieve. Animators can distort character's faces and appendages to accentuate the weight of a punch. They can frame things in artful ways that would be essentially impossible with a film camera. But most of all, because we're in the realm of the unreal, our minds buy all these things without a second thought. We see the ideas communicated by the animation choices, rather than seeing a reality and trying to imagine how we'd feel inside that world. Animation is abstract and representational in a way that film rarely is, and that allows it to create action scenes that aren't bound by our sense of reality.
You should probably watch part 2 😜
@@MichaelMan2000 I started writing the moment I heard "underwhelming" over Spoke vs Red Coyote. Guess I should've known that was cap XD
Cannon fodder is an animated movie in one shot
You should review jack stauber other short film, it’s called “shop a pop opera” it’s a lot more happier then opal
Ill probably have more of an opinion for part to but I'd just like to say howdy to a fellow Brazil fan 🤠
yo whats up its one of your csssa classmates
What up!
3d animation is 100 times best than live action...because we can do enormous things in animation compared to live action
Bruce Lee movies lose its magic if you animate it, no matter how great. The fact that he can genuinely do that irl is the magic after all.
aladdin and the little mermaid are my favorite movies
animated > real people
no
Kino Korner fan?
To be honest I’m not sure what that is. Please, inform me!😀
@@MichaelMan2000 a RUclips channel whose done really good reviews of the movies you show in this video. (Great one btw I'm ready for the next parts) figured you might be a fan, check him out!
@@jazzandhisgrowinggroup thanks for the recommendation I will.
i gotta say i really disagree with the action. For me animation just has this itch and effect that live action(apart from matrix and a few others) cant hit at all
Same the other way around, horror and how it cannot be replicated in animation, just adapted.