A question about perspective/composition

Demy 2017-10-04 00:44:30 UTC #1

Do you mind explaining to me the problems with the composition and the perspective shots the person mentioned in this video? I have a few ideas about the issues but I feel like I'd learn more hearing you guys talk about it.

Like I can tell the foreshortening on the perspective shot is a bit off and the placement is weird....but I can't find much else.

Kayke 2017-10-04 03:16:04 UTC #2

Well, for the one at the end, the angles seem odd. We're viewing the three stationary characters from slightly below and the character jumping out from slightly above. Also, I don't watch this show, but does it make sense for the character in motion to be that much smaller than the characters in the background that he's jumping in front of? If not that's a problem.

For the shot the narrator has labeled as "awkward composition" my issue with it would be the fact that Blossom and Bubbles are standing on the bottom of the frame. I don't actually care about whatever those lines are supposed to mean. But I'm also not a nitpicky stickler for composition... whiiiich is where I take issue with this video.

I think the compositions in the original PPG show are great and the style is amazing. Not everything has to be in perspective or three dimensional, so long as it's a mindful choice by the creators. Stylization can really set a show/comic apart and help with the tone. I don't even have a problem with that side face they show in the beginning of the video, because as they said that's an in-between, and also side faces in cartoons and comics are often stylized to allow the characters to emote or maintain recognizability.

Take, for instance, this image of Dexter from Dexter's Lab.

Obviously, this is not what glasses look like from the side. Glasses don't curve around your face. They're basically flat and from the side the arm of the glasses kind of blocks your eye. But does it look bad drawn this way? Nah dude. Because you never would have been able to see Dexter's expression if his glasses were drawn in an accurate to our 3D world way. Also, the perspective of his locker door is off, because the artists wanted to have more room to show the Einstein poster.

I'm getting long winded here, but what I'm saying is, yeah those shots from the new show are awkward, but I don't necessarily think the nitpicking I see on youtube of modern cartoons is constructive or even a good educational tool. I've seen too many of those youtubers miss the point of stylization in favor of perspective and staying on model... which can kind of cut more stylized art off at the knee. But ya know, "learn the rules before you break them" "Eat your vegetables" and all that.

IdiotWithPencil 2017-10-04 03:30:45 UTC #3

that's cause she showed nothing else... -_- I mean the thing she's harping on about is not perspective or composition, it's the motif, the original one had a 2d square style for all the characters while the powerpuff girls themselves were soft and rounded, this contrast is what made the style unique in a sense and it gave the world a sense of unity and cohesion

this video is mostly a rant not so much a in-depth analysis of the art style and the art direction problems of the show

depends on the context, but those lines I think they where mostly there to show and incomplete and wonky triangle which is sometimes used to give a unity sense to a shot, which is broken by the character of money bags (don't remember her name) not being big enough to fit squarely in the triangle

I think he's a midget or supposed to be comically small don't know don't watch this show

neither is the author of this video -_- she said absolutely nothing about the composition or what made the original great, she just ranted and ranted that the show was bad and the art was bad and that they did this cause of toys and blah blah blah, she gave no explanation on why these things didn't work, they just don't is her argument, she didn't even address the worst problem and that is that the background characters look in no way part of the powerpuffgirls universe, they are to detailed to many shapes, if you look at the original these characters look more from cityvile, which was a parody of real life so the characters where more a kin to real comic art, while townsvile they where all simple geometric shapes, mostly square rectangles and triangles, to go with the pointy vs round motif I talked about

this ain't and art analysis in my opinion this is a rant nothing more nothing else =/

Demy 2017-10-04 03:34:23 UTC #4

@Kayke @IdiotWithPencil

I think I understand a bit more now. Turns out I did learn something from asking over here but I suppose using rant videos as a learning tool isn't the best approach. I'll have to remember that.

On the bright side, I learned about how you can break the rules with stylization. So that's good.

IdiotWithPencil 2017-10-04 03:42:44 UTC #5

that's one of the greatest tools you can learn XD just be careful not to over use it =)
also, if you want, try looking up rebeltaxi he's a wannabe animator who makes some chilled,and a bit ronchy I must warn , critiques on modern and old animations, the dude goes a bit more in-depth on the powerpuff girls, even talks a bit about the behind the scenes stuff, and even the new movie which if you haven't seen has some... legs to it XD though I don't think it's learning material, more entertainment and general knowledge about the animation world

Demy 2017-10-04 20:04:24 UTC #6

Oh I watch RebelTaxi from time to time. He does go a bit more in depth.

Those legs really did look weird anatomically lol.