[squarejawhero]

I'm a storyboard artist. My job is to take the written word and convert it, coupled with designs and visuals handed to me, into something someone can both appreciate and understand onscreen. Therefore my favourite storytelling medium is storyboarding. It mixes everything up into one thing, sort of like a comic-book, only with far better direction. A combination of everything, if you will.

Interestingly, if I was to direct like a comic book artist, the animations I work on would be nonsensical at best. It might come as a suprise to some, but comic book artists aren't natural board artists as they can't reign themselves into coherent rules which could lead to really confusing visual structure. It works on the page as they adapt and stretch rules - reading left to right is a requirement, naturally, so they follow that rule more than any coherent hook-ups between panels. As such, they follow what each panel could look like as a seperate work of art. This works in comics, and doesn't work in boarding.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Hammerite

I think this poll should include talking because that was the first form of storytelling.

I thought of it. It was a possible addition, but in the end I decided not to add it because it just didn't seem to fit in this poll...

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I'm a storyboard artist. My job is to take the written word and convert it, coupled with designs and visuals handed to me, into something someone can both appreciate and understand onscreen. Therefore my favourite storytelling medium is storyboarding. It mixes everything up into one thing, sort of like a comic-book, only with far better direction. A combination of everything, if you will.

Interestingly, if I was to direct like a comic book artist, the animations I work on would be nonsensical at best. It might come as a suprise to some, but comic book artists aren't natural board artists as they can't reign themselves into coherent rules which could lead to really confusing visual structure. It works on the page as they adapt and stretch rules - reading left to right is a requirement, naturally, so they follow that rule more than any coherent hook-ups between panels. As such, they follow what each panel could look like as a seperate work of art. This works in comics, and doesn't work in boarding.

Reading your second paragraph made me think of a Great Performances documentary on Chuck Jones. They spoke to film directors who were in awe of his ability to frame a scene in ways that they couldn't do with live people. Fascinating medium!

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

Reading your second paragraph made me think of a Great Performances documentary on Chuck Jones. They spoke to film directors who were in awe of his ability to frame a scene in ways that they couldn't do with live people. Fascinating medium!

This reminds me of something I have often thought... Not about storyboarding necessarily, but about any medium that can do things that "can't be done with live people." Most of them don't take advantage of it! For example, don't get me wrong because I love computer animated films from the likes of Pixar, PDI, etc...but it has always pissed me off that they don't use the freedom of animation to its fullest. There aren't any real restraints, yet the "camera" in CG movies always does the same stuff a real camera can do in a live action film... It's always bothered me.

[squarejawhero]

I'll tell you why -

Because unless you're convinced it isn't going to confuse the viewer, you don't do it or risk it. The camera isn't there to "show off" - sure, you can use computers to your advantage as Fincher does in Panic Room or Fight Club, but it suits the style of the film. You don't try to blow an audience away - thats how you take them out of the movie.

Many moments within films that do are far apart - the scene in Lord Of The Rings where we follow the moth to the top of the tower with Gandalf, followed by a surreptitious quick cut and a zoom down into a crevasse, is particularly audacious, but it works. But, you've also got examples where it doesn't, where the technology works against you - even in the same trilogy. Take the beginning of The Two Towers, its idea is better than its execution. The digital zoom as Gandalf falls and the following battle with the Balrog isn't nearly as successful visually, although in this case the risk is balanced with the audiences empathy with the character.

In The Polar Express, there's a beautifully directed single shot where a ticket is lost from the protagonists hand, and we follow it around the mountainside, trampled by wolves, picked up by an eagle, until it finally reaches the train again. It's a great shot, but it pulls you away from the film slightly. It's the director whacking off with his tools rather than telling a story. It only JUST gets away with it because of the fantasy style of the film, but ultimately, it didn't add anything.

You don't notice what the camera does in films like Finding Nemo becuase the direction is so tight, so goddamn good, you're taken away with the story and being there, rather than marvelling at the technical aspects. The whole Jellyfish sequence, for example, where the camera trucks at speed, is so well handled that the viewer doesn't really notice what's happening. The framing of something like The Incredibles is really well-placed, every shot well-thought out, that you don't worry about the camera, or that there is a camera. You do what is suited by the requirements of the scene, you don't start spinning it round characters because you can.

The camera isn't the star. That's the key. You often don't realise that the camera is being used to its fullest extent, pulling off impossible tricks and stunts, in a lot of the better CG films, because they suit the moment.

[Jazhara7]

For me, the most emotional medium is Literature. I've found myself crying about something that happened to a character that I hold dear, or an important event in a book, more often than I found myself crying about something in a movie. I cry from happiness and from sadness.

Also, I laugh at things I read. Not only because a scene was funny, but also because I remember something from somewhere else (like recently when reading the notes in my copy of "MacBeth". It says that the kings of Scotland were crowned in the city of Scone - I had to laugh because I remembered "The Fifth Elephant" by Terry Pratchett, and how the dwarven throne must be a parody of "Scone" . Luckily I was able to stop myself laughing too loud, because I was in the middle of class). Things like this don't happen as often with movies, because they don't have such detailed descriptions (still, I had to laugh a little, and was also a bit puzzled when noticing the symbol on the money pouch Puss in Boots is handed by King Harold in Shrek 2 - That symbol looks an awful lot like the symbol of the "Flaming Fist" from the game "Baldur's Gate" [probably also from Dungeon's and Dragons in general. I don't know]).

I shout at my books. I shout, if somethin seems unfair. I shout if I can't believe that the author actually wrote something so stupid (even the best author sometimes forgets to use logic. Luckily it was only in part of the book).
With movies, I don't seem to be able to shout at them (although some of them really deserve to be shouted at). Instead, I ridicule illogical things. I love movies, but I can't shout at them.

Still, there are exceptions. I cry each and every time at the end of 'Dragonheart'. I cried several times while playing "The Black Mirror" (it was scary yeah, but sometimes it was also sad). I feel something special when seeing "Pirates of the Carribbean" (I guess other people here could say the same )- hearing the soundtrack gives me comfort, and makes me feel at home. The movie version of the book "Momo" is still one of the most moving and thought inducing, yet simplest movies I ever saw (the book is the same. Read it if you get a chance. It is by Michael Ende. It will make you think. Trust me.).

There is still one thing that is different between movies and books, for me. Some games are a bit like books in this case. Sometimes, if I finished a good book, I feel empty. I am happy about having read that book, but at the same time I realize that it is over. I want to read on, learn more of the fate of the characters. Also, such books sometimes make me unable to read another book that I know is good too, but has a greatly different style. I can't read "Eragon" (actually "Eldest", the second book) from the Inheritance trilogy by Christoper Paolini after having read "Shatterglass" (fourth book of the "The Circle Opens" quartet) by Tamora Pierce. The styles are so different. From following Tris Chandler (A 14 year old Ambient-Mage whose power lies in the weather) through the clean and light streets of Tharios (inspired by Ancient Greece) on the search for a ruthless killer of members of the Entertainment-Caste (it reminded me a lot of the murders of Jack the Ripper, in that focus of victims), it is too great of a change to now accompany young Eragon ona an epic journey, and a threatening war.
The Old Kingdom series, by Garth Nix is more fitting. After having finished the first book, "Sabriel", I felt satisfied, but again there was this empty feeling (I think the fact that an excerpt from the second book "Lirael" was in there, helped me to get to the next day, when I could read it.)
I know that I just read a perfect book, when I have that empty feeling after having read it.


-

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I'll tell you why -

Because unless you're convinced it isn't going to confuse the viewer, you don't do it or risk it. The camera isn't there to "show off" - sure, you can use computers to your advantage as Fincher does in Panic Room or Fight Club, but it suits the style of the film. You don't try to blow an audience away - thats how you take them out of the movie.

Many moments within films that do are far apart - the scene in Lord Of The Rings where we follow the moth to the top of the tower with Gandalf, followed by a surreptitious quick cut and a zoom down into a crevasse, is particularly audacious, but it works. But, you've also got examples where it doesn't, where the technology works against you - even in the same trilogy. Take the beginning of The Two Towers, its idea is better than its execution. The digital zoom as Gandalf falls and the following battle with the Balrog isn't nearly as successful visually, although in this case the risk is balanced with the audiences empathy with the character.

In The Polar Express, there's a beautifully directed single shot where a ticket is lost from the protagonists hand, and we follow it around the mountainside, trampled by wolves, picked up by an eagle, until it finally reaches the train again. It's a great shot, but it pulls you away from the film slightly. It's the director whacking off with his tools rather than telling a story. It only JUST gets away with it because of the fantasy style of the film, but ultimately, it didn't add anything.

You don't notice what the camera does in films like Finding Nemo becuase the direction is so tight, so goddamn good, you're taken away with the story and being there, rather than marvelling at the technical aspects. The whole Jellyfish sequence, for example, where the camera trucks at speed, is so well handled that the viewer doesn't really notice what's happening. The framing of something like The Incredibles is really well-placed, every shot well-thought out, that you don't worry about the camera, or that there is a camera. You do what is suited by the requirements of the scene, you don't start spinning it round characters because you can.

The camera isn't the star. That's the key. You often don't realise that the camera is being used to its fullest extent, pulling off impossible tricks and stunts, in a lot of the better CG films, because they suit the moment.

That's great writing. I think you'd make a good teacher and/or write a good book about the field because you go beyond the technical and let your passion for it come through.

I also thought Once A Villian's description of Rear Window's opening especially vivid as well.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

I also thought Once A Villian's description of Rear Window's opening especially vivid as well.

Well thanks!

By the way squarejaw, I completely agree with you. I'm always against stylish flourishes when they don't serve any purpose or take the audience out of the experience. There are times though when these filmmakers could be a lot more brave in a medium without the restraints of live shooting. Also, this may be off the subject, but I don't think anyone at Pixar comes close to John Lasseter. His films (Toys Story 1 & 2, A Bug's Life) I find to be so much better than Monster's Inc. and Finding Nemo. That's why I'm sort of excited about Cars.

[omloflump]

Um. Story-telling in this context must have a pretty narrow, conventional view, otherwise there would be no point making that distinction; if we are talking about telling stories through music alone and paintings etc. then we are broadening the term beyond any fixed meaning, and thus rendering it meaningless. We get to the point when we are asking What isn't story-telling? So if we are to take all the mediums on equal ground, then this should be titled "Most Expressive Medium" or something.

What first struck me when viewing this thread was that it was primarily interested in a fairly normal type of story-telling, such as would appear in a novel or film, which explains the absence of gallery art from the poll, so there's no point arguing about the definition of story-telling, as we are only going by one person's viewpoint on it, and that one person wasn't including abstract-story-telling (even though he considered it valid, and that non-word-based forms can tell stories). He even made the point of saying he's focusing on what people traditionally think of as a story.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by omloflump

Um. Story-telling in this context must have a pretty narrow, conventional view, otherwise there would be no point making that distinction; if we are talking about telling stories through music alone and paintings etc. then we are broadening the term beyond any fixed meaning, and thus rendering it meaningless. We get to the point when we are asking What isn't story-telling? So if we are to take all the mediums on equal ground, then this should be titled "Most Expressive Medium" or something.

What first struck me when viewing this thread was that it was primarily interested in a fairly normal type of story-telling, such as would appear in a novel or film, which explains the absence of gallery art from the poll, so there's no point arguing about the definition of story-telling, as we are only going by one person's viewpoint on it, and that one person wasn't including abstract-story-telling (even though he considered it valid, and that non-word-based forms can tell stories). He even made the point of saying he's focusing on what people traditionally think of as a story.

Hey, there may be flaws to this poll, but give me a break...it's my first one!

EDIT: What I regret most is not having a selection for "Other"

[Talas]

I can't pick just one, I could vote for anyone but theater.

[omloflump]

Hey, there may be flaws to this poll, but give me a break...it's my first one!

Whoops, I didn't mean to give that impression. This poll's fine — I probably shouldn't have even mentioned the 'music' stuff in the first place. It just seems that some people are ignoring what you mean by traditional story-telling; that's what I was trying to get at.

[Ninth]

That's completely impossible for me to answer.
Music, games, movies and books are about equal for me as a storytelling media.

Examples: Metropolis part 2 - Dream Theater (music) / Blade Runner (movie) / A song of Ice and Fire - George R. R. Martin (book) / Death Gate - Legend Entertainment (game) are equally strong and compelling to me.

Note that music isn't used to tell stories that often, so it could be a little below the others...

Opera or Theater are great too, but not as complete in the immersion they provide as the others are, in my opinion.
And television is mostly crappy.