Yes, but is it machinima?
Apr
Over at Gamers Theatre, mrdougan’s post (which he freely admits is a full-on rant) has triggered some interesting discussion as to what does and does not qualify as machinima.
This is a big question, which prompts strong opinons on all sides. Hugh and I have been predicting for some time now that this will be one of the Big Questions for machinima in the future. My own opinions on the subject are fairly well known: I couldn’t care less. I don’t mean that in a disparaging way, I just mean that I’m not particularly interested in officially designating one creative piece as machinima and another as not. Machinima, as I’ve said before, is nothing more or less than a very useful tool for me. If I find a better tool, I’ll use that instead.
The waters are being muddied a little by the perenial inside-out vs outside-in debate. Many of the machinima community’s auteurs and storytellers get very upset at the idea of game-play and frag videos being included under the same banner as narrative-driven visual storytelling. Unfortunately, I don’t think they have a leg to stand on there – machinima’s origins lie with frag videos and clan-boast recaps. If you follow that through to its most extreme conclusion, then a video entitled How 2 draint@nk Onyxia is the purest form of machinima there is.
Of course I don’t think that my fictional WoW instruction video is the ideal form of machinima. The point I’m making is that there is no ideal form of machinima. There’s just lots of different, and (sorry Outside-in extremists) equally valid forms.
Edit: Phil Rice & Tom Jantol’s Anymation Manifesto (see comments).
I doubt you’re going to see much impassioned argument from your humble authors here. Like Johnnie, I just don’t really care.
Machinima is a tool that lets us make films. There are other tools like that too. If I’m watching a good film, it’s a matter of curiosity, nothing more, what tools they used.
I’m getting more and more intrigued by the concept of “Anymation”. I’m not sure who coined the term, but I think it may well be Mike Joyce and Kate Fosk. Or maybe it was FLeeF. (It definitely wasn’t Hugh, anyway.) Basically, the idea of Anymation is it doesn’t matter what the hell tool(s) you use. A bit of Moviestorm, a bit of iClone or CrazyTalk, a bit of Sketchup, a bit of some game, a bit of whatever the heck gets the results you’re after in the time you have available on whatever budget you can afford.
I’m not interested in being purist about tools or what you should do with them. I just want to see people being creative in interesting ways. I don’t care that RealFilm mashes up cameras and actors with CGI or things on wires or whatever. I care even less if some of it was done in Max and some in Maya and some with some other tool. If it’s a good film, I watch it.
OK, OK, I’d like everyone to buy lots of Moviestorm packs, of course I would, but that doesn’t mean I want them to use nothing but Moviestorm. And I sure as hell don’t want to tell people what they should make with it.
Actually, I’m pretty certain it was Tom Jantol who first used the word “Anymation”, although it’s now been adopted by several prominent machinimators (Pineapple Pictures and Fling Films amongst them).
I agree with you on this, Matt. Particularly your assertion that “if it’s a good film, I watch it”. The end product, rather than the process of creation, is the thing that interests me (as a content consumer, at least - as a content producer, the creation process fascinates me).
Yes, it was Tom Jantol who coined the term. For a brief time, he had a website up at anymation.org but didn’t have the spare time to keep it going. I worked with Tom on a brief first draft “manifesto” describing what the term embodies, which I recently republished here: http://z-studios.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&;t=10
Sorry, the automatic link broke there; URL should be that whole line of text (through t=10), with the semicolon (;) near the end removed.
I’ll take it step further and say that I think those 2D films made with game tools a few years back more than qualify under my interpretation. I never got the whole hang-up on 3D when defining something that came from games, especially when I grew up on the old 2D 8bits. (Ask me for a list of favorite games, half will not be 3D.)
No sense in trying to tighten the definition to make what you do look more qualified. Either you’ve got a smashing, kick-ass Machinima film, or you don’t. (Read: I also agree with Matt)
Right there with you guys; it’s about using the right tools to make the kind of film you imagine. “Anymation” is my new watch word. Recent Premiere of Katy’s Voices, she and Michael Joyce talked about integrating Iclone, Moviestorm and ZenCub3d into an original and unique world for their film to take place in. This is the direction of my own work as well.
Mike Joyce just made a post on the moviestorm forums which was so profound and relevant to this discussion that I’m going to quote him here. I hope he won’t mind.
” I’d like to add a thought I had years ago when I was attending a class in the history of film at USC. In a less complicated world, the early filmmakers could literally pick up a camera a make a film. Mack Sennett use to chase the firetrucks to be able to put his Keystone Cops into the middle of actual events. To be able to experience film making in a simpler time, like Keaton, Chaplin or DW Griffith. And now I believe that is possible with the rise of Machinima and Anymation. ”
Doesn’t just have to be Machinima to do that - it just requires a certain mindset. There are plenty of guerilla filmmakers out there following in the footsteps of Robert Rodriguez too.
“Doesn’t just have to be Machinima to do that - it just requires a certain mindset. There are plenty of guerilla filmmakers out there following in the footsteps of Robert Rodriguez too.”
Rises hand bashfully.
*Raises. I’m not Australian, crikey!
I still have a anymation.org and after I finish new movie I just started, for 2 or 3 months, I will open a site. I am collecting materials all the time and soon quantity and quality of this materials will be enough to make decent place for such a wide term as Anymation. Of course, we can all do it together. If you have any suggestions or material, don’t hesitate to participate. Main idea of the site will be to explore practical side of anymated movie crafts - making of, tutorials, illustrated articles about how to merge different software, plugins, import - export formats… etc, all what can help to build efficient workflow for making hybrid animation.
About “Anymation” as form; obvious “who care about the tool” can easily be translated as “because we care about story”. “Anymation” is very storycentric. With all freedom of choice of tools, with all rights (including not less important copyrights) we also have proportional obligation to make convincing story, to build but then obey our own rules, to feed some recognizable inner logic.
Nothing new of course, but at least for me, this is the most beautiful part of “Anymation” - it is very experimentality that makes me more conventional.
Off the topic, sorry, but I must say that I finally watched Bloodspell in one peace. How in hell is possible to make such home made profesional production, such crafted feature, is beyond me. I am working for a months on 5 minutes shorts and after that my brain is always melted. But to have will power to make excellent feature… guys, Hugh, every now and then I am so impressed with something that I start to wonder what the hell I am doing in this field. That feeling (that second part :)) goes away, but still… amazing job.
Wow. Thanks very much for that Tom - high praise indeed.
I’ve heard some pretty prominent machinimators say very similar things about your work, Tom, so I think you’re okay :-)
Actually, we might as well take the opportunity here to plug the première of Tom’s new film, The Wizard Of OS: The Fish Incident, which is showing at the Machiniplex. on the 27th of April.
Wow! Thanks. That’s a major compliment, particularly coming from you.
I’ve just caught up on this discussion. Yes it is Tom Jantol who first used Anymation, and the first time I read the manifesto many months ago I have refocused my sights on this philosophy for storytelling. Now I have also realized that Anymation opens the doors to a new community made up of storytellers who bring many new methods to the table for making these films. I am very excited about Tom’s intent to turn up the heat on Anymation.org. Long may it continue to grow and teach.
Hi all.
Call it what you will, but what we do is make movies.
I guess the only people that really need to have a definition are the festival and competition organisors.
Personally, I tend to use the term Machinima less and less. If somebody asks what I do for a hobby, the last thing I will say is ‘well, gee, I’m a machinimator’. Better to just show them a movie and see if they like it.
What I would love to see is more people making entertainment, and not just ‘frag demos’. In that respect, anymation looks interesting.
There are plenty of people who like and make frag demos and good on them - they can entertain that community if they please. What’s the point in being judgemental ‘eouh, neoo, that’s crap, that’s not machinima’. The only point in that attitude is if you want to start an argument, though a lot of people seem to enjoy doing that as well. Each to his own.
Anthony Bailey has added his own comments on his blog.
As the instigator of the debate (this time round), I’d thought it best to poke my head round the proverbial door and say hi. I feel honoured that so many of the machinima community have come forward offering their perspectives on what machinima is or isn’t.
I confess however, that despite hearing such heated debate from multiple sources I still have issues with Trick/Glitch/Frag videos being graded as machinima, but I do accept its what makes people happy (and keeps them entertained).
So I’ll call it a day ;-)