Pen & ink with light wash?
Ink wash (above)?
Watercolor (above)?
Gouache (above)?
Acrylics (above)?
Computer (above)?
Myself, I would say the ink wash method supports gags and cartoony drawings the best. If humor was the only factor to consider I'd say the whole industry should switch to ink wash (or a black & white gouache equivalent) tomorrow. It's funnier by a mile.
The problem is that audiences like color and so do I. I can't help it, I like beautiful cartoons. In my opinion the color mediums that best support the comedy/beauty combination are watercolor and gouache. Some of the best and most indisputably funny Ren & Stimpy episodes used acrylics but the acrylics were done in a style that often looked like gouache so they're difficult to classify.
Certainly the background medium that supports comedy least is the computer. Can any background be funny if it's colored in a computer? I've laughed at gags in shows that had minimal computer backgrounds but in those cases the job of the background was simply to not get in the way. It wasn't a positive comedic asset, except as a design element. There are probably exceptions to this but I'm too sleepy to think of them.
28 comments:
The Tiny Toons background hurts my eyes.
I can't believe you put up Tiny Toons- it's so ....bright! I remember it being ugly- but holy crap I was obviously being too nice when I even thought that!
Yeah- I like ink washes in black and white cartoons (like Oswald etc). And enjoy watercolor an gouache for color cartoons. I'm not so sure one is funnier than the other based on medium. I think it's entirely up to content. Computers don't count- they complicate things.
booo computers
water colour ink wash is the way forward... after stepping back... some times you have to step back to go forward. Not that 'they' will. yes good. {walks backwards whistling rousing forward looking theme... trips over cat, flattens begonias minding their own business by the door}
nOils, too. The Wacky Wabbit had some amazing oil backgrounds, so rich and appealing.
What about Live Action backgrounds, like Popeye?
Yeah, I don't know if it is medium as much as the way the medium is used.
The best examples are the color wash, the watercolor and gauche, The point is, the background should support rather than fight the action.
That Tiny Toons is painful. It would be painful, if gauche or watercolor instead or even computer. Medium is beside the point, excepting where medium tends towards better sense. In that Tiny Toons example, There should be neutrals to allow the overly primary colors to harmonize, to provide eye relief, to allow the foreground characters to be seen, even if the point of the scene was to set up a colorful neighborhood establishing shot, even if it was the fricken emerald city of oz and dorothy.
Yeah, the "Tiny Toons" background is absolutely atrocious. I even prefer the computer background to it. It looks like something off a cereal box... and not one of those cool cereals, but the store brand you got if you had a really cheap, mean mom who hated you because your crying all night scared away the men she'd...
Wait a minute... what were we talking about again?
I think color is very important...
The tiny toons color is to heavy to overstimulating and it doesn't compliment the characters they almost get lost in the backround..
There a whole education there in backround /character and color.
I dunno bout you but i find hyper-realistc, microscopically detailed, sterile backgrounds hilarious. I mean on time i saw grey pixel where beige pixel should have been and i nearly blew my lid. Those Pixar guys sure are clever with their background details. Too bad you have to watch the entire move on DVD at 2x zoom at half speed in oder to fully appreciate it. The general public doesn't know what their missing when they watch it in theaters.
Did anyone else notice the Cars image has practically the same palette as the Tiny Toons one (each even has a turquoise car), except the Cars image has a lot more greyed-out color. Sort of over-stimulation subdued with ashy depression.
The clay sculptured, turntable photographed 'live action' Fleischer backgrounds work because they matched the style and selection of elements in the great monochrome 2D examples. The studio was usually careful to use the dimensionality that gimmick provided where it would do the most good. Black and white lends itself to mood and no studio imparted urban decay better than Fleischer's. Once they started trying to mimic Disney's sunny, color backgrounds, their cartoons really lost something. And Tiny Toons isn't the sole example of the 'using every color in the paintbox' school of background painting. Most TV animation of the 1970s and 1980s reflected that lost theory.
Never really fond of acrylics in the first place. That said, I think the medium is not so much the issue as how it is applied and used. Garish knows no single medium. I have always liked the watercolor backgrounds, be it washes or opaque.
I agree with those who said it's not so much the background medium itself but how it's used. One thing all of the good-looking backgrounds have in common is that they're clearly painted by people with experience in regular old fine art drawing and painting.
The Tiny Toons background looks like somebody said "It's a cartoon! This is different from regular painting. Make the colors all really bright! Don't use any earth tones, and for heaven's sake don't mix any colors yourself!"
Also, a main key element in which medium to use is in how fast it dries. That's one of the big reasons watercolours are traditionally preferred. Those paintings dry within minutes after finishing them.
Bob Clampett used oil-based paints for the BGs in Wabbit Twouble. His unit had to hold hair-dryers on them for hours just so they could be ready to go under the camera on time. So, if Clampett were able to chime in on ts post, he'd certainly say that oil paints re definitely NOT good for comedy.
It's funny you should bring this up, Eddie. For an upcoming comic, I'm trying to simulate watercolurs using a computer. I wish I could show you a sample without putting it on my blog for all to see (not yet anyway). I sent my first attempt to Kali through email. Maybe if you're nice to her she'll show it to you (if she hasn't deleted it already).
I just want to point out that the Tiny Toons image isn't from the show at all. That's a frame from some point-and-click computer game based on the show. And I don't know a lot about painting but I'd have to say that the background wasn't made with acrylics at all. It was probably made with a computer.
Tiny Toons backgrounds weren't that horrible looking. And the characters never looked like they were floating in space.
The Tiny Toons background looks like somebody said "It's a cartoon! This is different from regular painting. Make the colors all really bright! Don't use any earth tones, and for heaven's sake don't mix any colors yourself!"
I think that's pretty much an exact quote.
You're right, Ardy, the BGs weren't close to being that bad...especially on Eddie's shows. ; )
we used mostly cell paint for the Ren and Stimpy BGs.
Ardy, Jenny: I'm glad you pointed that out. I was so sleepy that I posted the first set-up that I found.
I like the ink wash in the B&W cartoons the best. I like watercolor and gouache backgrounds in color cartoons. I don't have any theories about which fits humor the best, I just like how they look.
I don't like computer backgrounds, or any computer cartoons whatsoever..but to each his own, I guess.
I think it depends on how the medium is used considering that many of the samples shown could look very different if given to a different artist.
John--so did the bg painters at WB-it was the first time I'd heard of Cel Vinyl used for other than cel painting(what did I know?)...many many guys used it in vis dev at Turner-all the guys trained by Maurice Noble did. It was his paint of choice.
-Jenny
>Bob Clampett used oil-based paints for the BGs in Wabbit Twouble.
Yeah, that's what I meant!
>Most TV animation of the 1970s and 1980s reflected that lost theory.
I think the 70s HB cartoons used more earht tones...John's term of "Poo and Pee" comes readily to mind. Take for example, Speed Buggy, Scooby Doo, Kung Fu Hooey.
By the way, if you ever run of of Syrup of Ipecac, google some images of a 70s era HB show.
Well I think the first four work, in one way or another, quite well in different circumstances...and computer backgrounds are tolerable, but, like you said, if they stay out of the way. The acrylics was AWFUL, but the gouache looked quite open to funniness, in my opinion. I'd have to say the gouache was my favorite.
Walter Lantz hired a famous oil painter to do his 1930's "Peterkin" backgrounds and that is some of the unfunniest footage ever put on film.
The medium doesn't matter as much as the way it's used. You can make great looking backgrounds with any of the mediums featured in this post.
This is some excellent theory. I am currently doing a drawing and composition project, where I have to do backgrounds. So reading about your theory, as well as looking at the examples of the backgrounds, has given me some styles to try out- I think ink wash may go well for my 'private eye' office (but I do have some water colours to try out first.)
I agree with most people that the Tiny Toons' background looks... gopping- it looks good as an illustration, but it looks ugly with the cell drawings applied on it.
I quite like the gouache one myself, with the subtle lighting in the background -is it from a Tom and Jerry short?
Post a Comment