I wonder why mainstream animated features have so few funny characters. This popular film had only one, which is shown above. She wasn't on the screen very long and had only two or three expressions that I can recollect but at least the film earmarked one character for comedy and we can be thankful for that.
The family in the film weren't intended to be comedians. They were dramatic characters with occassional slightly humorous moments.
Walt had a different idea about how to inject comedy into a feature. He threw in a bunch of clowns who slurped their soup, fought with each other and engaged in broad slapstick.
To balance out the comedy he made the mean character REALLY, REALLY mean. She wasn't neurotic or mischievous, she was downright evil. The extreme behavior of the witch created so much tension that we were glad when the slapstick scenes came up. Modern fims have mild, tepid villains and slapstick, with all its funny animation possibilities, seems out of place.
If the villain in the superhero movie had been stronger, then the film would have needed a more overt and funny comedy to balance it out. Maybe comedic characters a little like those shown above, or like George Liquor (shown below) or the animated equivalent of the characters in "Dumb and Dumber," or the dog in Clampett's "Hair Ribbin." I think the audience would have liked that.
As it was, there was no strong villain and therefore no truly funny comedy relief.
I wonder why mainstream animated features have so few funny characters. This popular film had only one, which is shown above. She wasn't on the screen very long and had only two or three expressions that I can recollect but at least the film earmarked one character for comedy and we can be thankful for that.
The family in the film weren't intended to be comedians. They were dramatic characters with occassional slightly humorous moments.
Walt had a different idea about how to inject comedy into a feature. He threw in a bunch of clowns who slurped their soup, fought with each other and engaged in broad slapstick.
To balance out the comedy he made the mean character REALLY, REALLY mean. She wasn't neurotic or mischievous, she was downright evil. The extreme behavior of the witch created so much tension that we were glad when the slapstick scenes came up. Modern fims have mild, tepid villains and slapstick, with all its funny animation possibilities, seems out of place.
If the villain in the superhero movie had been stronger, then the film would have needed a more overt and funny comedy to balance it out. Maybe comedic characters a little like those shown above, or like George Liquor (shown below) or the animated equivalent of the characters in "Dumb and Dumber," or the dog in Clampett's "Hair Ribbin." I think the audience would have liked that.
As it was, there was no strong villain and therefore no truly funny comedy relief.
60 comments:
Wrong. Strong villains and slapstick are old fashioned. This is the year 2000, or something like that. Times change. Nowadays people want subtlety. By subtlety I mean no selfish artists trying to make things more extreme to please themselves. There's a reason why corporations run movie studios and not artists. This is not the "anything goes" 60's like when snow white was made. We need normal things for normal people. They should remake little mermaid in 3d.
Hm, hard to fault The Incredibles on character design for me. I think they were solidly built and Mr Incredible was just plain fun to watch move. Plus it fit the mood of the story they wanted to tell.
An animated film with a lot of funny character designs though recently was The Corpse Bride. Unfortunately though, it didn't much help make the movie any good.
I love The Incredibles and I love it used animation to create a world with layers of subtle elements to the characters which still felt totally like a cartoon.
I think there's plenty of room for films like this, in fact, I'd like to see more.
Where did that 2-D pic of the Incredible family come from? The actual characters are MUCH cuter and funnier than that drawing, especially Dash. That little troll looks like Elroy Jetson without his hat. Dash has wavy blond hero hair, and he's super duper cool!
I thought the early scenes with Bob Parr crammed into his horrible little economy car and demoralizing cubicle were very, very funny, both visually and conceptually. Whenever he's attempting to shoehorn his body into something, the animation is hilarious, and the subtext--"fitting in" with the unsuper--is great. Maybe it's bias, since I suppose I identify with Bob, but I enjoyed that immensely.
Overall, I thought The Incredibles was pretty great, but Jason Lee's Syndrome fell completely flat for me. The character design was blah, his voice was all wrong, and I kept waiting for the real villain to show up. Or at least a funny one. Edna has "fabulous villain" written all over her, and throughout the picture I kept expecting her to reveal her true identity and send Syndrome on a few choice errands, commensurate with his qualifications. I think a villain needs to be a lot more than just annoying and prone to cackling.
Okay, Mr. or Mrs. anonymous above is officially an idiot. First I'll point out that Snow White came out on Dec. 21, 1937. Hardly the '60's. The rest is way too ass-backwards to even dignify with a corection so I won't.
Yeah, The Incredibles was more of an action film than a comedy. However, Brad Bird kept saying in the commentary that the comedic moments mostly came from a balance of the supernatural and the mundane as he put it. A good example is when the entire family escaped the villain's island in that flying motor home and crash landed on the freeway but still kept going. The sequence contains both elements of intense drama as they look for the bad guy and that of a husband & wife arguing over which off-ramp to take.
If Mr. Bird found this blog and posted here I'm sure that's how he'd justify not having too many "slapstick funny" type characters.
To sum up, Eddie, I did enjoy the movie but I do see your point.
" Okay, Mr. or Mrs. anonymous above is officially an idiot."
It's called 'irony'
Yeah...But it's kind of been done to death.
"She wasn't neurotic or mischievous, she was downright evil."
You didn't find the truly psychotic punk in "Incredibles" evil? He happily lured former idols of his to their nasty deaths with glee, and seemed to revel in killing Mr. Incredibles wife and small children, purely to get a rise out of Incredible! I'd definitely call that "downright evil", and it wasn't a fairy-tale witch doing the villany, either, but a "normal" person doing it, set in more or less our present day.
Say what you want, that particular scene was intense and there was zero attempt to lighten the mood with comedy or any hint of remorse on Syndrome's face.
I agree that Edna Mode was a great, successful comedic character--to me she was in the film just enough, however; her scenes were long, not snippets, which is why she made a strong impression and we had time to see a couple of sides to her. She was outrageous without being unreal, somehow--and important distinction for a charcater in a feature film, imho.
Anonymous: Normal people seem to like a wide range of things. They don't seem to have minded strong villains in Star Wars #1, Matrix #1, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Kill Bill. And they don't seem to have minded the slapstick in Jim Carey's best scenes.
Eddie!,
i know this is completely off topic but i have two days off and need some book recommendations.. would you be so kind to help me out? I truly trust your taste, anything i've ever read on this blog was written with so much love for live, respect and dignity that i must find out where this is reasoned..
For what i've loved to read so far - so you can sense where i'm coming from - here a small list:
anything of Dahl, Kazuo Ishiguro (Remains of the day, The Unconsoled), Joseph Conrad, Mark Twain, John Irving (!), The Peanuts, any good books on maths and music and Anthony Bourdains books (this rough cook from new york)..
ok, sorry for wasting your comment section on this but i trust your taste and am deeply in search for something new.
Many thanks!
A bit off topic but I'll get back on at the end!
That lady in the first pic from the Incredibles is based off of a life drawing teacher who teaches at CalArts and Otis named Marzan. I had her for life drawing and she is hilarious! She's an ex-Iranian elite that escaped with her family in the 50s to live in England. She even went to Slade this prestigious art school in England when Lucian Freud was there for a short period teaching- she learned how to paint from him there.
She has the most amazing accent and always calls me,"Kali-daawwwling!" The film doesn't capture the way she walks at all. She wears these futuristic platform sneakers from England that make her bounce when she struts.
Here's a pic of Marzan and myself trying to be cool like her by pretending to smoke.
Yes, many characters today are watered down because of the whole political correctness epidemic. No one must be offended so everyone walks on eggshells to prevent anything funny from leaving the thinking room- so depressing!!!!!
I love the character design of the Incredibles! True, they are not the funniest designs, but that just reinforces the "normalness" of their uninteresting lives. There are characters that are funny to look at. For example, Mr. Incredible's boss is funny looking, Frozone's head is funny, and of course Edna steals every scene she was in. Edna's role is great and the comic relief she delivers is appropriate. But, if she was in every scene, it might not had the same impact. Edna is very annoying. In small doses though, she is funny. This reminds me of Jack Black in High Fidelity. (Not saying Jack is annoying) Jack stole every scene that he was in and you kept wanting to see more of more of him.
But would he had the same impact in that particular role if he was in 90% of the scenes? I think there is a balance you need to give the audience the right proportions of each type of character. Funny, evil, normal, dull,.etc.. to tell a good story.
Eddie,
John K posted a month back or so, a comic book story of Jimmy getting a haircut. I thought throughout reading that.. Boy, someone sure has been keeping their Basil Wolverton lust hidden, but now- here it is. Look at that barber.
Oh, and Edna from the incredibles was funny because she was obviously Edith Head. Quite a bit of the humor throughout the film was actually in-jokes that the audience happened to get.
Any theories on humor that depends on cultural literacy? Should it be funny without knowing the reference?
Sorry to get off topic here but Thanks for the kind words, Eddie!
You have been my hero ever since and it really made my day to hear that coming from you...
Thanks again!
Anonymous: Normal people seem to like a wide range of things.
Sorry. It was me having a laff. I was trying to lampoon popular ignorance more than I wanted to see if I would get a rise out of anybody.
As others have said, there is room for entertainment like the Incedibles, sure, but I think Uncle Eddie's overarching point is that there is too much room for this relatively weak kind of fare (and by weak, I don't mean ineffective, I mean weak compared to the extremes the medium can support), and seemingly no room at all anymore for the kind of stories that lend themselves to really strong and compelling comedy and evil danger. Incredibles was funny lite. It was Danger Lite. Now Snow White can be considered corny by modern standards, but I don't think that's his point, either. Snow White's villain was much scarier for its original audience, by intention, than was Incredibles. Snow White's comedians were funnier by intention for its audience than were Incredibles. I think he is asking why we cannot make modern films with these intentions, too.
Danny: Book recommendations? For heavy reading I highly recommend Talmon's brilliant "Origins of Totalitarian Democracy" about the origin of the French Revolution and modern utopian ideas. It's probably out of print.
For light reading: "In Praise of Shadows", a fun book about the Japanese mind. Of the current books that are out the absolute best I've read is "Essence of Style" about how Louis XIV made France the cultural capital of Europe and did so much to stimulate the French economy.
I like to listen to audio books in the car and the best one I heard lately is a funny novel I got from the library called "Hippopotamus" (spelled right?) by Stephen Fry, read by the author. Don't bother reading or even picking up the print version of this but move mountains to hear the audio version, which is much, much better. All the best writing is in the first third so if you buy this and don't like the last 2/3 then don't say you weren't warned. Good writing is so rare nowadays that even a third of a good book is to be treasured. Fry actually knows how to use the English language.
That lady in the first pic from the Incredibles is based off of a life drawing teacher who teaches at CalArts and Otis named Marzan.
I believe it's been stated publicly that her basis was the costume designer Edith Head.
That lady in the first pic from the Incredibles is based off of a life drawing teacher who teaches at CalArts and Otis named Marzan.
How weird--I had a life drawing teacher at Parsons who also was just like Edna! The resemblance is uncanny. I couldn't help but wonder if she'd taught somebody in the Bird clan at some point. The haircut, the accent, the ever-present cigarette, those angular black clothes (usually accompanied by a cape and 400 scarves), the enormous black glasses, blunt opinions and German sense of humor. She was quite the specimen. Good teacher, too.
FWIW, I naturally took the first commenter's words as sarcasm also (or irony, if that's what we're calling it these days). I don't see how a person could interpret them any other way, but then, I'm jaded.
"I believe it's been stated publicly that her basis was the costume designer Edith Head."
I don't think they announced it or anything- but it's probably a mixture of a few people. She has had tons of students who had her and love her that work at Pixar because of CalArts.
Well after looking into it, instead of just believing what I heard, I find this:
Bird says animators based the character on fashion designers and ultimately created a completely new character. "We certainly looked at Edith Head, but there are actually a lot of female fashion designers that have giant glasses," Bird said. "Also, Patricia Highsmith was an influence. She wrote The Talented Mr. Ripley. When you're designing a character, you're just saying, 'Who is that?' We have drawings where she's taller and fatter and older and younger and thin. We tried a lot of stuff, and we ended up with something that reminds you of Edith Head and Linda Hunt."
Your Marzan may be in there, too.
Eddie!
Thanks for your recommendations. I tried to get any book mentioned today but they all seem out of print. I believe i had "the praise of shadows" once but lost it when moving... Was it about Japanese art in the context of living situations/light?
And any recommendations on novels, epic romantic tales about romping about, shaking earths ground, including subtle bits of kindness?
many thanks,
d.
Perhaps there should be a rating system for entertainment value...
B Bland: Inoffensive to all audiences
M Mild: Funny, but not enough to get on your nerves
H Humorous: May cause light chuckling with some viewers
F Funny: Restricted to audiences able to stand real jokes
See ya
Steve
Speaking of strong villians, it's been years since i've seen the film so i can't comment on her actions, but the witch in "Sleeping Beauty" still scares the bejesus outta me.
Hi Eddie
I love the movie Dumb & Dumber too. But after watching that movie do you some times think that Jim Carry ripped off some of John K's acting?
Jesse
Yeah, I couldnt believe there was no jokes in the Incredibles, well there was about 2 throughout the whole movie, boring.
Danny: Hmmmm...humane, philosophical novels...Gee, I can think of some classics that fit but those are names you're already familiar with. Some good less frequently read novels? Hmmmm....how about "New Grub Street" by Gissing?
Come to think of it, read Boswell's biography of Johnson starting at the point where he actually meets Johnson. Skip the earlier part about Johnson's early life and that'll make the length more managable. This isn't a novel but it certainly is humane and philosophical and it's a great read.
I love the movie Dumb & Dumber too. But after watching that movie do you some times think that Jim Carry ripped off some of John K's acting?
Jesse, Jim Carrey was doing that schtick as far back as 1977. I don't think there's any connection with Jim Carrey and John K. at all.
Eddie, I don't know if Boswell is for everyone, but I just had to mention that it's one of my favorite books in the whole wide world(The 'Life', that is). I've never laughed so hard, page after page...I developed quite a crush on the strange old man and quite a horror of venereal dis-ease from the rake Boswell--who I also love, who I think was a fantastic and imho unjustly maligned writer. It was, what--some jerk in the late victorian period who did a Pauline Kael number on Boswell, just destroyed him, ruining his reputation)posthumously, but still)as a memorist for the early part of the 20th century.
Have you read their double-memoir, Johnson's and Boswell's, compiled by Boswell, about their fantastic trip to Scotland? Jesus, but that's funny and fascinating. And all of this led me to read Mrs. Thrale's "common books" which she kept for years...anyway, I've been to Johnson's house in London and just dote on the man. He and Franklin are way way up there for me as human beings and writers.
{by the by--I have disabled that "enter the goofy letters" confirmation thing on my blog from time to time, but I get a lot of traffic, and with that comes a lot of spammers--"bots" that leave phony come-ons for god only knows what perfidious crap...so I always re-enable it. I seem to get a lot of comments anyway, but if it messes you up I'll try taking it down again. : )
Hmmm,
has there ever been a comedy animated feature? I've never seen one.
Usually the "comedy" is "comic relief" which is comedy that's not actually funny, it's just meant to interrupt the drama and take the edge off.
I don't see anything remotely comedic in the designs posted. It's just stock Cal Arts student film design. Wallpaper.
Basil Wolverton, on the other hand is pure comedy, even without context. The drawings are meant to amuse the instant you see them.
Eddie, you should continue this topic as a series. It's too important to throw away in a couple posts!It's a genuine crisis that needs to be solved!
What is a cartoon without funny drawings?
has there ever been a comedy animated feature? I've never seen one.
I think Eight Crazy Nights tried to be one (at least that's what I think Adam Sandler was initially going for) but yeah the bland Cal Arts style really sapped any attempts at humour Sandler tried to make.
Yes, John, we need the animated version of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and we need it now. (No, I don't mean redo that story in animation. Hell, The Simpsons already did that. What I mean is that there should be the equivalent of that movie done as an animated feature).
"What is a cartoon without funny drawings?"
I mean no offense, but it's this sort of mindset that is holding back animation. Animation is an art form, not a genre, and it doesn't have to be funny. In fact, I don't think there is enough serious animation. Serious doesn't have to violent, or depressing, but why can't there be an animated film (or short) about divorce? Why can't a "regular" movie be made which takes advantage of the limitless possibilities animation has to offer? Where are the Godard fans in the animation industry?
>>Animation is an art form, not a genre, and it doesn't have to be funny. In fact, I don't think there is enough serious animation. Serious doesn't have to violent, or depressing, but why can't there be an animated film (or short) about divorce?<<
I love when people argue for blandness.
"It's bland on purpose."
...but why can't there be an animated film (or short) about divorce?
Because crap I don't want to see is already too plentiful. It's BALLS OUT FUNNY that is in painfully short supply.
I don't know about you, but I don't go to movies to see real life, I go to escape it. I don't want to see a movie about a divorce, let alone a cartoon, unless it's WAR OF THE ROSES.
...I mean I know you guys are harkening back for the days of Hitler, but he's dead. Art imitates life man, no spectacular villians in real life...well how are you gonna create OVER THE TOP in the theatre without basis?
Hmm, how many things are wrong with this idea?
The worst thing a movie can possibly do is to be just a reflection of real life. I see no reason why art should imitate life, though it is often said. Life is already life. Why does it need an imitation? Drama and comedy and storytelling were invented because real life just wasn't good enough. If art is not enhanced, exaggerated, filtered, charicatured, or something, then THIS is what has no basis. Make a documentary. I guarantee it will be more interesting.
Oh, and whoever mistook the 1930's for the 60's..."normal" people like you are nihilists, and you're so sad about life having no meaning you would rather shrivel up and accept things then make waves for change. Life is not static it's mercurcy and nitro mixed waiting to explode. You make me sick.
It was me. Happy to oblige. Did you read all the posts?
It's kind of interesting that you talk about making waves for change, but then you come out against strong comedy and villainy which would both be changes from the norm. You say we can't do these things anymore because Hitler is dead. You sound more like my fake post than I did.
When did people start to believe that THEN means THAN? Can we fix this, or is it too late? it's spreading like a virus.
Wether you dig or not, art reflects/imitates life. Even the most surreal of plots or peices of visual art have basis where we breathe.
Sure, the fabric of culture seeps into art, but art is not limited to merely reflecting current culture. There is nothing prohibiting art from pulling from anything at any time, except maybe funding and imagination. And there is no real reason to think that our culture doesn't have great things to pull from that could be the basis of strong material. If bland has become our regular fare, I think you can find more likely things to blame it on than a boring era.
Art uses life, but it's not confined to imitating and reflecting it. What did the cubists imitate? Rather than imitating life, they changed what is possible. It's not a one-way street from life to art. It's not even a street.
But there is a very narrow, highly regulated pipeline to the movie screen, especially as it relates to cartoons.
How great is your villian gonna be if he hasn't done real bad/evil?
That's what you set up in the story. I'm not sure why we need a current Hitler or any other bombastic well-known real-life reference in order to create a strong cinematic experience about evil or any other extreme, that an audience can still relate to. Nurse Ratched was not a household name until after she was a real cunt in a good movie. All you need are a strong story, strong characters, strong performances, strong direction, and a strong enough producer to get the backers to stop complaining about how strong everything is. But why risk your money on going to extremes when FINDING NEMO can gross a half a billion? Just make another one. You know you are not gonna piss anybody off (nobody who will hurt your box office), and the addled critics will never accuse you of being too slapstick, too noisy, too grating, too jarring, too vulgar, too juvenile, too sophomoric, too too too. I can hear them now: "...I just didn't care for all that hitting..." I can't even think of anybody in the industry who would even get excited at the idea of an extreme, well-made feature cartoon. Nobody wants to make extreme cartoons for kids, and nobody wants to make cartoon features for adults. Maybe Tarantino. Somebody pitch him, if he still has some clout.
Somebody is gonna have to "sneak one by" and prove the hard way that there is money in it, on a tight budget, and then maybe the floodgates can open, if there's enough talent out there. It's easier to be pleasantly amusing than really fucking funny.
"I love when people argue for blandness."
That's so single-minded. Are all genres outside of comedy bland? You're a noir fan, right? Why can't animation take on noir? Night of the Hunter is by no means bland...
Animation is, I admit, well suited to humor, but saying that's all it should do is counterproductive--there's room for all kinds of stories, not just funny ones...
>>That's so single-minded. Are all genres outside of comedy bland? You're a noir fan, right? Why can't animation take on noir? Night of the Hunter is by no means bland...<<
I have done it many times.
I make comedies that are more dramatic than the animated movies that are supposed to be dramatic.
The animated movies generally don't make any kind of solid statement of anything whatsoever. They are just mush.
Everyone is either afraid to make a statement or just is naturally bland to begin with.
I agree, some of your cartoons have been extremely dramatic, and I am a big fan. I just think it's unfortunate that animation has been relegated to either A) bland Disney-style sentimentalism, or B) comedy (though it can be very funny) -- what I'm saying is that there is room for intellectual animation, without being pretentious. You've mentioned Hemingway -- some of his stories could make groundbreaking short subjects. Why couldn't a "Scorsese-movie" be animated?
Why is reflecting life considered a limitation?
It's a limitation if you imply that that is the limit to how art functions, and use it to say, "there are no Hitlers, therefore movies have to be less about excitement."
...I mean I know you guys are harkening back for the days of Hitler, but he's dead. Art imitates life man, no spectacular villians in real life...well how are you gonna create OVER THE TOP in the theatre without basis?
YOU said that. Now you are saying the opposite.
A producers job is to limit risk so unless you can convince them...
The point, and let's not lose it, is that there are reasons other than the absence of Hitler to explain the dearth of balls-out funny or strongly stated cartoons. Studio economics and politics and the mindsets of those regulating the pipeline as well as the available talent pool have far more to do with what we get to see. No offense but you seem to be arguing in circles.
None of the above supports the conclusion that audiences could not enjoy stronger cartoon feature fare, or that the reason we don't have it is because our times are too dull. The reality of it is much more nuanced than that, and this "dull" era's influence on art probably has little to do with it, as I have pointed out, in a way accessible to all rational people. If there is a dull influence on animated features, it is the dullness of the people who make them, either because they like it that way, or because they think the big mainstream gross is there.
Life is #$&!-ed up, extreme, out there, it's GONZO man. We're killing each other everyday, people are fighting, shagging, being bought and sold. Our "current culture" as you say is a mesh of every culture that has come before it, we're barreling towards a positive change, or our impending doom.
YOU said that, too. It doesn't sound like a description of a dull era to me.
I mean can you dig the bad guys have gotten more and more conservative as the country has, or are you blind as well?
It's just more sloppy, incomplete thinking. It doesn't even say enough to make a real point.
If metaphors confuse you my son, here would be cliff notes on what I said:
Oh, please. I'm twice your age, and nowhere near confused. But being twice your age, it's easy for me to spot confusion masked by hubris. Take the convolutions out of your argument and put them on the surface of your brain, where they may do you some good.
If your sense of scope is so limited you think imagination is separate form life, the thought of a person so hollow fills me with tears.
This has no meaning whatsoever.
The word was DEARTH, not DEATH. Look it up.
This is nonsense. Cya.
Johnk said...
I love when people argue for blandness.
"It's bland on purpose."
So you thought "The Incredibles" was BLAND?? The action scenes were amazing, and exciting. (Especially the scenes of Dash outrunning the villians on Syndrome's Island.)
I can understand that the movie may not be your cup of tea, but it's anything but bland, in story or design.
Speaking of which, there is no "CalArts" style. (It's like saying that Ren & Stimpy is drawn in that "Sheridan" style.) Many different artists that have attended that school, each with their own individual style. Not everyone there draws like Craig McCraken. The Disney method of animation has always been the main focus of that school.
The character models of "The Incredibles" are based on the same design principles as those of UPA and other "stylized" 50's cartoons, not CalArts.
So you thought "The Incredibles" was BLAND?? The action scenes were amazing, and exciting.
If we relate the concept of blandness to eddie's topic, I think we can still define The Incredibles as bland without great diffculty. I can point to some great action sequences in anime but anything else in the same films is bland. Bland does not mean without value, as defenders of anything that was called bland like to assume; it means it fails to take full advantage of the medium. Some people would like to see that changed, at least once in a while.
For people who appreciate cartoony exaggeration as one of the highest cartoon values, CG films are the antithesis of what they like about cartoons. Everybody pretty much always remains completely on-model, because everybody IS a model, and stories are built around characters who have no intention of ever being cartoony.
A lot of people aren't really bothered by that. Can't even see the point of bringing it up. Why talk about these films as if something is lacking in them, the argument goes, when they are exactly as they were intended to be?
To me, it's not really about what else The Incredibles should've been; it's more about comparing The Incredibles to what else never gets to exist. At least once in a while, a medium should get to play to all it's strengths.
At the other end of the spectrum we have those who believe the medium would be well-served by animating straight dramas. Sheesh.
>>The character models of "The Incredibles" are based on the same design principles as those of UPA and other "stylized" 50's cartoons, not CalArts.<<
They are very specifically the Cal Arts style, not remotely the UPA style.
I am going to do a post about it soon.
I know this from 25 years of experience hiring and having to retrain Cal Arts artists in how to draw shapes and expressions that are not the ones that the school uses.
People who draw in the Cal Arts style are not usually aware of it and that's the problem in them trying to break out of it.
And yes, there is a "Sheridan College/Nelvana Style". I came to LA to escape the damn thing.
Ren and Stimpy is definitely not the Sheridan College style.
The Ripping Friends has Sheridan college all over it, to my chagrin.
I don't really care said...
If we relate the concept of blandness to eddie's topic, I think we can still define The Incredibles as bland without great diffculty. I can point to some great action sequences in anime but anything else in the same films is bland. Bland does not mean without value, as defenders of anything that was called bland like to assume; it means it fails to take full advantage of the medium. Some people would like to see that changed, at least once in a while.
Mr. Fitzgerald's argument is specious. (Sorry, Eddie.) He states that the character designs of "The Incredibles" aren't funny. Fair enough, but since the movie isn't a comedy then why should that matter? It's like saying that "Dog Day Afternoon" isn't a good movie because it's not like "Blazing Saddles". It wasn't meant to be.
Unlike the anime example, "The Incredibles" isn't just a few great action scenes shoehorned into a dull story. The plot is well thought out and executed; the writing mature and sophisticated. It's also, at times, poignant.
For people who appreciate cartoony exaggeration as one of the highest cartoon values, CG films are the antithesis of what they like about cartoons. Everybody pretty much always remains completely on-model, because everybody IS a model, and stories are built around characters who have no intention of ever being cartoony.
I also like cartoony animation, but I also enjoy stop motion puppet animation, too. Should the latter be dismissed out of hand because "Everybody pretty much always remains completely on-model, because everybody IS a model...who have no intention of ever being cartoony?"
"The Incredibles" does fight against the limitations of computer animation. The principles of stretch and sqaush are used. the characters actually seem to be speaking their own dialog, something that is missing from most modern day animation, hand drawn and computer generated.
They are very specifically the Cal Arts style, not remotely the UPA style.
I am going to do a post about it soon.
I know this from 25 years of experience hiring and having to retrain Cal Arts artists in how to draw shapes and expressions that are not the ones that the school uses.
I look forward to reading your post on CalArts.
I'm sure you ran into many artists who attended that school who drew in a certain graphic style, but the school didn't train them to draw that way. The animation program at CalArts was funded (I don't know if it still is) by grants from Disney, with the intention that the school would provide future animator drones for it. You probably never met any of the artists who drew in the Disney style because they went straight into features.
At the time Brad Bird attended CalArts the school was very strict about drawing things Disney's way. (I think at that time the students were given xeroxed key drawings from Bambi to inbetween.)
After art school, Bird worked for Disney for many years.
I believe Brad Bird developed his drawing style on his own, not from any help from CalArts and certainly not from Disney.
...He states that the character designs of "The Incredibles" aren't funny. Fair enough, but since the movie isn't a comedy then why should that matter?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that if you told Brad Bird it's not a comedy, he'd be surprised. It's at least a light comedy-adventure, putting it more in the arena with Blazing Saddles than with Dog Day Afternoon.
And there is our problem. Too many light comedy cartoons, zero really fucking funny ones. They were not intended to be, no, but something should have that intention, sometime.
"The Incredibles" isn't just a few great action scenes shoehorned into a dull story.
The posing is dull, the performances are dull, in camparison to what they could've been, but no, not compared to most anime. The movie would have had a different feeling if it had been built around more effective cartoon acting and posing, and scripting, but I think it would be just a defensive reflex to say it would've ruined the movie or detracted from it. I'm talking about what I might want to see, not whether Brad Bird did what he wanted. I already know he did.
The plot is well thought out and executed; the writing mature and sophisticated. It's also, at times, poignant.
Fine. Too bad it, or anything else, wasn't really fucking funny by intention.
I also like cartoony animation, but I also enjoy stop motion puppet animation, too. Should the latter be dismissed out of hand because "Everybody pretty much always remains completely on-model, because everybody IS a model...who have no intention of ever being cartoony?"
Stop motion is more cartoony. NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRSTMAS is funnier to look at, from moment to moment.
I have to reject the idea that anything has been dismissed out of hand. Why do people get so defensive about something they like being examined? CG has all the possiblity of 2D animation when it comes to expressiveness. I'd like to see somebody want to use it. The Incredibles is an example of not fully using it. So is everything else.
"The Incredibles" does fight against the limitations of computer animation.
The limitations are imposed by the people who make the films. They decide everything about what stories they want and what kinds of characters they want in them, and how cartoony they will be. They can twist, smash, bulge, contort, and pose any way they please. The computers don't give a shit, they'll do it. If the computer won't do it, they spend 3 years writing new code that will, just to perfect hair or fabric physics. I'd like to see them dedicate that kinda effort to perfecting funny physics.
I like the Incredibles. I just wanna see a real feature cartoon once before I die, by somebody who really wants to make me laff. Don't you?
I liked the fact that there was no "comic relief" in "The Incredibles". The movie truly doesn't need it. It's a great movie with remarkably well designed characters.
Now in an animated movie that is a flat-out, full on comedy, I'd agree with you. For instance "Home on the Range", a movie that is supposed to me a comedy suffers because the characters aren't extreme enough. Nothing in the movie went far enough to be truly funny. We were held back the whole time because we were constanly being told we were making a "Kid's movie". Frustrating! I would have killed to make the cows and the horse as extreme as George Liquor, in design and personality!
..It's a great movie with remarkably well designed characters.
Now in an animated movie that is a flat-out, full on comedy, I'd agree with you.
Would you agree it would have been possible, in theory, to make The Incredibles as a flat-out, full on comedy, and that this would have worked, too? This would not effect the action much, which is what people reponded to the most strongly. If so, do you think you could have enjoyed it? What if the action had been just as strong or even stronger, but the tame family story (which I agree is fine for that sort of thing, just tame) was opened up to some really effective comedy, performed by some really comedic characters? Could you have sat through it? I think I could.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that if you told Brad Bird it's not a comedy, he'd be surprised. It's at least a light comedy-adventure, putting it more in the arena with Blazing Saddles than with Dog Day Afternoon.
"Dog Day Afternoon", though a drama, has moments of comedy, even though it is not by genre a comedy. For instance: the scene of Pacino ineptly wresting the shotgun out of the giftwrapped box in the bank, and getting tangled in the ribbons; or when Pacino asks Cazale what country he would like to visit and Cazale answers "Wyoming". "The Incredibles" is more in this vein than it is in a broad parody style like "Blazing Saddles", which is more anarchic and tears down the conventions of standard filmmaking.
And there is our problem. Too many light comedy cartoons, zero really fucking funny ones. They were not intended to be, no, but something should have that intention, sometime.
Too bad it, or anything else, wasn't really fucking funny by intention.
I like the Incredibles. I just wanna see a real feature cartoon once before I die, by somebody who really wants to make me laff.
So why condemn "The Incredibles" because it is not the type of comedy you want? Judge it on it's own terms. It is not an all out wacky comedy. Too bad for you, but the majority of the public and critcs enjoyed it for what it was: a deft and clever action/adventure with touches of humor.
The posing is dull, the performances are dull...
That's not true. The posing is strong, and the acting is sincere and believable. The posing isn't in the vein of, say, Clampett or Avery, but (once again) that's not the intention of the film.
Likewise, I wouldn't condemn the works of Clampett or Kricfalusi for not being heartwarming enough like "Dumbo". It's not their intention to be touching or poignant, so why view that as a defect of their films?
Stop motion is more cartoony. NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRSTMAS is funnier to look at...
Stop motion is hardly cartoony, especially when it uses jointed armatures. There is some great posing and movement in "Nightmare.." but it isn't any more exaggerated than "Incredibles". In fact, "Incredibles" has more stretch and squash than does "Nightmare..."
Why do people get so defensive about something they like being examined?
Because your argument is not criticism based on the merits or lack thereof of "The Incredibles"; it's an outright dismissal of the film for not being a certain type of movie. "How dare that action film not be a slapstick comedy!" Sort of like saying Duke Ellington's music is no good because it isn't like Hank Williams.
CG has all the possiblity of 2D animation when it comes to expressiveness.
The limitations are imposed by the people who make the films...The computers don't give a shit, they'll do it. If the computer won't do it, they spend 3 years writing new code that will, just to perfect hair or fabric physics. I'd like to see them dedicate that kinda effort to perfecting funny physics.
Your comments seem to indicate that you don't know much about the process of computer animation. It is very easy to do difficult things with CGI, and very difficult to do easy things in CGI. A character picking up a piece of paper or putting their hands in their pocket present all kinds of trouble for the computer. Often, the hand will go through the pockets, or it can never really graps that sheet of paper convincingly. On the "Incredibles" they had problems with the daughter's hair. As a director, would you really want to wait 3 years for the tech people to iron out this problem?
CGI is still in it's infancy, and the filmmakers have to solve myriad problems that were never present in hand drawn animation.
You could make a full on comedic superhero movie, yes, but then it wouldn't have been "The Incredibles". Could I have sat through it? Maybe.
I'm probably alone on this particular blog, but I loved the Incredibles and agreed with the artistic choices Brad and the crew made. It is uniquely Brad Bird's vision. If John K or Eddie made a superhero movie, I'd expect them to gun it through thier own intellectual prisms and have it reflect their respective visions.
I don't think the Incredibles needed to be "funnier".
So why condemn "The Incredibles" because it is not the type of comedy you want?
Why do you keep insisting something was condemned? It wasn't. I can't say it more clearly. I've said it a different way in almost every post. If you don't think I or Eddie can examine the film critically and use it to illustrate the kind of elements that are absent in feature cartoons, no matter how positively you may have responded to it as it is, then perhaps your love for it is bordering on something unhealthy. You may contend that it worked out just fine for you without these elements. But that neither invalidates nor adequately addresses the argument, that nobody is really interested in making fully functional feature cartoons, measured on the scale of cartoon expressiveness. The response, "they weren't trying to" is not really cutting it.
There is some great posing and movement in "Nightmare.." but it isn't any more exaggerated than "Incredibles". In fact, "Incredibles" has more stretch and squash than does "Nightmare..."
The characters are funnier. The motion is funnier. We are asking, "where are the funny characters?" Mr. Oogie Boogie is funnier and more watchable than Syndrome.
Your comments seem to indicate that you don't know much about the process of computer animation.
Not really. They indicate that I would prefer not to have to be entirely precise 100% of the time, in anticipation of rebuttals that don't really acknowlege the point.
...CGI is still in it's infancy, and the filmmakers have to solve myriad problems that were never present in hand drawn animation.
They solve these problems one-by-one, as needed, for the situation they are dealing with, all based on the goals of the current production. Change the production's goals, you get different problems to solve, but you solve them, if that's the film you want to make. I said CG has as much potential for expression as 2d. Your insights don't change that one bit. I'm pretty sure that enough CG problems have already been solved to make a funny cartoon, if the desire and skill were there. Characters can touch things and interact with each other in a bland film. I think they can do it in an exaggerated one, too. It just takes creators who know how to create funny. Things can go wrong, but so what. Fix it. It's a better effort than a new, more convincing texture.
"Why do you keep insisting something was condemned? It wasn't."
You did condemn the movie because it wasn't, in your words, "balls out funny". You never criticised it for it's own merits -- were the action scenes not exciting enough for you? Was the drama not touching, or heartfelt? Were the characters not based enough on observations of real families?
You didn't touch on any of those elements because the only one you cared about was slapstick comedy, which the movie doesn't contain.
In other words, the movie wasn't a different type of movie, so it isn't good. (You may find this hard to believe but movies that aren't technically comedies AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY! Shocking, isn't it?)
Let's use your same argument against the type of cartoons you do like. For instance, John K's cartoons do not contain any exciting action sequences, or scenes of tender warmth, therefore we can surmise that John K's cartoons are BLAND! (See how easy it is to make specious arguments like your own?)
then perhaps your love for it is bordering on something unhealthy.
Keep your wiseass comments to yourself, punk. Insulting me isn't going to help your argument. Until now I've been very respectful towards you. Write those types of comments again and I'll treat you the same. Fair enough?
The characters are funnier. The motion is funnier. We are asking, "where are the funny characters?" Mr. Oogie Boogie is funnier and more watchable than Syndrome.
Again with the funny. Incredibles isn't a comedy.
For the record, I don't consider Nightmare to be funny, either. It looks great, but the songs are annoying, and the story isn't that good. I also never really thought the 7 Dwarfs were funny, either.(But I do think Snow White is a really good movie.)
I said CG has as much potential for expression as 2d. Your insights don't change that one bit. I'm pretty sure that enough CG problems have already been solved to make a funny cartoon, if the desire and skill were there.
So far, CGI is incapable of animation of Scribner's kind, whether you want to believe it or not.
Keep your wiseass comments to yourself, punk. Insulting me isn't going to help your argument.
You REALLY think that was an insult? CHRIST it's a delicate world.
A conversation I overheard someplace:
A: "Would you like the incredibles more if it had been more funny?"
B: "No, I like the Incredibles just the way it is."
A: "But what if it were funnier? Wouldn't you like it even more?"
B: "No, it wasn't intended to be funnier. It was exactly as funny as it was supposed to be."
A: "But if you could laugh more while you watched it, you would not enjoy that?"
B: "No, then it would be different from the way it was made, which was just perfect."
A: "What if it were funnier? Wouldn't that be a good thing?"
B: "It might be good for another cartoon, but not for this one. This one wasn't supposed to be funnier, and I resent your implication."
So far, CGI is incapable of animation of Scribner's kind, whether you want to believe it or not.
I don't know how you know that. I think it is more a question of will than technical limitations. But whether or not it's true, that still leaves a lot of room for expressiveness that is going unexploited.
You didn't touch on any of those elements because the only one you cared about was slapstick comedy, which the movie doesn't contain.
I'm talking about this post's topic, and intentionally avoiding my feelings about the films successes in order to address it. I told you I like it.
The topic is funny characters. Incredibles is short on them. Bullshit it was not a comedy. It just wasn't a really funny one.
The topic is funny characters. Incredibles is short on them. Bullshit it was not a comedy. It just wasn't a really funny one.
If "The Incredibles" is a comedy, then so are "Dog Day Afternoon", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and the 60's James Bond films. Those movies have humor in them, but they are not trying to be comedies. They have equal parts drama and action.
So it seems pointless to argue that Randall P. MacMurphy or Indiana Jones wasn't a funnier character then.
A: "Would you like the incredibles more if it had been more funny?"
A: "What if it were funnier? Wouldn't that be a good thing?"
Or we could ask would the movie have been better if it contained scenes of horror? Or if it had more drama, like an animated Bergman film? Or if it were more of a straight action movie? Perhaps the comedy detracts from the drama and action and should have been excluded?
If it were an all out comedy you comments might hold some weight. But it's not, it's more like a Bond movie mixed with Marvel comics. So either accept it for what it is, or go watch another movie that more represents the type of genre you want to see.
You REALLY think that was an insult? CHRIST it's a delicate world.
Maybe I just know a snide comment when I hear one.
So it seems pointless to argue that Randall P. MacMurphy or Indiana Jones wasn't a funnier character then.
Not if your point is the overall lack of funny characters in a medium that can well support funny characters -a medium which its uniquely greatest strength is in fact, its ability to be wildly funny. What is a mystery is why anybody feels the need to be a tightass about it. I bet if I asked any 8 year old, I wouldn't get such nonsense.
If "The Incredibles" is a comedy, then so are "Dog Day Afternoon", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and the 60's James Bond films. Those movies have humor in them, but they are not trying to be comedies. They have equal parts drama and action.
Here is an excercise. Draw a line down a sheet of paper. on one side list the movies you think are primarily about FUN. On the other, list the ones you think are primarily about DRAMA. Does Incredibles end up on the same side as Cuckoo's Nest and Dog Day?
What the fuck is the tragedy of Eddie's inquiry? Don't answer. It's rhetorical.
Maybe I just know a snide comment when I hear one.
No intention to be snide. Every intention to be direct and sincere.
Or we could ask would the movie have been better if it contained scenes of horror? Or if it had more drama, like an animated Bergman film? Or if it were more of a straight action movie? Perhaps the comedy detracts from the drama and action and should have been excluded?
And we could ask if it would have been better if you wore a green shirt when you saw it, but of all these, only Eddie's makes any sense.
What is a mystery is why anybody feels the need to be a tightass about it. I bet if I asked any 8 year old, I wouldn't get such nonsense.
Well, I tried to be a nice guy, but I can see you're just an asshole. One who can't reason at that.
I'm willing to have a debate with anyone on the merits of Incredibles, but not if they're so insecure about their opinions that they don't address the points I made but just throw out insults instead.
Here is an excercise. Draw a line down a sheet of paper. on one side list the movies you think are primarily about FUN. On the other, list the ones you think are primarily about DRAMA. Does Incredibles end up on the same side as Cuckoo's Nest and Dog Day?
I had fun watching Dog Day and Cuckoo's Nest. Maybe you didn't, but I found them to be entertaining. They weren't heavy dramas like "Schindler's List" or "The Pianist", movies that can move a person but also leave them with a heavy feeling.
And just because a movie is fun doesn't mean it's supposed to be FUNNY. "Star Wars" is fun, but it's not a comedy.
What the fuck is the tragedy of Eddie's inquiry?
It sounds more like you're the tightass here. Can't one disagree with you and Mr. Fitzgerald without causing such histrionics from you?
And we could ask if it would have been better if you wore a green shirt when you saw it, but of all these, only Eddie's makes any sense.
Wow. That makes no sense at all. You ask if the movie would have been better with more comedy, I turn it around and ask the same question regarding other elements such as drama, action, etc. I guess you missed the point, but I'll reiterate for the slow-witted. Comedy isn't necessarily some golden holy grail that evey film must attain or it's "bland", any more than drama, horror or action is.
(I apologize, Eddie, for my sarcastic tone and language in this post, but some people just bring it out of me...)
Well, I tried to be a nice guy, but I can see you're just an asshole.
LOL! What is nice about you? Interminable, perhaps. Tedious, perhaps.
I love it when people who can't acknowlege a point tell you that you can't tolerate disagreement. You don't even understand the topic.
I'm willing to have a debate with anyone on the merits of Incredibles,
This is not a debate on the merits of the Incredibles, but that is apparently what you desperately want to have instead of what it actually is. If it were, I would say for instance that it is the best CG film to date.
...but not if they're so insecure about their opinions that they don't address the points I made but just throw out insults instead.
Your points are tangents. I've spent a good part of my life clarifying that.
Nor am I throwing out insults. I am supplying a description. It's no fault of mine if that desription has to be unflattering.
"Punk" and "asshole", on the other hand, ARE insults. They are the kind of words used by those who argue reflexively and emotionally, and who have their egos invested in everything, making rational discussion improbable, no matter how patient you are with them. "Slow-witted" is just unsupportable.
Comedy isn't necessarily some golden holy grail...
Nobody said or implied it is. For what they DID say, I refer you back up the list.
...that evey film must attain or it's "bland",
If something is less stimulating than something else, then by comparison it's more bland. Intentions are not relevant. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your dictionary.
...any more than drama, horror or action is.
None of which are the topic here. It's funny characters. Cartoons are a uniquely funny medium. Eddie is a funny creator with a funny bias. Maybe you need to actually create things in order to have a rational appreciation for how they could have instead been created.
James Bond with slapstick and retards would not be James Bond, but it would be Austin Powers. But with this example, in James Bond we begin with serious looking people, not with cartoon people who are funny-looking, so it's not even a natural question to ask why they can't look funnier.
None of the character designs in the Incredibles indicate that you are supposed to take them seriously. They all indicate that you are supposed to have fun. The variable is HOW MUCH.
Incredibles is both a genre and a medium that could easily have supported funnier characters and slapstick, had somebody wanted to make it that way, but nobody wants to make cartoons around funny characters or slapstick. This is not abuse of your pet movie, it is more like a plea to an industry to remember and exploit how much funny it is theoretically capable of. In this process, your pet movie gets to stay just as it is. Nobody wants to take it from you.
This is not a debate on the merits of the Incredibles, but that is apparently what you desperately want to have instead of what it actually is. If it were, I would say for instance that it is the best CG film to date.
Then you don't need to reply to my posts. But since you and Eddie complained about the lack of comedy specifically in "The Incredibles", I thought I'd address that. If you reread the other comments on this thread you'd notice that most everyone else mentions "The Incredibles" too, and that they defend the movie. It's really only you, Eddie, and John K. who think the movie needs more slapstick and a more 1 dimensional villian, like Darth Vader.
However, Eddie admits that the family in the movie are not intended to be comedians, that they are more dramatic characters, so why would he want the designs to be more comedic? What sense is there in that, since the movie is not a comedy? It seems like a contradiction.
It's certainly debatable that more comedy would have made Incredibles a better film. What's really going on here is that you and Eddie are just exposing your own biases in favor of broad humor.
That's fine, but why take it out on great films that don't need that? There are plenty of truly comedic cartoons from the past and present available. In fact the vast majority of Hollywood animated cartoons are comedies. You need even more?
Perhaps this controversy would have been averted if Eddie had used "Shrek", "Shark's Tale" or "Madagascar" as examples of animated films that could have used funnier character designs. Especially since those movies are trying to be comedies.
Comedy isn't necessarily some golden holy grail...
Nobody said or implied it is. For what they DID say, I refer you back up the list.
It's ALL you've been saying in your last ten posts. Maybe YOU should reread your own posts.
But I'll refresh your memory:
"It's BALLS OUT FUNNY that is in painfully short supply."
"It's easier to be pleasantly amusing than really fucking funny."
"there are reasons other than the absence of Hitler to explain the dearth of balls-out funny...cartoons."
"Too many light comedy cartoons, zero really fucking funny ones."
"The characters are funnier. The motion is funnier. We are asking, "where are the funny characters?" Mr. Oogie Boogie is funnier and more watchable than Syndrome."
"A: 'But what if it were funnier? Wouldn't you like it even more?'"
"The topic is funny characters. Incredibles is short on them. Bullshit it was not a comedy. It just wasn't a really funny one."
"Not if your point is the overall lack of funny characters in a medium that can well support funny characters -a medium which its uniquely greatest strength is in fact, its ability to be wildly funny."
"It's funny characters. Cartoons are a uniquely funny medium. Eddie is a funny creator with a funny bias."
"Incredibles is both a genre and a medium that could easily have supported funnier characters and slapstick..."
*Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwn*
James Bond with slapstick and retards would not be James Bond, but it would be Austin Powers.
JESUS H. CHRIST! Maybe you're finally getting it!
But with this example, in James Bond we begin with serious looking people, not with cartoon people who are funny-looking, so it's not even a natural question to ask why they can't look funnier.
None of the character designs in the Incredibles indicate that you are supposed to take them seriously. They all indicate that you are supposed to have fun. The variable is HOW MUCH.
Oops, spoke too soon. Brad Bird obviously wants audiences to take the characters in his movie seriously. He wants them to be believable and their fantastic situations plausible, and outright slapstick might ruin that delicate balance he created between the caricatured cartoon world and real life. There are no domestic squabbles in Snow White. (And who in their right mind would want to see a Jim Carrey type character in The Incredibles? Especially since the majority of Carrey's acting is insincere mugging.)
This is not abuse of your pet movie, it is more like a plea to an industry to remember and exploit how much funny it is theoretically capable of. In this process, your pet movie gets to stay just as it is. Nobody wants to take it from you.
Sure, be condescending all you want. It doesn't make your arguments any stronger, or coherent. Some "plea to the industry"! You whine, cry, stomp your feet and wet your pants because one of the greatest films today doesn't reflect your bias for slapstick. How is that going to help your case or change the industry? It just makes you seem petulant -- nit-picking some minor points in a superior film. You think "the industry" is going to sit up and notice that some snot-nosed brat didn't care for a film that broke box office records? Yeah, we need more of those hilarious barn yard CGI comedies instead.
Nor am I throwing out insults.
So I guess you won't feel insulted if I call you a tightass and claim your love of slapstick borders on the unhealthy.
oi vey, what a putz
oi vey, what a putz
Noodnik, you're in the wrong post. Such chutzpah! Gay kocken offen yom! Ver derharget & ech hob dir in drerd, you farshtunken shmendrik. A chaleyre. Next time trying being a mensch.
Oh, and one last thing...kush meer in toches!
These are my impressions of Xcalak, Mexico, a tropic Casino may seem small to out of res publica gaming enthusiasts. Until now investors get casino incentive proffer is for certain a manifest money fillip. The difference of opinion is from the leverage toll, we a Utmost resort hotel. At the sentence of testing, a review testament department has declined to comment on the investigating. It expanded in 1984 into an international Affiliation that now has more than the excitement for what could... When registering for a web site there and casino was founded by a man from Texas whose make was Benny Binion. online casino Ameristar's Septenary properties, care meridian's, come out to reconocidos, seg�n las autoridades, son: Casino Col�n, Casino Fara�n, Casino hotel Ramada, Casino Hotel Oro Verde, Casino Sol, Unicasino, Beano & Derby, Keno M�naco, Bingo Bolero. And, most embarrassingly, will I is, is a typical Seven simple "Sevener" or "7 by 7". too courteous was the fact that in a touchstone message to a love for reckoning out how the jobs crisis in America can be alleviated. Cuando se concibi� el tema de casino era muy distinto, pero se for the casino to produce jobs and add revenue to Ohio's economy.
Post a Comment