Podcast-The Disney Creative Project

Xtranormal College Musical Recreation

Xtranormal: Amateur Hour?

While I did ending up using the medium Xtranormal as part of my Textual Transformation Project, I do, however, have many problems with this new found form of animation as a medium to be taken seriously. One of my biggest critiques lies in the difficulty of conveying your (the author's) intended message to an audience. Simply, the majority of the time, you just can't. The program doesn't allow you enough freedom to do so, and in the end, you're stuck with slim pickins and forced to choose from a very limited array of options. This new medium is devoid of the elements which make film great (e.g. real actors-whether in front of the camera or doing a voiceover for animation, post-production editing, endless possibilities for set locations, etc.); essentially, the biggest flaw is the mere fact that this medium was intended for an armature-level audience, seeing as it’s basically a “do-it-yourself” kit for Web 2.0.

Obviously, this was Xtranormal's intention--to create a user-friendly animation medium that allows the average person to operate with no real difficulty--but I feel that it is also their Achilles Heal, the one thing really holding them back from entering the next phase of global media success (such as Facebook or Youtube). However, I suppose that the majority of internet users are, in fact, amateurs with regards to something like animation--but still, there's something really problematic with this medium, something that could be easily addressed and fixed in no time...ah, yes, of course, it's the acting (or lack thereof).

The actors speak with such blatant artificiality and awkward pronunciation that the whole production just seems, well, fake; their dialogue is akin to that of a robot, which I suppose in a way, they actually are. The dialect and accents available for your "actors" are very limited, only providing users with a few stereotypical options--like "American English Female 1" who, when choosing that option, repeats the phrase "You bet-ter bring it, girl-friend." Christ, they sound about as human as Arnold Schwarzenegger did in The Terminator.

On that note, another bothersome issue is the fact that you are only able to choose between 6 or so "settings," which, as you could have guessed, are very bland and boring. You can only have upwards of two "actors" on screen during the whole production and you cannot change "sets" once filming has began--for it has to remain static the whole time, which is ultimately how the entire medium is, static. Of course, all of these problems can disappear if you decide to pay more money and receive the "upgrade."

With this particular animation, it was very difficult because I attempted to recreate a musical scene from my Disney project. So not only did I have to include the awkward dialogue exchanges, but had to take the dialogue (which eventually evolves into a song and dance routine), place it into the program Final Cut Pro, download the instrumental version of the song, superimpose that into the animation, then convert that to a quicktime file, and upload that to Blogger. Talk about frustrating! And the hardest part about the whole process was aligning, to the best of my ability, the lyrics with the instrumental beat--trying to add just the right amount of "pauses" ("I'm thinking" or "I'm totally stumped") in between the actors' speaking lines as to have some coherent rhythm and tempo. A very, very tedious and time-consuming process for a video that's only 2 minutes long.

In retrospect, I find the entire Xtranormal medium to be quite frustrating, to say the least (especially if you're trying to make a music video!) While I was pretty aware of this before taking this project head-on, as I had used this program before, I wanted to create a sort-of experiment that explored the flaws and limitations of this medium. As such, I believe this is pretty damn good evidence that, in a lot of ways, it is far inferior to film or any other form of moving picture art. Don't get me wrong, I had fun putting the video together, but I simply believe that Xtranormal needs to undergo and serious transformation, an upgrade, something to rid themselves of this amateur stigma that has come to represent, in my eyes, the entire medium as a whole.

Now, enough from me...What do you guys think about Xtranormal? Do you think it will become extinct in the near future? Is it simply not good enough to live on? Do the problems with the medium outweigh the potential benefits (or vice-versa)? Please, feel free to post your comments, concerns, questions, rebuttals, what have you, below...

Textual Transformation Project--An Introduction

For the purposes of this project, I chose to textually transform my Disney creative project--a rendition of The Mickey Mouse Club--into a podcast, an Xtranormal animation, and a blog. The podcast consisted of me discussing all the facets of the actual project; writing the screenplay, finding the actors, finding shooting locations, building sets, gathering and purchasing props, directing, editing, and finalizing the whole thing into a flowing narrative. Then, with Xtranormal, I decided to recreate the "College Musical" segment of our Disney video using this program, which turned out to be quite a difficult procedure. And finally, for the blog, I chose to discuss what I feel are the biggest problems associated with Xtranormal as an artistically serious medium. Other than that, I think that's all the background info you need. Enjoy!

Collins Swords

A list of my picks:

Best Picture: The Social Network

Best Director: David Fincher (The Social Network)

Best Actor: Colin Firth (The King's Speech)

Best Actress: Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

Best Screenplay (original): Christopher Nolan (Inception)

Best Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network)

Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale (The Fighter)

Best Supporting Actress: Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit)

Inception

Walking out of the movie theatre, my mind was blown after watching Christopher Nolan's highly imaginative and entertaining film Inception. The film was a great follow up to Nolan's acclaimed The Dark Knight, proving that the director refuses to become a product of Hollywood mediocrity. Aesthetically, this film is one to be emulated; like The Matrix, Inception creates a world of pure imagination, diving head first into the subconscious of its central characters, immersing the audience in a world where the lines between reality and fantasy are constantly blurring together. Leonardo DiCaprio leads this all-star cast in one of the most thrilling and entertaining movies I'd seen in theaters since I can remember.
However, looking back on the Oscar's past winners, Inception may be a film that's a bit too fantastic for the Academy--it lacks a certain element of realism necessary to take home the best picture award. Getting a summer theatrical release definitely hurts the film's chances even more, seeing as those films are typically forgotten once award's season comes around. While Inception is a great, mesmerizing, and entertaining film, I believe the subject matter is not appealing to voters for the big awards. Surely, it will sweep the categories in visual and audio effects, and maybe even cinematography; but other than that, I see the film going home empty handed. Think about it, did The Matrix win any significant awards? No, and if anything, this film primarily drew inspiration from that film. Both are great films, but simply, they are not in congruence with the Academy's tastes.

True Grit

I had high expectations for the Coen brothers' new addition to the western genre, one that appears to be on verge of extinction, True Grit. While I was a bit disillusioned discovering that it was, in fact, a remake; nevertheless, I have complete faith in the Coen's work, and am willing to consume anything they produce. Perhaps this is why I was slightly disappointed after walking out of the film. Taken, it was a very good film (I mean, it got 10 Oscar nominations), but I felt short-changed and left unfulfilled. The directing and cinematography were, as always, excellent, the dialogue was spot-on, being culturally relevant for the times, Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld gave equally terrific performances; but still, something was missing. Maybe it was the grit that was nonexistent, save for one scene. I was shocked to find that the film received a PG-13 MPAA rating. In contemporary times, films that are the most realistic are the ones that are rated R. It's as simple as that (with the exception of Pixar films). Especially with the western genre, it's is only accurate to have the characters cursing, yelling profanities and suckin' down whiskey in filthy brothels.
Essentially, it has to resemble a show like Deadwood, where the grit is pervasive, but necessary in depicting the a culture akin to the "Wild West". The studio's decision to make True Grit available to a larger demographic is, ultimately, what I believe hinders the film most. This may be a small (and even ridiculous) critique, but I believe this missing element makes this film good, as opposed to great. As far as awards go, I predict it won't win much--Jeff Bridges just won last year for Crazy Heart, the Coen's just won for No Country for Old Men; maybe it will get Roger Deakins a best cinematography award and Hailee Steinfeld has a good chance at best supporting actress, but other than that, True Grit will go home empty handed.