Studio Ghibli marks 40 years, but future looks uncertain

It's based on a short story published by Akiyuki Nosaka [1] which was based on his own experiences, and in general, the fate of many children after the war [2].

As far as I can tell, the movie was a faithful re-enactment of the story, which itself was only slightly removed from the author's own experiences. War is fundamentally depressing, and the only thing you could reasonably call "oscar bait" was the choice to make the movie at all. Others might call it brave -- particularly when you realize that it was released at the same time as Totoro. The brilliance of the film was that it used "kids animation" to portray the misery of war in a way that I don't think any other movie ever has.

It was a fundamental re-imagining of the scope of the medium, and the deep irony of a comment like the GP is that the entire reason it gets dismissed is because it pushes the boundaries of animation far beyond what is usually deemed acceptable.

Miyazaki plays metaphorical footsie with themes like death and pain and obligation -- and maybe he's more successful because of it -- but Takahata just takes them head-on.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_of_the_Fireflies_(short_...

[2] https://thoughtmight.com/movie/grave-of-the-fireflies-misinf...

It's at the introduction of Ashitaka, Eboshi, Toki, and Gonza at Iron Town. They used it to add levity to the situation, I guess? It was entirely pointless and stupid.

edit: Actually, it was from the scene with Eboshi, Gonza, and the women talking about the threat from the emperor around the 1:17:00 - 1:18:00 mark. Right before Ashitaka wakes up in the cave and talks with Moro. It's comedic effect to get the women to laugh at the supposedly-tough Gonza.

It's meant to be either a fart or someone blowing a raspberry, but none of the characters mouths are moving. I think it's clearly meant to be the former.

I just watched the English and the Japanese versions and only the English dub has it.

I need to watch this again. It's such a good movie.

    a:    Next to last. 

Inserting a fart joke when it wasn't in the source is quite low. But there are even more lower hanging things the American distribution did, so it's not the ultimate for sure.

Makes you wonder what company of the years ahead will be assembled from those let go today in the name of AI.

On the one hand, yes, but also consider that game animation is fundamentally different from cinematic animation. It often has to be modular and loopable, but that also means that much of it can be treated like anime's "sakuga" stock footage (high quality, because it's going to be seen a lot). Cuphead was also something of a passion project, and the studio insisted on studying and replicating the older techniques to the best of their ability.

Basically, reverse engineering that process is probably a more expensive undertaking than most studios are willing to take. Look also at the Cuphead animated series, which was animated like a modern production (sadly).

Here's something i didn't know:

[producer and director] had written the role of the Genie for Robin Williams, but when met with resistance, created a reel of a Williams's stand-up animation of the Genie.

The directors asked Eric Goldberg, the Genie's supervising animator, to animate the character over one of Williams's old stand-up comedy routines to pitch the idea to the actor. The resulting test, in which Williams's stand-up about schizophrenia was translated to the Genie growing another head to argue with himself, made Williams "laugh his ass off", and convinced him to sign for the role.

Williams's appearance in Aladdin marked the beginning of a transition in animation to use celebrity voice actors rather than specifically trained voice actors

D'oh, I meant to write "Satoshi Kon". But thanks for pointing it out.

> If he directs the art and movie, but doesn’t actually draw anything himself, is that still a Miyazaki film?

Yes. You seem to be oscillating between thinking I'm talking about the frames he actually draws versus the movies he creates with the assistance of his various teams. It's both. That's part of why I am saying that once Miyazaki is gone, by definition, there will be no more Miyazaki movies, because there is no Miyazaki anymore.

Now, that's not to say that AI enthusiasts won't try and make them, they almost certainly will. I can't fathom why else you'd be working on this tech. However if you have so little creatively to say that you must reanimate the hand of a master so far your better that you'd need a rocket just to pick his pocket, then IMO you have already demonstrated your, and by extension, your works, lack so spectacularly that even you already know it sucks.

I can't separate this ongoing issue from the fact that so many of these super pro AI people are explicitly STEM guys (and it is mostly guys too) who have no background in the humanities, and this is going to sound mean but: it fucking shows. There is no appreciation for the artist. There is no value to creativity. Making things is seen by these people not as a thing they have to do lest the ideas burn holes in their skulls until they die; it's simply the first thing that needs to be done so you can sell shit.

I know so many artists who work jobs they loathe to come home and create for audiences they have made, and they make a pittance off of because the money is not and was never the point. They create because they can't not create. The AI bro is the polar opposite: they do not create, because they can't. They have nothing to say. All their ideas are Nostalgia Critic-grade "what if batman met mario" stuff.