Jump to content

Talk:History of animation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steamboat Willie First

[edit]

The article states steamboat willie to be the first to link sound and Animation. Wasn't it Max Fleischer not Disney to do this? I would do it but don't have a source to link and unsure how to mention Fleicher in a section about Disney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.132.48 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per :https://www.fleischerstudios.com/origins.html This change was already made to the article Emile Blondet (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas to improve this article

[edit]

I just visited the main Animation page and it's mini-history of animation is actually more detailed, logical, and well-written than the paragraphs in this article over the same material. I'm one of the Wikipedia newbies you're not supposed to bite: is there any reason why the pertinent section on "Animation" can't be moved to this page? I'm not sure what the netiqette is on that.

Also, I think dividing up the history of animation into "present" and "future" is very problematic, especially if "present" starts with 1892. Instead, I suggest that this article would be more logical if written into histories on particular types of animation (cell animation, stop-motion, CGI, etc.) as already has been begun? I think that will help readers who are looking for information on the history of a particular kind of animation, and also illustrate how many different techniques were being explored simultaneously.--Orkadelthia (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--- I think we should devide the article in 2 sections rather called "pre-history" (let's say from the murals 30.000 BC to Emile Reynaud's first show in 1892) and then second section would be "History" (from 1892 to today). And then if somebody wants to speculate on what the future will bring, may be a 3rd section called "present" or "future" could be. But it's like reading in a crystal ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis Chapon (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worst.Article.Ever

[edit]

Seriously, wasn't this page better a few years ago? It's a total meaningless mess of the worst kind. My English isn't good enough in my opinion to help, but something must be done, somebody call the police !

If this page was better a few years ago, then is there a way to revert parts of the page to the higher-quality sections from the better version? --Orkadelthia (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fady saeed"?

[edit]

Excuse me please: Can anyone explain me who Fady saeed was ? I cannot find him in anywhere ...

Neither can I. This page is in desperate need of some serious work. I'll see what I can do. Any volunteers for help? I'm surprised, I'd imagine this was a popular subject. Andacar 03:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened to the References?

[edit]

There are links all over the article poiting to a reference list, but the reference list is empty, and seems to have been for some time. What happened there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.145.220 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed?

[edit]

It's all broken up into various countries - maybe most people feel that the main topic is too broad to properly handle. You'd really need an expert to write a long article without putting unjust bias in any one direction while keeping it all structured. The problem is that, at any one time, there were very many different, even contradictory movements happening in many different places around the world. The History of music has a similar problem, and it is also broken up into various articles by region.

I think a more logical place to start would be to fill out the smaller pieces - the "History of country animation" articles - and then perhaps combine them once those are in place. Some of these are quite developed (eg. History of Russian animation), while others are a mess (History of French animation) or nonexistant. Esn 06:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated film directors

[edit]

Not directly related to the topic at hand, but I've just created Category:Animated film directors. I thought people with this page on their watchlists might be interested in adding some directors to the new cat. Insouciance 13:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animation television show in Canada

[edit]

Does anyone recall a weekly festival of international animation that was produced by the NFB (National Film Board of Canada)? It was broadcast on PBS in the 1970s, at least in the Boston market, on WGBH of Boston. Dogru144 20:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large video image

[edit]

Can somebody get the video clip image on the bottom of the page to a decent thumb size? Now, it's way too big... --Janke | Talk 10:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]

This article is very poorly written and unorganized and needs to have an entire rewrite done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyser Söze (talk • contribs) 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Pottery

[edit]

"An Egyptian mural, approximately 4000 years old, shows wrestlers in action. Even though this may appear similar to a series of animation drawings, there was no way of viewing the images in motion."

  • Actually, there is, and it's fairly simple. You put the pot on a pottery wheel, and spin it, adjusting the speed until it appears animated. 173.8.205.234 (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, it won't work unless you have a mechanical shutter, slits, or a flickering light. None of these have been indicated in the ancient cases. --Janke | Talk 09:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that these ancient examples of story telling are valid to have in the article as examples of man's attempts through history to tell illustrated stories. Having a "frame by frame" illustration certainly seems to be an appropriate reference in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.23.79 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient "animation", Persian pottery etc.

[edit]

Calling murals, pottery etc. "animation" is a modern fallacy. Animation (as understood today) is an image in motion. A cave painting, a mural or a bowl may certainly show the artist's intention to depict motion, but it is not animation, since it could never have been seen in motion. Spinning the bowl without a mechanical shutter will only show a blur. Insisting that it is animation gives a patently false impression. Please furnish proof other than a modern "faked" GIF if you intend to call the 5200 year old bowl "animation". --Janke | Talk 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Though I didn't write that section of the article, I think it fits in the timeline of animation. Animation is simply a word used to describe an attempt to make a viewer feel as though a still image is in fact moving. If the ancient egyptians, cave men, futurist and impressionist painters, etc. had that intent when they set out to create their images, then the work deserves to be in the timeline. One of the most significant figures in animation didn't originally intent for his work to be viewed with any mechanism. Edward Muybridge displayed his strobe photography on the wall in a series of still images. However, his work certainly fits perfectly in the timeline of animation, as does the ancient work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.23.79 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- I found the murals and pottery sections choppy and simplistic when I first came to this page, and in light of this discussion here, consolidated the sections as precursors to what may be considered animation in the modern sense. I agree that the intent of the artists is important and that these pieces of art deserve to be considered, but I thought giving each one their own section made it difficult for readers to see what the murals and pottery have in common in terms of animation history.Orkadelthia (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Gurdy?

[edit]

How is this article even meaningful if it doesn't mention Gurdy the Dinosaur? It's hard enough to find information on it as it is. This is a terrible article that meanders everywhere and needs to be more concise. 71.9.89.15 (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video?

[edit]

film and video are very different, if you could use the appropriate terminology or give me your graces to edit this material i would be thankful. Film is sequential photography and Video is digital imaging, academically they are not interchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.97.2 (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The flip book is older

[edit]

This article suggests the flip book is an invention of the late 19th century. It is much older than that, being widely mentioned in the early part of that century, and perhaps inspired by the blow book which dates to the 1400s. See this as a single example of many. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess!

[edit]

This article is a disorganized train wreck and an example of everything wrong with Wikipedia. (Notice the comment from 2007 pointing out it needs a rewrite.) Unfortunately, like most editors, I have much bigger fish to fry than to spend the 12 hours it would take to clean up THIS mess. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Firsts" list

[edit]

IMO, the list should be drastically shortened or moved to its own entry. --Janke | Talk 07:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Firsts" list is garbage and can't really be fixed. It's original research based on random editor's opinions of what is a significant milestone to include. A link to some external list like "Time Magazine's Top 100 Greatest Moments In Animation" or something would be better. 80.169.132.92 (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Birds - 1 Billion earnings? BOMojo says only 350 Million worldwide ...

[edit]

I have reverted an IP several times, who insists posting the same, uncited "first". I have asked for a ref, but none has appeared. Can someone with admin powers do something, please. --Janke | Talk 05:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of animation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listen up, troglodytes

[edit]

This is the only lead I've seen on Wikipedia to date that would benefit from beginning with the phrase "listen up, troglodytes".

Listen up, troglodytes: The history of animation started long before the development of cinematography. Humans have probably attempted to depict motion as far back as the paleolithic period. Shadow play and the magic lantern offered popular shows with projected images on a screen moving as the result of manipulation by hand and/or some minor mechanics. ...

— MaxEnt 18:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your country's History of Animation

[edit]

A long part of the current article contains mostly lists of titles per country. This part could get even more ridiculously long when we'd fairly start putting in lists for every country in the world.

Probably very few people look at this section anyhow: it manages to hold on to ridiculous claims (something like "my country's cg animated feature from 1996 is considered for some as the first CG movie in the world" is actually in there).

Without context (not even mentioning authors) the lists of titles just don't convey any relevance to animation history. Many of the included titles just don't seem to cut it as milestone animations that might belong in this artcile (who from the UK likes to have Thomas & Friends: Journey Beyond Sodor represent their country as their very recent contribution to the art of animation?).

Please consider whether included information really adds anything to the article. For instance, is the fact that an animator born in a specific country (but having a career in another) having been a guest animator on a popular title (e.g. Raoul Barré on Felix the Cat) really relevant? Should we mention every contributor for a successful title who is born in a different country?

Parts of the section form a repetition of information stated before in the article (at least for much in the United States section and for instance the complete Argentine section)

Some region-specific aspects of animations really had or still have a strong influence worldwide (like Japanese anime), but lack description in the article

I intend to delete most of these sections at some stage and replace it with "see also" lines for sections that at least already contain a link to a main article. If there's any information in there that you think is worthwhile, please incorporate it into the overall story or move it to a relevant article (create one if necessary).

Please let me know if you think there are better solutions or if you can explain why these sections should stay. Joortje1 (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Superstars — the animators?

[edit]

In this section, it says, "Animators were not yet properly credited for their work". Yep, even in this article, the producers are credited but not the animators. Surely Wikipedia can do better? --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure

[edit]

Hello, academic who teaches animation at university level here. I've noticed that this article and relating articles could do with a bit of a restructure, primarily around scope and the various disciplines. At the minute we have:

There are some problems with this, mostly associated with overlapping disciplines. Some early animation such as the Zoetrope used 3D sculptures and does not appear 2D but is covered here, and much post 1990s 2D animation is animated using computers of course.

I would propose:

--ERAGON (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No interest either here or on the wikiproject, so I've gone ahead and made a start on the proposed changes. The first split to Early history of animation is complete. --ERAGON (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a template about the proposed split, as this article is currently 16k words even with the Early History article spun off. It's well beyond the length guidelines. As above, 1949 is the advent of TV animation. --ERAGON (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that overlapping and length are problematic. However, I'm not sure that splitting it into two periods is the best solution. Maybe this page could better be turned (back) into a more general "discipline neutral" overview, referring to more detailed pages for various types or periods (although the history segment of the Animation page already outlines this history in broad strokes).
Also: "2D animation" is probably not the best moniker, because of the quite often used suggestion of depth with techniques like the multiplane camera, Stereoptical process and the occasional stereoscopic/anaglyphic animation. "Traditional animation" seems a more accepted term that differentiates the "2D" style from 3D-style (wireframe) CGI animation. I think a separate history page for animated tv-series/TV animation might help restructuring these pages. Joortje1 (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exported Firsts in animation to its own page, which reduced the page size with about 800 words. Probably a lot of the main article can best be slimmed down by creating shorter summaries of Animation in the United States during the silent era, Golden age of American animation, and Animation in the United States in the television era. That should also help to reduce the US-heavy and Disney-oriented focus of this page (although it's probably sufficiently clear from the text that the field actually has been dominated by US/Disney and how that happened). Joortje1 (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today and yesterday I performed some editing on the page, which reduced the size somewhat. The impact was reduced by reintegration of some of the info about stop motion pioneering, which seemed very influential for the interest in all types of animation techniques during the early days of film.
For now, I've kept the separate segments on Stop Motion and Cutout animation, but removed much of the "comparison to traditional animation" concept. Maybe I'll be able to integrate these sections, although it maybe worthwhile to keep some of it separate. Probably the "about" heading of the page should be adapted accordingly, but the full story of animation was actually dominated by traditional animation until the breakthrough of computer animation, enough to regard this as a page on the history of traditional animation.
I think it could be worthwhile to spin off much of the 2000s-2010s section into a separate article, under some title like "History of 2D animation after the rise of computer animation]]. That could further reduce the size and prevent continuous growth of this article. History of computer animation and History of anime cover most of the more recent developments. Some general information on the growing popularity/market of animation in general could be considered instead.
Also; the "Other developments per region" might best be fully replaced by a "See also" section, with only a few titles or makers sufficiently influential on a global scale to warrant integration in the main, general story. Presumably much more can be done to shorten this page (History of animation) through abstracts with reference to, for instance, the pages about the history of American animation. Splitting the main article might still be a viable option, but I haven't looked into the length guidelines well enough to make that decision. Joortje1 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment (I'm neither for or against): If the article is split, instead of History of 2D animation (1888-1949) it should be History of 2D animation (1888–1949) (with an en dash instead of a hyphen, per MOS:RANGE, with the hyphenated title as a redirect per WP:TSC). —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is gigantic so yeah some split is in order.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Ohio University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bold 45.119.135.216 (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_animation&oldid=1249617962"