Post by account_disabled on Nov 26, 2023 4:38:37 GMT -4
It is one of the principles of animation, the technique of creating cartoons from static drawings. When I discovered this principle a few days ago, I immediately thought about its usefulness in fiction. Why is secondary action used in animation ? To make the story more realistic, the scene more complete, alive. The secondary action is therefore a support to the primary action , the one where the spectator's attention is concentrated - such as a character speaking, shooting, running, etc. Secondary actions are all those that occur in the character as a direct consequence of the primary ones. Let's give some examples. A soldier shoots while taking cover behind the corner of a building.
The main action is therefore the character Phone Number Data shooting a rifle, the secondary ones can be many: grimaces of pain, changes in expression, head movements, loading the weapon, body movements to avoid being hit, etc. It is easy to understand that inserting a character into a cartoon who shoots motionless like a plastic toy soldier is not very realistic and also not very "animated". A story is not made up of mannequins on display Every thing and person must have a life of its own. I happened, by pure misfortune, to see clips on television of some soap opera, where the characters are still, nailed to the floor of the scene. Zero acting and zero animation.
In fiction, do we pay attention to the secondary actions of our characters? Or are they all static, fixed, dimensionless? If these details were introduced into the animation, it is because particular care was given to the story: to be able to create more plausible, credible stories, even if they are Tom and Jerry, Cat Sylvester, Betty Boop (I am nostalgic for the old cartoons, yes). How believable would it have been Wile E. Coyote chasing Road Runner with his tail and ears perfectly still and how much Road Runner running away with his topknot and tail perfectly still? The character system Those who explain secondary action in animation talk about the body as a system that works in every part of it . This is why in fiction we must consider not so much a character, but a character-system, in which each of its components works.
The main action is therefore the character Phone Number Data shooting a rifle, the secondary ones can be many: grimaces of pain, changes in expression, head movements, loading the weapon, body movements to avoid being hit, etc. It is easy to understand that inserting a character into a cartoon who shoots motionless like a plastic toy soldier is not very realistic and also not very "animated". A story is not made up of mannequins on display Every thing and person must have a life of its own. I happened, by pure misfortune, to see clips on television of some soap opera, where the characters are still, nailed to the floor of the scene. Zero acting and zero animation.
In fiction, do we pay attention to the secondary actions of our characters? Or are they all static, fixed, dimensionless? If these details were introduced into the animation, it is because particular care was given to the story: to be able to create more plausible, credible stories, even if they are Tom and Jerry, Cat Sylvester, Betty Boop (I am nostalgic for the old cartoons, yes). How believable would it have been Wile E. Coyote chasing Road Runner with his tail and ears perfectly still and how much Road Runner running away with his topknot and tail perfectly still? The character system Those who explain secondary action in animation talk about the body as a system that works in every part of it . This is why in fiction we must consider not so much a character, but a character-system, in which each of its components works.