<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Forums - Bricks in Motion - Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
		<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/topic/19915/nonstandard-minifig-articulation/</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Non-standard minifig articulation.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:06:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>PunBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333906/#p333906</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I always figured that the easiest way to look at it is to imagine that a minifig is its own creature. Just like a dog can't walk like a person, a minifig probably can't either. Respecting the range of motion of its limbs and joints, your job as an animator is to convince the viewer that it's a living creature, but it doesn't have a neck, or knees, or elbows. I bet it makes using a screwdriver WAY easier though!

That being said, I'm sure that modding the minifig to create a more dynamic range of motion would present some fun challenges, it just doesn't seem like it would be anything short of frustrating.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Ladon)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:06:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333906/#p333906</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333510/#p333510</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've heard a saying about simplicity: it generates creativity.
The out of joint technique may be worth experimenting with, but the challenge with LEGO minifigures is to convey "realism" with shorthand.

At least that's what I believe.

Btw, I'm a 'semi-purist'. :P]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (CyberCom)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:53:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333510/#p333510</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333475/#p333475</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Then there are always the "constraction" series like Bionicle, with the ball-jointed points of articulation.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (HoldingOurOwn)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:01:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333475/#p333475</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333451/#p333451</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[quote=Pritchard Studios]
So I recommend concentrating on normal moves unless you just really, really want to try something else.
It can look fine, but if you want more movement on a regular basis, perhaps you should consider using Megabloks figures or some other sort of puppet.[/quote]
LEGO Technic figures have a pretty nice range of articulation. My brothers have one that is missing a leg, and maybe an arm too, and I have checked it out. I would like to get myself some in-tact Technic figures from Bricklink, and try out animation with them myself. The downside to them is that they are not so customizable, and there aren't many of them out as far as variety goes.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Top Hat)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 21:08:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333451/#p333451</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333445/#p333445</link>
			<description><![CDATA[To throw in my two cents...

I believe that such movements, if done to a high enough quality, may enhance a short and/or give it a unique and special feel. BUT, I believe that such things may easily be done poorly, as well as over-done.

Brotherhoodworkshop has done these kinds of things in the past, and done them well. He has also done them in such a way as to accomplish the movements, yet not draw attention to them. Hence, they blend in well and only serve to enhance the normal movements found throughout the shorts. Thus, there is great evidence that these things can be cool.

On the other hand, there are many, many brickfilms that stay within the normal Lego movements. They don't draw attention to the fact that they have such limits, and the animation quality and movement choices keep you from thinking of the limits. They do everything they need to do, and no viewer ever questions such things. People see Lego figures and just subconsciously accept the small number of joints. It's never really a factor, and folks just don't think about it.
Thus, it is not obvious that they are held back. 

In the end, I like out-of-socket and other such movements, but more often than not they look awkward and unnatural.
If you can pull them off, go for it. But if not, you are not losing anything, and you should concentrate on your own style.
I prefer doing normal movements myself, and dislike out-of-socket movements when they call attention to that fact, or do it just because they can. 

So I recommend concentrating on normal moves unless you just really, really want to try something else.
It can look fine, but if you want more movement on a regular basis, perhaps you should consider using Megabloks figures or some other sort of puppet.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Pritchard Studios)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333445/#p333445</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333437/#p333437</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[quote=rioforce]

I kind of cringe when I see people add "s" to the end of LEGO. :P
[/quote]
 I do to.  But I usually don't say it out loud.  There is not such thing as "legos".  "Lego" is the name of the company, and they refer to their pieces as "lego elements/bricks/Toys".
[quote]
I am very purist. I often reverse torsos so the decal is on the other side, but I rarely take the arms off to animate other poses. It looks out of place for me[/quote]
I too, am very purist in my approach, at least in my main series.  But I'm not against anyone who doesn't have a purist approach (unless they're using those accursed nnnnnnngggggghhh...MegaBloks.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (HoldingOurOwn)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:22:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333437/#p333437</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333433/#p333433</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here's my thoughts, since I'm already doing this, albeit in CGI. One of the things I like about non-standard mini-figure articulation is that poses read much better with greater articulation. Pause any regular cartoon character on a frame, and you could get a good idea of what is going on in the shot just by looking at that single frame (even in silhouette). It's a lot harder to do that (not impossible) with the regular limitations of a mini-figure. So as an animator, I really like the extended freedom.

The downside to this is that it's a lot harder to get movements looking smooth and realistic with so much greater range of motion. That takes much more time, also. I've got a fourteen second shot I've been working on for a while now. I recently scrapped the whole thing and completely redid it and more in two days. Realistically, if I were a better animator and I took more time on it, and I had a much better workflow, I could get a decent looking shot in a couple hours. So if you're a pro animator and know exactly what you're doing, it might not take as long as two days to do a fourteen second shot, but a lot more thinking has to go into it. I imagine doing it in stop-motion would add take more time.

So, there's what I know about the subject. I personally like the freedom, but I have to plan the shot out much more than I did animating figures with limited articulation.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[graemecallen@yahoo.com (Littlebrick)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:59:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333433/#p333433</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333423/#p333423</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The original image has been removed by the owner/host.  Can be found here:

[url]https://www.flickr.com/photos/shobrick/15294802871/[/url]

The different viewpoints are interesting.  It seems for some, brick filming is all about the lego.  They probably resent the fact its not called "Lego filming".  :P   For others, the lego is simply a tool that can and should be used as required, even if it means dissassembling the "tool".  Others appreciate the constraints of lego and embrace the challenge of using it in films.

I'm in this for the art.  If chopping a head off and giving it free movement improves the viewer experience then I'm all for it.  That said - the trooper on the left looks very odd but I encourage exploration in this space.  :)]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (togfox)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 04:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333423/#p333423</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333414/#p333414</link>
			<description><![CDATA[FlyingMinifig: (Not quoting, because I'm referring to your whole post, which is pretty long)

Very well said! I think the storm troopers are okay if they're supposed to be... odd little storm troopers, but by disconnecting all of their parts and posing them like this, they become no longer minifigures. Minifigures have a skeleton all their own, and it is the challenge of the animator to make them BEHAVE as humanly as possible. Using rioforce's example of a minifigure pointing West, the minifigure doesn't really have to turn his entire body 90 degrees, but can gesture toward the West by turning his body only about 45 degrees, and extending his arm. By making it more of a sweeping gesture, and positioning the camera carefully, the animator can make these simple movements appear astonishingly human. It's all in the creativity and skill of the animator. But the worst thing you can do is stop using them as minifigures, and turn them into... something else. :o]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Top Hat)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 00:11:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333414/#p333414</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333405/#p333405</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[quote=FlyingMinifig]To me, the image that SlothPaladin posted as an example looks very awkward and off to me, because the troopers are bending and twisting in ways that are physically impossible in normal LEGO construction.  As such it feels very artificial and makes the minifigs look as if they're being mangled.[/quote]

I don't think it's really too awkward, although it does look like they are exploding instead of just jumping over a log. I think it's just very impractical for animation. I don't think it's about the speed of animation either. If you're getting paid for animation, and are doing a feature length film, you need to take all the time you need to make the shot perfect. Aardman's puppets are very practical, although they take a very long time to animate. However with LEGO, they are already puppets in themselves, and it is just not too practical to animate non-standard movements.

However, if someone pulls it off effectively, I'm willing to change my mind. ;)]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (rioforce)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:39:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333405/#p333405</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333403/#p333403</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think it may be a case of putting the cart before the horse here.  A lot of people seem to think that the limited movement of minifigs is a disadvantage, but what if it is, in fact, an advantage?  I recollect reading something in which 0ldScratch/Chris Salt (I believe) mentioned that he was able to animate two minutes of footage in a day, whilst professional stop-motion animation companies such as Aardman, which utilize puppets with many more points of articulation, could only animate five [i]seconds[/i] of footage in the same period of time.  Finding ways to creatively express movement within these limits is far more interesting and impressive to me instead of starting to pop arms out of sockets and suchlike.  (Incidentally, this is the same thing that I like about LEGO itself, namely finding ways to build new things out of the same bricks.)  Not to mention, you're not risking damage to the bricks.

Plus, using excessive non-standard movement in a brickfilm can begin to look awkward and unnatural, in the same way bad post-production camera movement/artificial shaky-cam or poorly integrated digital effects can look in brickfilms.  To be honest I don't see why it should be absolutely necessary to use non-standard movement.  After all, people tend to move in similar ways in real life.  For instance, most people walk in the same way--there are subtle distinctions in speed, the size of steps, pace, etc., but the basic motion is the same (unless, say, the person has an injured leg, a limp, etc).  Thus I don't think it would be inherently bad for minifigures to have a fairly standardized set of movements (which, of course, are adjusted depending on the character--it would be boring if everyone moved [i]exactly [/i]the same way).  To me, the image that SlothPaladin posted as an example looks very awkward and off to me, because the troopers are bending and twisting in ways that are physically impossible in normal LEGO construction.  As such it feels very artificial and makes the minifigs look as if they're being mangled.  Similarly, if an animator constantly broke the "rules" of minifig articulation it would be jarring to me, just like if everyone in a serious live-action film suddenly started walking like [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Jyu6eioZ4]this[/url] with no explanation.

Now, I'm all for experimentation and finding new animation methods, so I'm definitely not saying this shouldn't be attempted.  However, I hardly think that using non-standard articulation is necessary for making a good brickfilm, and in some instances might be more trouble than it's worth and could come across as trying to be different for the sake of different, rather than being genuinely innovative.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Mr Vertigo)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 21:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333403/#p333403</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333402/#p333402</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[quote=Top Hat]I personally think that a lot of the special movements people use seem non-purist. I don't know how many brickfilmers try to maintain LEGO purity in their animations, but I'm trying. Now, if I reeeeally needed a minifigure to look down at him/her self, as SlothPaladin was saying, I would probably do it with an image editor, or try to fake it via a couple of close up shots (one of the head moving, and one from the minifig's perspective?). But I cringe when I see someone cut LEGOs.

Maybe I just have weird opinions. :P[/quote]

I kind of cringe when I see people add "s" to the end of LEGO. :P

I am very purist. I often reverse torsos so the decal is on the other side, but I rarely take the arms off to animate other poses. It looks out of place for me. Like the others were saying, you'd have to cut off the knob on the end of the arm to make it look right. And for the legs, it's almost impossible to do anything special with them, because the pegs that hold the legs on get in the way. Either modify the LEGO bricks, or it looks bad. I don't think that exclusively using the built-in minifigure joints is a bad thing. However, it can look like the same-old-same-old if your film is boring. If you have action, interesting dialogue, good animation, and a good story, the viewer forgets he is watching minifigures, and doesn't care if the arm goes out to point to the west, or if the entire minifigure rotates to point to the west (as an example). When you are watching a brickfilm that uses unconventional joint movements excessively, it looks kind of strange and gross in a way, and is uncomfortable to watch. For me, I like to make minifigures be what they are: minifigures. Not to make minifigures be humans!]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (rioforce)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333402/#p333402</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333400/#p333400</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I personally think that a lot of the special movements people use seem non-purist. I don't know how many brickfilmers try to maintain LEGO purity in their animations, but I'm trying. Now, if I reeeeally needed a minifigure to look down at him/her self, as SlothPaladin was saying, I would probably do it with an image editor, or try to fake it via a couple of close up shots (one of the head moving, and one from the minifig's perspective?). But I cringe when I see someone cut LEGOs.

Maybe I just have weird opinions. :P]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Top Hat)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:36:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333400/#p333400</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333397/#p333397</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[quote=Squid]1: Taking the arm from the socket risks permanent damage to the figure.  If the torso is old, the figure may be irreplaceable.[/quote]

Nearly every minifigure torso ever created is available for $5 or less on Bricklink.com. Sure, it may not be super cheap, but it isn't "irreplacable."

I think getting cool poses and animation by removing arms is a lot harder to pull off in animation than in a still picture. The biggest challenge to overcome is keeping the arm "attached" when it is removed from the socket. This usually involves a copious amount of sticky-tack, which usually is hard to hide. When MindGame animated the gummi bear segment in the Bricks In Motion Kickstarter video, he had to use a lot of sticky-tack, and Smeagol had to spend some time digitally cleaning up the tack.

Also, I'm not convinced I personally want to animate more exaggerated poses. I do want to experiment more with exaggerated animation (as inspired by The LEGO Movie and seen during the Half-Life sequence in Alex and Derrick: Five Years Later), but I'm not sure exaggerated and stretched poses fit the style of my films. I'm interested in seeing what other people come up with, though!]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Nathan Wells)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:57:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333397/#p333397</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Non-standard minifig articulation]]></title>
			<link>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333393/#p333393</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here's a novel approach to animating that I wrote about in my brickfilming guide:

BRICK-BUILT CHARACTERS.
  Now, David Pagano of paganomation.com created a template for a large articulated figure.  You may like that, but how about going in the opposite direction?  Build your characters solely from bricks, plates, and slopes, avoiding all the specialty pieces that have arisen since the advent of the minifigure.  You can model them from Miniland 
scale figures, or just build something abstract, as those like myself and other children of the 1970s, who had a 
limited range of brick types.  ... it is more work than animating a minifigure, but lends itself to making animations that are more artistic and abstract, and you might have an award-winning conceptual piece when you're through.]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (HoldingOurOwn)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:24:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bricksinmotion.com/forums/post/333393/#p333393</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
