CGI vs. Hand drawn

blue_girl_stitch · Post by **blue_girl_stitch** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:51 pm

Ok, first I'm gonna say how much i love the CGI movies (toy story, bugs life, incredible) but i can't help but have some amount of distain for them. As much as i enjoy those movies they just don't touch me like the hand drawn ones do. I grow up watching the original handrawn disney movies in the 90's and nothing can take its place. Which is really ironic how it seems that CGI brings in alot more money now a days then the orignal stuf. *sigh*

Key · Post by **Key** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:18 pm

I prefer a solid story with good animation (be it CGI or traditional) above all, but in general I'm a lover of traditional animation. I just prefer the way characters are drawn in 2-D and personally find it to be something I can more easily appreciate. Certain gestures and subtle expressions, etc. just carry themselves better when drawn rather than done by computer, IMO. There's just something more human about it.

I grew up watching anime and reading manga so maybe this has something to do with it. 3-D is novel and fantastic when done right, but it also annoys me to no end that everything coming out of Western studios seem to be in 3-D now.

Post by **Luke** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:20 pm

Ultimately, it's the film and not the medium which works or doesn't work for me. "Traditional animation" can look beautiful and do great things; CGI can as well, and Pixar's visuals dazzle me nearly as much as their stories. I really can't say which medium is better, because I think it's a case-by-case decision on which better serves a film and what type of film makes better use of the medium. There's been bland traditional films and bland CGI films, but I wouldn't say either is entirely because of the medium.

RJKD23 · Post by **RJKD23** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:04 pm

I prefer hand-drawn. there's more imagination to it.

or if that didn't make sense, i grew up watching animated (hand drawn) movie.

orestes. · Post by **orestes.** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:03 am

I prefer traditional over cg animation but I think it should be whatever works the best with the story. Pixar's movies work great in cg and I can imagine them in traditional forms of animation but prefer them as is.

I could go on but I've tackled this topic too many times and I end up babbling.

IggieKuzco · Post by **IggieKuzco** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:07 am

like most of the people who have posted here... i say what matters is the story.
but visually, i'd have to say traditional 2d.... it's just more relaxing and easy for the easy on the eye and not trying so hard to look realistic. you focus more on the story and not on the effects. though the attention to detail and movent is much nicer in 2D as well.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:40 am

Speaking just in terms of which medium I prefer, I'd choose hand-drawn. Nothing beats having an artist pour his thoughts and emotions directly onto the page. Computer animation is still a wonderful art form too, though.

Disney Guru · Post by **Disney Guru** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:43 am

I have to go with Hand-Drawn Computer animation is nice, but Hand-Drawn is always more unique.

Teen Artist · Post by **Teen Artist** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:12 pm

I don't have anything against CGI really, I just really love hand-drawn animation and wish to be an animator one day. CGI is great when done well and not abused. My favorite animation is traditional hand-drawn with computerized elements.

The Little Merman · Post by **The Little Merman** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:14 pm

I LOOOVE Handdrawn, since I too am a TeenArtist!

, LoL, but anyways, I also love stopmotion flicks like TB's NBC and the upcoming Tim Burton's Corpse Bride...I luuurve me some Tim Burton flicks!

Teen Artist · Post by **Teen Artist** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:24 pm

Yeah, Merman, while I love computers, as an artist I think it's more fulfilling to produce something tangible. Thats why I like the traditional ways at least. Corpse Bride!

thatartguy · Post by **thatartguy** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:55 pm

Well, the whole "debate" is moot, because each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Which do you prefer?

1. Stop-Motion (Claymation)
2. CGI
3. Hand-Drawn
4. Flash
5. Water Color

When it all comes down to it, it's all two dimensional until a holographic projector is made.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:12 am

I'm sorry, but it's nothing to do with story. Does anyone here think Jimmy Neutron has a better story than Treasure Planet or Home on the Range? Does anyone here think Shark Tale had a better story than Brother Bear or Lilo and Stitch?

Even comparing non-Disney films, did Shark Tales' story really 5 or 6 times better than Sinbad's? Is Shrek really a good story, or just a collection of misplaced pop-culture references and an annoying Donkey?

You people have to just accept CGI is more popular than handdrawn animation. The public has spoken, with ticket sales. My theory is handdrawn animation is associated with TV shows and seen as "old hat" and "cheap" while CGI is associated with being cutting edge and as a result "expensive" and "worth seeing".

Disney-Fan · Post by **Disney-Fan** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:27 am

Soon the public will be exposed to cheap CGI, then they can truely choose what they like better.

Leonia · Post by **Leonia** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:08 pm

Hand-drawn over CGI.

No matter how "cutting edge" CGI is, it just seems to rub me the wrong way.

dvdjunkie · Post by **dvdjunkie** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:26 pm

Basically I prefer hand drawn if it is Disney, they seem to know what is going on...........or at least they used to.

Don Bluth has some fabulous animation with "Secret of N.I.M.H." and his Fievel series. I always look to see if Don is involved in the animation of other than Disney animated films.

CGI, all others are pretenders to the throne when it comes to try and match Pixar. Dreamworks is working on it, their Shrek series always looked good. I am looking forward to "Robots" and really looking forward to the fall when Pixar brings "Cars" to the big screen.

Overall, Disney hasn't shown me they know how to do CGI, since "Twice Upon a Christmas" failed miserably. I wouldn't buy that, I don't know how many other people felt the same about that film. It was horrible.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:30 pm

dvdjunkie wrote:Overall, Disney hasn't shown me they know how to do CGI, since "Twice Upon a Christmas" failed miserably. I wouldn't buy that, I don't know how many other people felt the same about that film. It was horrible.

Disney didn't do Twice Upon A Christmas - it was contracted out to two external animation houses:

As a result, this historic CG adventure was split in half between Blur in Venice, California, and Sparx in Paris, France, in order to make the release date.

http://vfxworld.com/?sa=adv&code=57c5ed ... 033&page=1

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:56 pm

One of the lost posts:

<hr>

IggieKuzco
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:04 am Post subject:

the public is already exposed to chep CGI....i saw some horrible TV show over here about eskimos.... unbelievebly bad animation... it's hard to concentrate on the show itself (which itself was horrible) because the whole time you're focusing on how unpleasent it is to watch the animation

<hr>

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

CGI vs. Hand drawn

Which Movies do you prefer?

CGI vs. Hand drawn

Hi