Pixar to Start a New 2D Animation Division

[Maerj]

On this topic, I absolutley dislike the 3D tinkerbell on the Disney DVD logo on the discs now.

Yeah, she's pretty atrocious.

That's why I was a bit surprised by the modeling and animation of that Donald. Maybe somebody there at Disney "got" it.

The story with Mickey's Philharmagic is that they let the computer guys do it, and they say it turned out atrocious. They had to bring the traditional animation guys in to do it, then the computer guys worked from that. That's how they 'got it.'

[2099net]

I think this is Disney's main reason for wanting to do CGI animation (especially if the reports of their attempted 'handrawn' looking CGI Dumbo and Bambi sequels are true). While the recent appeal of 3D films is one consideration, I'm convinced they're mainly thinking about cheaper spin-offs should a 3D picture become successful.

I was told that the 3D versions of Dumbo and Bambi sequels were scrapped. Mainly because they could not match up to the originals' aesthetics and charm.

Well yeah. That's why I said "attempted". It's not hard to give 3D models a 2D look and feel. Some computer games to it to mixed results (it's often called cel-shading), but remember the studios have computers many times more powerful. Even the wilderbeasts on The Lion King from the early nineties looks handdrawn.

I think the problem with Dumbo and Bambi is that they just couldn't match the look of the 2D originals (because don't forget 2D animators often "cheat" the animation if it will look better. Check out Mickey's ears).

I don't doubt a 100% new, hand-drawn looking CGI character would be more successful than trying to duplicate an existing one. But even then I don't think it could reproduce the true appeal of doing in 2D in the first place.

Did you guys see the 3D Mickey that was on the Oscars earlier this year? Yeesh. Absolutely terrible.

Yeah. And what was with the glasses? But to be fair we didn't know how long the team had to create on animate the Oscar apperence. I wouldn't write-off a 3D Mickey solely from that. But it did look terrible.

I do have to say that I saw a clip of that Mickey's Philharmonic (not sure the right spelling) in 3D the other day and I was rather impressed by the look and feel and animation of Donald. Very nicely done. Of course, this was only a clip--let's hope the rest of the thing looks, feels good.

Did you see the Lion King segment? Did it have a CGI Zuzu? My theory is that the "cyber" Zuzu and the backgrounds from the Lion King DVD menu were from the Philharmonic show. Therefore, putting together the animations for the menus would be considerably quicker and cheaper then creating a 2D animated Zuzu.

[Uncle Remus]

i really dont care if PIXAR does 2D or 3D animation but i hope that PIXAR can still do great movies with a good story in each. like what John Lasseter said on the Monsters Inc DVD "Story is the main thing in our movies."

[canon]

It's not hard to give 3D models a 2D look and feel. Some computer games to it to mixed results (it's often called cel-shading), but remember the studios have computers many times more powerful. Even the wilderbeasts on The Lion King from the early nineties looks handdrawn.

Also called "toon-shader." Remember, I'm in the business.

The problem with the wilderbeast stampede was that they moved like they were done in the computer. Same thing with the school of salmon in Brother Bear. The animators just left the motion to the computer and did not animate to the scene involved. From the 90's til 2003, no evolution on that end. That's sad. The best 3D animation is done with human involvement where they tweak the key poses here-and-there. The idea should be not to be able to tell. Instead those characters stood out like a CGI sore thumb.

I don't doubt a 100% new, hand-drawn looking CGI character would be more successful than trying to duplicate an existing one. But even then I don't think it could reproduce the true appeal of doing in 2D in the first place.

It's more a matter of--is it really needed? With a multi-million dollar corporation like Disney, money and time should never be an issue. They've GOT the time. They've GOT the money. They've GOT the talent (well, not as much as they used to, but you get the idea). With the amount of time and energy and money put into that PhilharMagic thingy, with it being in 3D really worth it? If it is about aesthetics, then take a look at the Looney Tunes Back in Action characters. They actually created a program to shade and highlight the characters without having to do it on paper (which is really mindnumbingly dull and tedious to do--all those layers).

Did you guys see the 3D Mickey that was on the Oscars earlier this year? Yeesh. Absolutely terrible.

Yeah. And what was with the glasses? But to be fair we didn't know how long the team had to create on animate the Oscar apperence. I wouldn't write-off a 3D Mickey solely from that. But it did look terrible.

Fair or not--like I said before--it shouldn't have been a problem, what with the type of talent that is running through those halls.