Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[Wonderlicious]

I think everyone does.

I don't.

To be honest, I think what really is a shame is that studio seems to aggressively favour one style of animation over all others, which nowadays is CG animation. Each medium of animation has its own unique traits and beauties when done right, with certain types of stories and settings better suited to one medium than another.

[Marky_198]

I don't see any difference in characters that are supposed to be toys or human.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eYo3vxPhuQ

[Kyle]

Marky, you don't understand. You're in a small minority. I think most would argue that CG has come a LONG way in terms of visual appeal. Sure, there are instances where some designs don't translate as well into CG, as we've already discussed, but overall visually things do not still look plasticky.

I would meet you two half way personally. They look like toys, but a kind of high end toy made of silicone or some skin like rubber. Not quite toy, not quite skin.

I don't see any difference in characters that are supposed to be toys or human.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eYo3vxPhuQ

Okay, a couple things. One: that video is so poor quality of course you cant see a difference. Two: this was done in 1999. Of course something over a decade old is going to suffer from that a little bit. There are differences between Emily and Jessie, namely in the texture detail, one is a solid color, the other has all these imperfections you get with skin that isnt apartment in that piss poor quality youtube video.

Back to my point about having advanced more than a decade since Toy Story 2 though, we now have light scattering techniques that separate your average toy from a human character. The way skin reflects light is very different from the plastics we see in the Toy Story franchise. Every movie since probably the incredibles has made that distinction. I would also point to not just the surface materials, but more recently the animation as seen in Tangled. Its far more organic than any CG human form pixar/diney to date. Plastic Toys are generally more rigid in how they move (unless their made of cloth).

[Marky_198]

They look like toys, but a kind of high end toy made of silicone or some skin like rubber. Not quite toy, not quite skin.

Thank you Kyle, the way you describe it is what I mean too.

Unless it is real skin (live action) it will never look like skin, but the problem with CGI is, that the material looks real.
The characters look like they are made of some material that is not human. So it does look like real silicone/skin like rubber. And that bothers me.

Edit: I would also like to add that animation should not look like "real life material" in the first place, but because CGI looks so real in the wrong way (like it's tangible) it will always tend to look like puppets/dolls.

[Super Aurora]

I think everyone does.

I like how you speak for everyone here as if you think you know we all agree with you.

[SWillie!]

Haha you're really going to use Toy Story 2 in your defense?? That's exactly what I talk about when I say we have come a long way SINCE that, just as Kyle discussed. If you can show me a scene from Tangled or Wreck it Ralph or Brave where things look like plastic, then by all means, I'd be happy to take a look. But I think you'll find it difficult to find a scene that suits your description, because modern CG animation is getting to be amazingly organic. Are there still things that could be better? Of course - but CG isn't TRYING to look like traditional film, and so of course it has a completely different look to it. If you don't LIKE that look, that's one thing. But there isn't anything inherently WRONG with it, as you seem to believe. If there was, it wouldn't be so massively successful.

[Disney's Divinity]

Well yes, I know you do Marky. But someone who doesn't have such a blind hatred of CG animation? Even those of you who still prefer 2d - would anyone else genuinely argue that modern CG animation still looks "plastic" like it did in Pixar's early days?

I thought Flynn and occasionally Mother Gothel looked somewhat like plastic/rubber/whatever. I thought Rapunzel looked okay for the most part. The eyes and lips are the ones that usually look the most "un-real." I think Disney is still pretty far behind Pixar (the humans in TS3 looked pretty good to me). That's why I prefer CG films with non-humans, for the most part.

[Marky_198]

If you can show me a scene from Tangled where things look like plastic, then by all means, I'd be happy to take a look.

No problem, there are tons of examples:

https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=ra ... B500%3B625

https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=ra ... 1280%3B720


I would say organic looks more like this:

https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=ra ... B220%3B288

Organic in the right way. Not tangible like clay, rubber, or dolls, but in a way that keeps the illusion of animation in tact. Which makes it look like a real character instead of a real doll.

But there isn't anything inherently WRONG with it, as you seem to believe. If there was, it wouldn't be so massively successful.

I'm not saying that it's not successful, but the characters still look like plastic/rubber/whatever material. You can love it or hate it, and obviously many people love it, but I don't. I have never liked movies or tv series with moving dolls (even as a kid) and this looks just way too much like that.

[qindarka]

I think everyone does.

You have your own opinions and that's cool. Don't pretend that your views reflect the majority, though. If you have enough conviction in your opinions, you shouldn't care what the majority thinks, anyway.

[Marky_198]

You have your own opinions and that's cool. Don't pretend that your views reflect the majority, though. If you have enough conviction in your opinions, you shouldn't care what the majority thinks, anyway.

So let's put it this way. There are people (including myself) who think the characters look like some kind of material, clay, plastic, rubber, silicone.

Then there are people who do not see this/do not want to see this, because they think it is real skin, like a real human being?

The whole point of animation is that it does NOT look like live action/tangible. See my post above, about the "organic" example. If they try to make something as skin to look as realistic as possible, then what's the point of animating? If you want a character to feel "real", the designs of the characters should be more realistic, NOT the materials. If you keep the exaggerated designs, combined with the "tangible look", it will always look like dolls.

So the focus needs to turn around.

This (more realistic design, less realistic materials)

https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=ra ... B220%3B288

Instead of this (not realistic design, but, realistic/tangible materials)

https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=ra ... B500%3B625

[Lnds500]

What a pointless discussion. Talk about beating a dead horse.

So let's put it this way. There are people (including myself) who think the characters look like some kind of material, clay, plastic, rubber, silicone.

Then there are people who do not see this/do not want to see this, because they think it is real skin, like a real human being?

I actually think it's the opposite. You don't want to admit that the issue you have actually has nothing to do with how it looks, it has to do with the fact that it's CGI.

The whole point of animation is that it does NOT look like live action/tangible. See my post above, about the "organic" example. If they try to make something as skin to look as realistic as possible, then what's the point of animating? If you want a character to feel "real", the designs of the characters should be more realistic, NOT the materials. If you keep the exaggerated designs, combined with the "tangible look", it will always look like dolls

So the focus needs to turn around.

Animation is about animating lifeless things and bringing them to life - whether that's a doll, a computer model, sand, or drawings on paper. It's not "one thing and that's it" and it's high time you accepted that. Being realistic or stylized has nothing to do with what animation is. You can do whatever the hell you like in animation and that's the beauty of it. And stop dictating what animation should be or needs to do.

As to what the point of animating is... I hope that's a joke.

This (more realistic design, less realistic materials)

https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=ra ... B220%3B288

Instead of this (not realistic design, but, realistic/tangible materials)

https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=ra ... B500%3B625

I fail to see how an oil painting is realistic.

[Marky_198]

I fail to see how an oil painting is realistic.

What do you mean by "realistic"? Because the girl on there looks much more like a real character to me than the final rapunzel.
I see "realistic" as "believable", you see it as "tangible"?

Because that's the point.

The filmmakers can be proud of the fact that skin is looking more realistic over the years, and all the wonderful techniques they have to make it look even more like "real human skin", but looking for "real life materials" is not the point of animation.

It's much more about the character designs than it is about the materials.
And you are right, animation can be done in all kinds of ways, and I believe "making the materials look as realistic as possible" and therefore being afraid that it looks too real so "exaggerate the hell out of the designs" is an annoying way to go, because if it does look like real skin, it is not going to make the animation more believable or anything. I would suggest the opposite way, like the oil painting.

[SWillie!]

I actually think it's the opposite. You don't want to admit that the issue you have actually has nothing to do with how it looks, it has to do with the fact that it's CGI.

Bingo!

Marky, neither of the examples you've give look like "plastic" - they look like CG animation. And while we're at it, they look like pretty damn appealing CG animation. Please keep in mind that Tangled as been hailed to have the "best CG human animation to date" by numerous fans and industry artists. Not saying that there isn't room for improvement, or that just because others say that then everyone has to think it. You keep saying it looks like a "doll". At the end of the day, CG animation IS just that - it's a "doll" inside a computer. And like I've said - if you don't like that look, that's fine - but there isn't anything WRONG with it. There isn't a "need" to shift the focus.

[Elladorine]

Regardless of whether the characters exist as drawings, puppets, figures, or CG models, I don't think anyone would confuse any of them for real people with real skin. They're all caricatures to a certain extent, even as certain details get more realistic over time. Disney is not going for absolute realism through their animated films.

People of all ages, including adults, have enjoyed puppet and marionette shows for centuries. Stop-motion is an art form in and of itself. Children have always played with dolls, especially baby dolls. Many adults collect resin figures of their favorite characters, and many adults collect porcelain dolls and even Barbies. Ventriloquism shows remain popular, and no one ever confuses the dummies for real people. It's about being able to project one's self onto the characters in question, being able to relate to and enjoy them. Plastic, vinyl, porcelain, clay, resin, cloth . . . does it really matter? We all have to suspend our belief to some level. And if a character like Rapunzel actually does look more like a doll to some than a hand-drawn character, I don't really see the issue. She basically is a doll within the realm of the computer anyway, and we breath as much life into any doll as we would in a drawing. It's about much more than the physical appearance; it's about the motion, the poses, the acting, the weight, the believability and emotion. In the hands of a gifted animator, even a flour sack can be given life and find a sympathetic audience.

The whole point of animation is bringing something to life. It doesn't have to be intangible for the sake of some personal ideal for the illusion to work. I'll agree that becoming too realistic can be perceived as pointless; why animate when you can just shoot live-action, for example. But I would hardly call a character like Rapunzel "realistic" in that sense just because she's tangible (and I'd hardly call her a bug either ). Many people do like the effects and stylized worlds that can be achieved through CG, something I've always felt to be more closely related to stop-motion than hand drawn. And while I'd personally prefer to see more hand-drawn in the works, I do enjoy and appreciate what the artists can do with computers and often get lost in the beautiful worlds they create. I do realize that everyone has different preferences and opinions; what I fail to understand is why anyone continually pushes very narrow, personal opinions over their extreme dislike for CG onto everyone else as a "fact" that it's supposedly a poor medium.

[Marky_198]

they look like CG animation.

CG animation's possibilities are unlimited. I have nothing against it in general, just against the way they are going right now, which is going for materials that look tangible or like real skin and the character designs.
So they look just like what you think is CG animation, because you are not aware of all the possibilities yet.

You keep saying it looks like a "doll". At the end of the day, CG animation IS just that - it's a "doll" inside a computer. And like I've said - if you don't like that look, that's fine - but there isn't anything WRONG with it. There isn't a "need" to shift the focus.

Thank you. CG animation IS just that right now, so I think we all can agree that it looks like that, like I said before.
And you are right, some people might like it, some people might not.
My problem is, with the direction that they were going (up until Tangled), what are they aiming for? As realistic as possible looking skin? And to compromise the realistic look, exaggerate their features? So what is the goal? Characters that look exactly like live action humans, but with extremely big heads? Or what?

[Super Aurora]

. I have nothing against it in general.

I don't believe you.

[Marky_198]

Regardless of whether the characters exist as drawings, puppets, figures, or CG models, I don't think anyone would confuse any of them for real people with real skin. They're all caricatures to a certain extent, even as certain details get more realistic over time. Disney is not going for absolute realism through their animated films.

People of all ages, including adults, have enjoyed puppet and marionette shows for centuries. Stop-motion is an art form in and of itself. Children have always played with dolls, especially baby dolls. Many adults collect resin figures of their favorite characters, and many adults collect porcelain dolls and even Barbies. Ventriloquism shows remain popular, and no one ever confuses the dummies for real people. It's about being able to project one's self onto the characters in question, being able to relate to and enjoy them. Plastic, vinyl, porcelain, clay, resin, cloth . . . does it really matter? We all have to suspend our belief to some level. And if a character like Rapunzel actually does look more like a doll to some than a hand-drawn character, I don't really see the issue. She basically is a doll within the realm of the computer anyway, and we breath as much life into any doll as we would in a drawing. It's about much more than the physical appearance; it's about the motion, the poses, the acting, the weight, the believability and emotion. In the hands of a gifted animator, even a flour sack can be given life and find a sympathetic audience.

The whole point of animation is bringing something to life. It doesn't have to be intangible for the sake of some personal ideal for the illusion to work. I'll agree that becoming too realistic can be perceived as pointless; why animate when you can just shoot live-action, for example. But I would hardly call a character like Rapunzel "realistic" in that sense just because she's tangible (and I'd hardly call her a bug either ). Many people do like the effects and stylized worlds that can be achieved through CG, something I've always felt to be more closely related to stop-motion than hand drawn. And while I'd personally prefer to see more hand-drawn in the works, I do enjoy and appreciate what the artists can do with computers and often get lost in the beautiful worlds they create. I do realize that everyone has different preferences and opinions; what I fail to understand is why anyone continually pushes very narrow, personal opinions over their extreme dislike for CG onto everyone else as a "fact" that it's supposedly a poor medium.

Thanks! You have some good points.

I agree that it is closer to stop-motion than hand drawn. But it doesn't have to be.
I just think what we see in the films now is not even a fraction of what the possibilities of CG are in the years to come. Now it is either this look or the typical 2d look. I truly feel that the Rapunzel pic I posted is the future, because though it doesn't look as tangible, it conveys much more feel, emotion and beauty.

[Marky_198]

In the future films can look like this:





Instead of this:

[Marky_198]

Even this clip from 2010 looks better than the final film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRO6EHhPr5g

[Disney's Divinity]

Yes, some 3D does look better than others.

But I'll readily admit I don't much care for the medium at all. I do like some of the characters/stories that have been in some 3D films though.