Disney's Divinity wrote:pap64 wrote:
Regarding CG animation, I personally am not bothered by it. Do I want to see more hand drawn, stop-motion and other methods of animation being used? Absolutely. But I am not one of those fans that are quick to diss a movie because it's in CG. After all, CG, like hand drawn animation is a means to tell a story.
I'm not sure if this is directed towards me or Marky, but I wasn't complaining that this movie was 3D (though I am and probably always will be disappointed that it wasn't greenlit as a 2D film). We were talking about the work that is in the film, not about it being 3D itself. That we might find some flaws doesn't mean we hate it just because it's 3D.
Also, about CG trying to be realistic, let us not forget that Disney's old animators studied human movement and physics A LOT in hopes of obtaining a realistic illusion. The difference now is that there is a dimension to work with. I say CG adds weight to the characters, hence why at times the movements are either stiff or odd. But to say that CG tries too hard to be realistic is forgetting that at one point the Disney animators wanted to convey some form of realism in their movies as well, often pairing it with extreme unrealism in the process.
Yes, I know. There's no reason to treat me like a dunce--I've seen
Cinderella. The thing is that nothing in
Cinderella comes off "stiff" when they go for a realistic look. Disney animators learned how to take the best of and leave the worst of live-action reference. 3D hasn't quite got there yet--and that's not me condemning the medium, but seeing that it still has room for improvement. 2D doesn't have the same flaws as 3D--to the point that it's hard to compare them. What works in 2D might not work in 3D, and vice versa. 2D films have been shown to have a heavy degree of realism without being hurt for it--3D hasn't reached that point. What I meant, personally, is that 3D itself is based on realism, moreso than 2D, because the films become almost like a live-action film on the computer. I simply pointed out (my opinion, of course), that 3D films only work when they go for stylized designs. When they try to go for extreme realism, like with Gothel, it doesn't work. Maybe that'll change in the future when they get better at it.
The only problem is they seem to treat CG as if it's 2D on the computer, when it's not. They're two different forms of animation, with their own individual strengths and weaknesses.
Let's get some things straight. First, you guys have to remember that the era in which the fab four were released the animation industry was different from the one we are going through right now. At the time, there wasn't anything quite like the fab four. Sure, there were animated movies like Secret of NIHM and An American Tale in the 80s, but the fab four were the ones to both bring back classic Disney animation while being new and refreshing. They are iconic because they WERE unique. So much so that everyone, including Don Bluth, mimicked their style.
Again, I know. We are on a Disney forum, right? I do kind of know the general picture of these types of things.
Anyway, you've only repeated what I said. I wasn't trying to idolize the fab four, but point out that they were successful
because they were different. Whereas TP&TF and Rapunzel are, to be fair, not. They are still in the same tradition of the animated musical that began with
Oliver and Company and
Mermaid. Yes, they
are better movies than HOTR, of a much higher quality, but Disney won't stand out again until they try something different in the way they adapt stories. Which they aren't doing here.
When I said all of this, I was not being negative. I was just pointing out genuine points that I feel they could improve on. I'm sure I'll like
Tangled well enough as a film (just as I loved
MTR and enjoyed
Bolt--other 3D films which I was not biased against). But I'm not expecting the Holy Grail like some people. That's all.
