DVDizzy Forum

TheBlibaBlob wrote:Sorry, but I've really got this off my chest. Can people please stop making their statements sound like it is final. Like staying CGI isn't as good as 2d animation and Frozen would look way better in 2D.

That was a personal assessment. I didn't claim it was fact. I believe both mediums have strengths and limitations and can offer different sets of aesthetics. For example, I find there are areas where CG has the advantage over other mediums but lacks in comparison to other mediums in certain areas. I don't believe any medium is objectively superior to the others. It simply comes down to individual taste and preference.

TheBlibaBlob wrote:Different stories are best told with different mediums that help bring the best charm of a film to come out.

Almost any type of narrative can be told in any medium nowadays. The reason CG has become the preferred animation medium in Hollywood is strictly financial. It's not because they believe CG is better suited for the nature of their projects.

Oh, yeah. Because CGI is "cheaper" to go with. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the medium, but I'm just so sick of seeing it shoved down our throats. That's not the only freaking existing medium.

Cheapskates.

DisneyJedi wrote:Oh, yeah. Because CGI is "cheaper" to go with.

CG is not cheaper than hand-drawn animation. Don't know where you got that idea from. In fact, hand-drawn animation has become cheaper than CG due to lower demand.

Sotiris wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:Oh, yeah. Because CGI is "cheaper" to go with.

CG is not cheaper than hand-drawn animation. Don't know where you got that idea from. In fact, hand-drawn animation has become cheaper than CG due to lower demand.

You said the excuse for more prominence was financial. Sorry if I got the wrong message.

TheBlibaBlob wrote:Different stories are best told with different mediums that help bring the best charm of a film to come out.

Almost any type of narrative can be told in any medium nowadays. The reason CG has become the preferred animation medium in Hollywood is strictly financial. It's not because they believe CG is better suited for the nature of their projects.[/quote]


Ron Clements and John Musker had the choice between CGI and traditional animation for TPatF, they chose traditional, thanks to motivation from John Lasseter, but they could have chosen a much more accessible CGI, but they didn't. John Kahrs could've chosen either too for Paperman. He chose both to create a piece of art. Ron and John are rumoured to have chosen the same tech for their upcoming film. But no matter what, it should always be taken in that animation is an art, just like any other film.

PrincessElsa wrote:Right on this page, someone called Elsa's design "ugly." Are they an "expert"? Do they need to be? What are the credentials one needs to criticize a fan drawing, pray tell?

The difference here is that you were very clearly stating that his drawing was somehow "wrong". As in, he messed up. Inferring that he was attempting to mimic the CG design 100%, and that he failed in doing so. But he very obviously wasn't trying to make an official "on model" drawing of Elsa. This is his take on the character, and the piece shows his talent to be sure.

Now, if you had said "well, I prefer the rounder look of the CG model personally" you most certainly wouldn't have gotten all the backlash you did. But you were very clearly criticizing his actual drawing, rather than expressing your taste.

The person that called Elsa's design "ugly" is, on the other hand, expressing opinion.

Jennifer Lee ‏@alittlejelee 12m
Final shot approved through color. All reels locked. Production is officially complete. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Wonder if there will be any preliminary screenings now. Maybe I'll pretend to have gone to one and write a very negative review to see how the fandom reacts.

DisneyJedi wrote:You said the excuse for more prominence was financial. Sorry if I got the wrong message.

I meant that studios prefer CG because CG films have been consistently successful at the box office. That's why it became the preferred medium. They fear if they go with another medium their movies will flop.

TheBlibaBlob wrote:Ron Clements and John Musker had the choice between CGI and traditional animation for TPatF, they chose traditional, thanks to motivation from John Lasseter, but they could have chosen a much more accessible CGI, but they didn't. John Kahrs could've chosen either too for Paperman. He chose both to create a piece of art.

They were able to choose because management at the time allowed them to do so. They aren't anymore. Evident in that Frozen started as a hand-drawn film before TPatF was released but turned into a CG one afterwards. As for Paperman, it was a short and therefore a low-risk project and that's why Kahrs was allowed to explore this hybrid technique.

Looks like Elsa does have a playful side

*sighs*

What I don't get is Elsa's hair ? It seems super short at the back with all the tufts sticking out, and then it obviously continues down into her plait? How does that work ?

SWillie! wrote:

PrincessElsa wrote:Right on this page, someone called Elsa's design "ugly." Are they an "expert"? Do they need to be? What are the credentials one needs to criticize a fan drawing, pray tell?

The difference here is that you were very clearly stating that his drawing was somehow "wrong". As in, he messed up. Inferring that he was attempting to mimic the CG design 100%, and that he failed in doing so. But he very obviously wasn't trying to make an official "on model" drawing of Elsa. This is his take on the character, and the piece shows his talent to be sure.

Now, if you had said "well, I prefer the rounder look of the CG model personally" you most certainly wouldn't have gotten all the backlash you did. But you were very clearly criticizing his actual drawing, rather than expressing your taste.

The person that called Elsa's design "ugly" is, on the other hand, expressing opinion.

Really, is that the issue? Does every post need to be preceded by "This is just my personal opinion, but..." or "I prefer this, but..." I take that as a given. For everyone here. Since none of us are involved in the production of the film, none of our comments are anything but personal opinions.

And yes, I was criticizing his actual drawing -- according to an expression of my personal taste. Just as my very first posts on this forum were wildly enthusiastic of the Frozen book covers -- also according to my personal taste.

But very well, then. The revised version would read something like this:

In my opinion, the chin is way too sharp and pointed, especially compared to the CG, which I prefer personally, as I do the book-cover illustrations of Elsa where her chin is rounder and her face less angular, as I find the more pointed, angular look to be harsh, less aesthetically pleasing, and to age the character, whereas I personally also find that the rounder facial features give Elsa a more youthful and appealing quality. I prefer the Disney visual interpretation of Elsa to this one.

Also, don't know what he's doing with the ears there, which in my opinion stick out way too far, which also doesn't create an appealing look.

I'm fine adding such disclaimers, but they can make a post pretty wordy pretty quickly.

Perhaps adding a "This is just my personal opinion but..." to a signature would suffice?

TheBlibaBlob wrote:Sorry, but I've really got this off my chest. Can people please stop making their statements sound like it is final. Like staying CGI isn't as good as 2d animation and Frozen would look way better in 2d.

In my personal opinion, I think everyone should feel free to make their statements sound as final as they very well like.

Lady Cluck wrote:You managed to sound like more of an ass in your post with explanations congratulations

Okay, sincere question, then: If someone posts a drawing on this forum (or whatever), and someone else doesn't like it, what is the correct way of criticizing it?

Are we not supposed to criticize it at all? On a discussion board?

Are we mandated to post good and bad points?

If we add disclaimers such as "In my personal opinion..." and such, can we still not criticize it according to our personal taste?

I say this observing yet again that comments such as this...

I just find Elsa's design really ugly (particularly the top of her hair and its color), so any changes don't affect me so much. (The other designs range from inoffensive/uninteresting--Anna, Hans--to awful--Olaf)

...which deem the film's designs "ugly" and "awful" get no flak. And why should they? Why shouldn't we all simply be free to criticize whatever is under discussion as we see fit?

Again, I take it as read that anything anyone posts here is simply an expression of personal opinion. What else would it be?

DisneyEra wrote:

qindarka wrote:Interview with Peter Del Vecho here:

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/frozen/ ... z2fiOjzuDc

Interesting what he said about Treasure Planet. If it would have come out in November of 2003, after the success of pirates of the caribbean, it could of done much better. But i'm glad he's still proud of that film & mentioned it's oscar nod for best animated film. I not sure I agree that if the film was in CGI, it would have done better though, as there were only 4 CGI blockbusters from 1999-2002: Toy Story 2 & MI, Shrek & Ice Age.

I'm glad that he's proud of it as well. While it's not one of Disney's greatest movies, it's still enjoyable and good. Unfortunately, "Treasure Planet" will always have the "flop"-reputation.

TheBlibaBlob wrote:Sorry, but I've really got this off my chest. Can people please stop making their statements sound like it is final. Like staying CGI isn't as good as 2d animation and Frozen would look way better in 2d.
Different stories are best told with different mediums that help bring the best charm of a film to come out.

Personally, the only 3D film they've done that would fall into the case of being in the medium that brings the best out of it would be Wreck-It Ralph and maybe Meet the Robinsons? I have no problem saying Tangled and Frozen would've looked better in 2D.

And while that statement is true, Disney is not making medium choices based on "what is best for the film."

Btw, Elsa's dress looks like how the Disney Princess makeover designs would look in the final film.

PrincessElsa wrote:Okay, sincere question, then: If someone posts a drawing on this forum (or whatever), and someone else doesn't like it, what is the correct way of criticizing it?

Are we not supposed to criticize it at all? On a discussion board?

PrincessElsa, you came across as a snob regarding someone's fanart and that's why people found your criticism distasteful. If you don't see the difference between "Ugh, I don't like it" and "He got this wrong, and that wrong" making it sound like he completely failed at what he set out to create, well then I don't know what to tell ya, except that one is someone just saying what they feel and the other one sounds like you're putting someone else down for not rising to your demands of the character's model.

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:What I don't get is Elsa's hair ? It seems super short at the back with all the tufts sticking out, and then it obviously continues down into her plait? How does that work ?

It's technically known as the "80's Glam She-Mullet"

DancingCrab wrote:

PrincessElsa wrote:Okay, sincere question, then: If someone posts a drawing on this forum (or whatever), and someone else doesn't like it, what is the correct way of criticizing it?

Are we not supposed to criticize it at all? On a discussion board?

PrincessElsa, you came across as a snob regarding someone's fanart and that's why people found your criticism distasteful. If you don't see the difference between "Ugh, I don't like it" and "He got this wrong, and that wrong" making it sound like he completely failed at what he set out to create, well then I don't know what to tell ya, except that one is someone just saying what they feel and the other one sounds like you're putting someone else down for not rising to your demands of the character's model.

I think saying "He got this wrong and that wrong" (and if necessary, adding "In my opinion," though I maintain that adding such a phrase is completely redundant on a discussion board) adds a "Why I don't like it" to "I don't like it" and is therefore a bit more fruitful -- because then others can agree or disagree with the why.

But hey, as I maintain that we should be able to criticize at will and in the tone we choose, then I'm fine with having others criticize the critique at will, and in the tone they choose.

FWIW, though, I've not yet encountered a board in which there are so many discussions of how people should be posting, and not just as applies to me. This level of meta-posting scrutiny is a new one.

DancingCrab wrote:It's technically known as the "80's Glam She-Mullet"

Not seeing mullet in Elsa's hairstyle at all, personally:



As for the sketch art,



I see it more along the lines of a hairstyle like this (worn here by a plus-size fashion model in 2010):





Note that the model can wear this style and still have long hair. This photograph is from the same session:



Coincidentally, in the latter photo, you even see that wisp of hair falling alongside the forehead which Elsa sometimes exhibits.