2D vs. CGI

[Jules]

Why does the Cave of Wonders look Ancient by today's standards?

I watched the DVD and did frame by frame advance and while Aladdin goes topsy-turvy on the magic carpet when he's escaping, I thought I could see a pixelation of the texture of the ground rendered in CGI.

[Karushifa]

Why does the Cave of Wonders look Ancient by today's standards?

I watched the DVD and did frame by frame advance and while Aladdin goes topsy-turvy on the magic carpet when he's escaping, I thought I could see a pixelation of the texture of the ground rendered in CGI.

I think it just looks a bit...I dunno...too clean, almost in a Jimmy Neutron way.

In my opinion, the most well-rendered CGI in 2-D films should make people wonder whether the effects are actually CGI at all, such as with the raiders in Mulan and the "deep canvas" effects in Tarzan. If an effect is blatantly CGI, and not rendered to blend in with the rest of the animation, it can be a little distracting.

I think a more egregious example of this would be the Hydra from Hercules, which DOES look like something straight out of Jimmy Neutron.

[Escapay]

Why does the Cave of Wonders look Ancient by today's standards?

I don't understand that either. I mean, I'm *still* amazed whenever I see it open up within the sand. I guess because when you compare a screenshot of the entrance and/or interiors of the Cave to something like the CGI in Atlantis or Treasure Planet, you can see that the CGI somewhat stands out among the cartoon world in Aladdin, whereas it blends better in Atlantis.

Escapay

[Karushifa]

Why does the Cave of Wonders look Ancient by today's standards?

I don't understand that either. I mean, I'm *still* amazed whenever I see it open up within the sand. I guess because when you compare a screenshot of the entrance and/or interiors of the Cave to something like the CGI in Atlantis or Treasure Planet, you can see that the CGI somewhat stands out among the cartoon world in Aladdin, whereas it blends better in Atlantis.

Escapay

The tiger's head holds up a little better than some of the shots with Aladdin on the carpet, which at times look a bit spare.

This is not intended as a criticism of Aladdin. I mean, for 1992 standards, what the animators achieved was pretty darn good. I think there's still some distinction between what the state of CGI was in Aladdin and what it is today, however, but sometimes not all CGI in 2-D films lives up to the potential of the technology (Treasure Planet was mentioned, but I will say that I found the meshing of CGI and hand-drawn animation with Long John Silver to be one of the better examples of good technique in that movie).

[Jules]

I am always amazed when watching that sequence as well.

Oh! And by the way! Someone earlier in the thread said that in Aladdin (Or was it Rescuers Down Under?) you can see Pixar in the final credits.

They're credited in Beauty and the Beast aswell.

I don't know...maybe they helped in the ballroom sequence?

[Karushifa]

I am always amazed when watching that sequence as well.

Oh! And by the way! Someone earlier in the thread said that in Aladdin (Or was it Rescuers Down Under?) you can see Pixar in the final credits.

They're credited in Beauty and the Beast aswell.

I don't know...maybe they helped in the ballroom sequence?

In Rescuers Down Under, there are two segments where the camera "flies" through cities, one in New York and one in Sydney, where it appears that the settings were rendered in CGI. I think this would have been Pixar's doing.

I know that the ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast was rendered partially in CGI (and shows improvement over RDU), so this would have been Pixar's turf as well.

[2099net]

The Incredibles perhaps could have been shot in live-action, but even if it were, there would probably still have been heavy assistance from CGI, such as with the Fantastic Four movie. But with that movie, at least the artists chose not to make the characters look TOO realistic, since that approach has not been received too well (for example, the "hollow" eyes of the characters in The Polar Express and the people in Kaena:The Prophecy who are rendered so "well" that you can see their individual teeth...very weird).

I honestly think Pixar made a mistake with the Incredibles. It's easy to see why their other films were CGI (Toys with a plastic sheen, hundreds of ants, the fur on Scully, the underwater environments....) But I think CGI was totally the wrong choice for The Incredibles.

It's a comic book movie. Comic books are drawn. It should have been (and in my eyes) would have worked much better as a 2D film. Perhaps in the style of Jack Kirby. Can you imagine Kirby's art come to life? All those deep shadows, dynamic angles, square jaws, big fists? It would be awesome. Not to mention the fun they could have creating lots of animated "Kirby-Tech"! Hey, they could even to laser beams with black balls around the edges!

I weep when I see the potential missed on The Incredibles.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

It's a comic book movie. Comic books are drawn. It should have been (and in my eyes) would have worked much better as a 2D film. Perhaps in the style of Jack Kirby. Can you imagine Kirby's art come to life? All those deep shadows, dynamic angles, square jaws, big fists? It would be awesome. Not to mention the fun they could have creating lots of animated "Kirby-Tech"! Hey, they could even to laser beams with black balls around the edges!

I weep when I see the potential missed on The Incredibles.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I'd agree.

I cannot tell whether a drawn version of the Incredibles would have been better or not, but it's my overall impression that animated and comic book versions of the same charactes are more different than one would think.

[MerXAN]

Absolutely 2D. CG wouldn't exist without 2D and I blame it for the destruction of 2D.

[2099net]

Oh! And by the way! Someone earlier in the thread said that in Aladdin (Or was it Rescuers Down Under?) you can see Pixar in the final credits.

They're credited in Beauty and the Beast aswell.

I don't know...maybe they helped in the ballroom sequence?

Well, Pixar created CAPS - the Computer Assisted Production System which was first used on RDU. (bar a scene in TLM)

[indianajdp]

I love the Pixar films because they are an example of what is possible when you do things the right way with CGI. However, I was born-and-raised on traditional animation and that will always be my preference.

[crunkcourt]

CGI is good occassionally and works with some films better; however, I will always prefer traditional animation, especially since we see so little of it now.

[blackcauldron85]

I was watching Fantasia 2000 the other day and I wanted to further discuss a beaten horse, CGI vs 2D. Watching Toy Story compared to Toy Story 3 or 4...the movie is still super-enjoyable, and it doesn't look awful, but CGI has come a long way, you know? 1995 Andy vs 2010 Andy. But watching Snow White vs. TP&tF, for example...there isn't a jarring "Whoa old technology" feel; they both look equally great, IMO.

Reading these old posts, there are mentions of Gollum and Orcs and such...the CGI used in a Pixar movie, for example, is more stylized than a CGI character in a live action film. I don't know how else to word it. Fully CGI animated films are still cartoony, whereas a CGI character in a live action film looks more life-like. So when Escapay mentioned the Cauldron-Born being rendered in CGI...that'd be the "Gollum" type of CGI, not the Woody/Buzz type CGI...

Of course, any method of animation will have its own style. The Steadfast Tin Soldier in Fantasia 2000 is very appealing to me; I love the story, but the stylization of the CGI looks so wonderful. I'm always amazed by the whales in Pines of Rome; those were done around the same time as Toy Story; I do love that they have hand-drawn eyes.