CGI vs. Traditional Animation

[Disneyfan]

I kinda prefer Hand drawn. But I like CGI too. With CGI the animals look a little bit more real. Take Alvin and the Chipmunks for example they actually were chipmunk sized in the CGI live action movie. They looked like real chipmunks. And that's what kinda gets me attached to CGI the CGI animals look a lot more realistic then the cartoon ones. And realism is a great thing in a movie in my personel opinion. But the thing is to much CGI can be very bad. It should be more of a mix there should be some Hand drawn movies and some CGI movies. Good for Disney they seemed to be getting back to the roots that made me love them when I saw Enchanted. It looks like they might bring the 2-d animation back.

[Siren]

In all fairness, with the exception of the Gallimimus herd, the CGI in "Jurassic Park" holds up surprisingly well given it was released in 1992.

I also found the first dinosaurs they saw, the brachis and paras to be green screen looking. The T-rex chasing the Jeep still looks good. As did the end fighting scene between the Rex and Raptors. But much of the other CGI looks dated already.

[SpringHeelJack]

Well, I mean, c'est la vie. Ray Harryhausen's special effects all look very dated, but you can still enjoy the movies and appreciate the skill behind it.

[Siren]

Yes, I know. But my original point was they were TRYING to look real. In a few years time, they all look dated.

Hand drawn animation is timeless. You don't watch the animated 101 Dalmatians and think that it looks so fake, its distracting. Where as the live action 101 Dalmatians, the CGI they used was distracting, least to me, because it looks fake. It takes away from the appeal. Hand drawn animation, unless very poorly done, never seems to age.

[rexcrk]

You know what movie had amazing CGI? Transformers. It was honestly like the first time ever where I didn't say "that looks so fake it's unbelievable". Maybe because they only CGI'd the robots and it's possible to make stuff that isn't flesh look realistic?

[Disney Duster]

Yes, I know. But my original point was they were TRYING to look real. In a few years time, they all look dated.

Hand drawn animation is timeless. You don't watch the animated 101 Dalmatians and think that it looks so fake, its distracting. Where as the live action 101 Dalmatians, the CGI they used was distracting, least to me, because it looks fake. It takes away from the appeal. Hand drawn animation, unless very poorly done, never seems to age.

Oohh, Siren, this is something we can agree upon! I have wished for a long time that certain movies would wait until CGI got more realistic. It bothers me that Harry Potter's CGI looks fake even now (DOBBY, EW!) and if they just waited they could make the films amazing, maybe even work on them longer to make them better, but for whatever reason they felt they needed to be made so soon. And I feel this likewise for almost any other movie using CGI. Even Narnia bothered me sometimes. I forget what they all were, but I've seen few films with convincing enough computer animation. And actually, I agree with SpringHeelJack that Jurassic Park's animation surprisingly holds up very well, but I bet this is because we mostly see it in the dark. And weren't puppets or animatronics partly used...?

Personally, I'd rather see puppets, or puppets with CGI work, like E.T.'s re-do. In fact, I kind of hope some movies like Haryy Potter will have touch ups when CGI gets closer to perfect. Hopefully if this happens in the future no one complains they loved the animation so much as a kid it would be sacrilage, because, really, it has to be good to be sacrilage to change it.

But if a film is all CGI, and stylized, not meant to be photo-realistic, like Pixar's beautiful films, or if a a film is all traditionally animated, then the animation will always work because the animation can't look out of place in a world that's completely animated! That's why CGI looks bad, when it's compared to live-action footage.