Disney Feature Animation Vs. Walt DisneyTelevision Animation

[DisneyHollywood]

He might want to try it, thow Walt Disney Would not want CGI or CGI to take over Traitisonal Animation. He would not want to imbrace some thing that not art. He would be like, Whats the point. Computers do most of the work. Where's the animators? Art is some thing that comes form the heart and mind. and soul and passion. your dream and favorite place or wish. It is something you work hard at and do all the very best and creatvity grows and desires come alive. and hopes and dreams are real. It take talent, otovation and team work. It takes a true passion for art and the art of Disney Animation. To have a vision. To see it come real. To move you and change an audeance and to make others cry or happy. to refelt your personalty. To be your drive. Thats what art and true animation is.

[ichabod]

I don't think I have ever heard a more narrow minded opinion in all my life!

I'm not sure how it is you've come to the conclusion that CGI films take no time to make. I mean Chicken Little has been in production since 2002 so obviously they do take time to make.

Making a CGI film is not so simple the characters have to be designed and built in the computer and that takes time. You don't just waltz into your local PC world and say "I's like a PC with MS Word and A Bug's Life Film Maker V.2.0!"

In the same way that you argue "It's the computer that does all the work and humans just pushg buttons", it could also be argues with 2D that "The pencil does all the work and humans just move it around". Care and precision need to be employed in order to make both. I mean think of all the millions of hairs on Sulley In Monsters Inc and the program that had to be painstakingly devised in order to create that effect.

Creating a character on a computer takes the same amount of creativity and inspiration as 2D. It takes perseverance, dedication, heart and mind. It also takes talent and observation, these people have had to study and practice to do this job! I mean seeing a load of drawings being sequenced and coming to life is magical! But it is the same with CGI! Seeing 24 individual frames put together and moving!

CGI has the ability to move people in just the same way as 2D. This arguement that CGI is not real is stupid! 2D is no more real! They are both artificial ways of portraying a story, conveying emotion. I mean it's like saying that only paintings are art and that ceramics, printing, and sculpture are not!

In response to my earlier post with the urinal that has no doubt baffled most. Marcel Duschamp in response to people saying "Is it Art" took a urinal signed it and entered it in a gallery and the title was "What is art?". His goal was to show people that different people have different ideas. Some would say that Tracy Emin's unmade bed is not art, but just a waste of space. However art is supposed to be a personal thing, something that expresses something about you, and personal response a way of making sense of life and the things around you! A may of telling people about you, what you are like, your inner most self! Now if you look again at Tracey Emin's bed, it does exactly that. It was created in order to explain about her and her life, her feelings, her hobbies. CGI is simply an alternative form of expressing a story. It is in every way valid!

True animation and True art is whatever you want it to be! It is about making an audience believe that something is real. It is about creating the illusion of life, a way of replicating emotion and feeling through an artificial source!

As the old quote goes "animation is not just about making drawings move, it is making drawings that move people" or something to that effect. The process is inconsequential, the result is the achievement!

And by the way, If making a CGI film is such a piece of cake, you try and make one and let's all see how good it is!

[oh_bother]

Seems like people have strong opinions on this subject.

I love both. It's the story and characters which mean things to me, not the way they're created.

[PatrickvD]

I absolutely love Duchamp Ichabod, his art is so craptastic. Love what he and that whole movement back then stood for.

Also, I find it kind of silly to say it only takes a computer to do computer animation. It takes knowledge of facial expressions and acting. If a traditional animator is referred to as "actor with a pencil" then a CGI animator is still an "actor with a mouse". It STILL requires knowledge of acting, and understanding of story and character development. I actually know someone who knows someone (I know it's totally silly ) who is an executive at Pixar and a few years ago when they had a job opening he told this friend of me they usually only look at port folios of people who have also done traditional animation or AT LEAST know how to draw. They don't just hire computer nerds. The most succesful computer animators were once traditional animators, because THAT is the way they learned it.

DisneyHollywood, you seriously need to get your facts straight. Walt Disney was all about innovation and he would most defintiely embrace computer animation. I don't think you have any idea what art really is. The art lies in the result, in the idea, the intention. The medium or the tool, can literally be ANYTHING, from photography, to plastic, to paint to yes, EVEN computer animation.

[disneywb]

It's funny how the topic of discussion has nothing to do with the topic title.
It's just more of the same cgi debate...yawn.

[Nala]

I actually like both CGI and 2D. They're different. I didn't used to like CGI but The Incredibles changed my mind. I have since rented Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, Toy Story & Toy Story 2. I want to rent A Bug's Life but am having trouble finding it. The Incredibles is one of my favourite movies and I want all the Pixar movies now. They're different in animation but both are good.