Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[unprincess]

Great news! I wonder if it will be actual hand drawn animation(doubtful) or the hybrid style that was used for Spiderman: ITSV(probably.) This is the one that's set in Havana, Cuba right? Being of Cuban heritage myself, I'm really curious how they're going to pull this off without stepping into the messy politics of the place. Also I think the main character is a monkey who wants to sing or play music? I really hope it has human characters and its not a Zootopia/Sing anthro-fest(something tells me it might be though.)

[Kyle]

This movie will likely suck, but hey...hand drawn?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_JyeBMfq-g

[D82]

^It looks to me like a combination of 2D and 3D, but I'm glad (and surprised) they're starting to use more and more 2D or 2D-looking animation in Hollywood lately.

[Sotiris]

Though, I'm not sure if "in a style of flat 2D illustration" necessarily means it's going to be in traditional hand-drawn animation.

It's not going to be 2D animation. SPA features are animated at Sony Imageworks which is a VFX/CG production facility. They don't have a pipeline in place to produce 2D animation. I, for one, am not looking forward to everyone calling this 2D animation just because it uses non-photorealistic rendering.

It looks to me like a combination of 2D and 3D, but I'm glad (and surprised) they're starting to use more and more 2D or 2D-looking animation in Hollywood lately.

Yes, some scenes looked more traditional 2D while others more Flash-animated. It reminded me the animation for the 2014 TV series The Tom and Jerry Show. Still, it's a pleasant surprise they went with 2D animation for the cartoon characters. I took it as a given they would be CG like all the other recent animated/live-action hybrids.

[D82]

I think you might've mixed my two quotes up, Sotiris.

[Sotiris]

^Thanks for the heads up. I've corrected them.

[D82]

Thanks for the heads up. I've corrected them.

It's not going to be 2D animation. SPA features are animated at Sony Imageworks which is a VFX/CG production facility. They don't have a pipeline in place to produce 2D animation. I, for one, am not looking forward to everyone calling this 2D animation just because it uses non-photorealistic rendering.

I imagined it couldn't be. I also hope they don't call it 2D animation if it's not. I'm curious to see what the animation looks like.

It reminded me the animation for the 2014 TV series The Tom and Jerry Show. Still, it's a pleasant surprise they went with 2D animation for the cartoon characters. I took it as a given they would be CG like all the other recent animated/live-action hybrids.

Yes, it looks similar to the animation in that show. I didn't expect the characters would be 2D either, especially in a animated/live-action hybrid.

[Farerb]

Isn't 2D refers to any kind of animation that is flat? I always use the terms "hand-drawn" or "traditional", which are types of 2D animation, but not every 2D animation is hand-drawn. I guess Vivo will be 2D, just not hand-drawn.

[Sotiris]

I don't think so. When people say 2D they usually refer to hand-drawn animation as the two terms are used interchangeably. I never heard of flat animation which is a style being referred to as 2D animation.

[Farerb]

Isn't Flash considered 2D? What about Tangled the series? Or other Disney shows?

[Farerb]

This movie will likely suck, but hey...hand drawn?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIQZd-Q ... e=emb_logo

Believe it or not, it is CGI.

But stylized to look and feel like "vintage 2D". https://t.co/BwnZccbNeK

https://twitter.com/IAmJustFarhan/statu ... 35170?s=19

[Sotiris]

Isn't Flash considered 2D? What about Tangled the series? Or other Disney shows?

Yes, it's considered 2D because it still involves drawings, albeit vector-based, instead of 3D models. Tangled: The Series is actually CG, not Flash, because it uses 3D models. First, they complete the rough computer animation and then they draw over it in Toon Boom to give it more detail and an illustrated look. That technique has become quite common in TV animation, but it's not 2D animation even if it looks 2D in stills or has a flat aesthetic. As for Disney's other shows, they vary. Some are CG that look CG, like Fancy Nancy or Elena of Avalor, others are CG that look 2D like Tangled or The Lion Guard, while most of them are Flash like Phineas and Ferb or the new DuckTales.

[Farerb]

I see. Thank you for the explanation

[estefan]

Yeah, I'm guessing Vivo will be along the lines of The Peanuts Movie, Into the Spider-Verse and this new Tom & Jerry movie, where it will be computer animated but given a hand-drawn like appearance.

[D82]

This movie will likely suck, but hey...hand drawn?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIQZd-Q ... e=emb_logo

Believe it or not, it is CGI.

But stylized to look and feel like "vintage 2D". https://t.co/BwnZccbNeK

https://twitter.com/IAmJustFarhan/statu ... 35170?s=19

Thanks for the info! That's actually the first impression I got. It looked like they had used cel shading to me, which is something I learned on this forum thanks to Kyle, and I usually don't like much. But maybe here it is done with more quality than the examples I've seen.

Yeah, I'm guessing Vivo will be along the lines of The Peanuts Movie, Into the Spider-Verse and this new Tom & Jerry movie, where it will be computer animated but given a hand-drawn like appearance.

It's also the case of Connected, the latest film from Sony Pictures Animation, right?

[Sotiris]

Posters and trailer for Tom & Jerry.


Source: https://www.warnerbros.com/movies/tom-jerry


Source: https://twitter.com/TomAndJerry/status/ ... 6581662720


Now that we have a clearer look, it's obvious they are using computer animation with non-photorealistic rendering. The outcome is less than stellar, to put it mildly. The lack of shadows on the characters makes them look out of place, and by extension, the interaction between them and the humans feels jarring and unconvincing. And while the efforts to replicate the cartoony, squash and stretch-y action of the classic Tom & Jerry is admirable, they weren't able to come close to the fluidity and appeal of the original shorts. Had they used traditional, hand-drawn animation with three-dimensional lighting à la Who Framed Roger Rabbit or even Looney Tunes: Back in Action, the end result would have been infinitely better.

[Kyle]

The animation, to me, is fine. Where its lacking is in proper lighting and interaction with their environment to sell the fact that they are sharing the same spaces as the world they inhabit.

[estefan]

I actually don't mind the artificiality with which Tom & Jerry are placed into the real world. It's clear the filmmakers wanted to go in a far different direction than other recent hybrids where the characters are rendered to look more realistic and three-dimensional (well, as realistic as a blue hedgehog, tie-wearing bear and little blue elves can look) and instead embrace the overall cartooniness of Tom and Jerry. It would be funny if, in the movie, they never acknowledge that there are these obvious cartoon characters running around.

I found myself really charmed by the trailer and if they can deliver plenty of funny slapstick moments, the movie will have done its job.

[Kyle]

You're comparing this to 3d adaptations? You should really be comparing it to Roger Rabbit, the gold standard of animation/live action hybrids. I dont see how one can say they are "clearly going another route" with this. I'm sure if they could they would, but they took shortcuts and it shows. Makes it feel no better than most cereal commercials.

[D82]

Personally, the lack of shadows on the characters doesn't bother me. It's the combination of 3D models with non-photorealistic rendering what I don't like. Sometimes the characters look OK and almost seem drawn in traditional animation, but other times (especially in the close-ups) they look quite bad. Anyway, I'm still glad they chose this over a full CGI look.