DVDizzy Forum

Another awful human design from Pixar. They make wonderful toys, rats, monsters etc, but Pixar can't animate a decent looking human even if John Lasseter's life depended on it

Prince Edward wrote:Another awful human design from Pixar. They make wonderful toys, rats, monsters etc, but Pixar can't animate a decent looking human even if John Lasseter's life depended on it

THANK YOU!! Finally, someone who agrees with me on this!

I wonder why all it's more often the women in 3D movies that have huge heads? Obsession with women having huge eyes/being emotional, I guess?

That said, I remember liking the human designs in The Incredibles--except for Violet and Mirage (?). Elastigirl also had a huge head, but I liked the way they did the face. Plus, the whole thing was pretty stylistic.

Also, I loved Andy in TS3, and the little girl was also adorable there.

robster16 - I totally agree, it has a VERY classic Disney feel. This is the kind of movie that animation studios should be making.

Duster, he shouldn't ever have to take anything back. Does someone on a message board on the internet saying "I take back my comment" really make you feel better about something? Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

I wish EVERY company could make movies that feel like Disney movies. Classic Disney movies are your favorite things, right? Then why do you not want other studios to make movies that are up to those standards?

Prince Edward wrote:Another awful human design from Pixar. They make wonderful toys, rats, monsters etc, but Pixar can't animate a decent looking human even if John Lasseter's life depended on it

THANK YOU!! Finally, someone who agrees with me on this!

Hey, I'm with you too, man. It's okay that Pixar makes human designs that are unrealistic, but do they have to do that every time?

All these personal attacks are only making the bunch of you look like the pathetic ones. Duster’s ideas may be absurd to you, but at least he never resorts to that. And it's easy to use that language because you know he won't respond back that way. Whether he is arrogant/pathetic/dramaqueen has nothing to do with it, considering you're just reading posts on the internet.

Also, he didn't "demand" anyone take their comments back, only asked.

Seriously. It's like watching Nene Leakes attack Latoya Jackson on the Entertainment Night commercials.

DisneyFan09 wrote:Hey, I'm with you too, man. It's okay that Pixar makes human designs that are unrealistic, but do they have to do that every time?

The design of their human characters is usually unappealing, disproportionate, heavily caricatured & stylized--not always fitting for main characters who are supposed to look more 'naturalistic' and believable.

Disney's Divinity wrote:All these personal attacks are only making the bunch of you look like the pathetic ones. Duster’s ideas may be absurd to you, but at least he never resorts to that. And it's easy to use that language because you know he won't respond back that way. Whether he is arrogant/pathetic/dramaqueen has nothing to do with it, considering you're just reading posts on the internet.

Also, he didn't "demand" anyone take their comments back, only asked.

Seriously. It's like watching Nene Leakes attack Latoya Jackson on the Entertainment Night commercials.

Well, whether I'm pathetic or not is of no concern to me. To act personally hurt by a non-personal comment on the internet, and ask to have that comment taken back, even though it has literally nothing to do with you, is pathetic in my opinion.

Prince Edward wrote:Another awful human design from Pixar. They make wonderful toys, rats, monsters etc, but Pixar can't animate a decent looking human even if John Lasseter's life depended on it

I kinda agree except when it comes to the incredibles.

DisneyFan09 wrote:Hey, I'm with you too, man. It's okay that Pixar makes human designs that are unrealistic, but do they have to do that every time?

In a word, Yes!

Sotiris wrote: The design of their human characters is usually unappealing, ]disproportionate, heavily caricatured & stylized--not always fitting for main characters who are supposed to look more 'naturalistic' and believable.

You say that like its a bad thing. I think that's how animated characters should be. Its the only way to steer clear of uncanney valley. Not to mention it takes advantage of the medium. If your going to go realistic you might as well shoot live action. You say caricatures aren't believable, I say their More believable than any "realistic" design could ever be. This is because with exaggeration you get more out of each character.
Do you really want Disney and or pixar movies to look anything like Beowulf? That's what happens when you don't caricature.

Kyle wrote:

Sotiris wrote: The design of their human characters is usually unappealing, ]disproportionate, heavily caricatured & stylized--not always fitting for main characters who are supposed to look more 'naturalistic' and believable.

You say that like its a bad thing. I think that's how animated characters should be. Its the only way to steer clear of uncanney valley. Not to mention it takes advantage of the medium. If your going to go realistic you might as well shoot live action. You say caricatures aren't believable, I say their More believable than any "realistic" design could ever be. This is because with exaggeration you get more out of each character.
Do you really want Disney and or pixar movies to look anything like Beowulf? That's what happens when you don't caricature.

And we do not want any animated humans looking like those in Shrek. They have this quality to them that is spooky. Almost real but not really.

Animalia wrote:I actually hope she will be included in the line. I can just imagine myself at six tricking myself out as Merida with bow and arrow and then putting on a fake Scottish accent.

itd be nice if they could include characters with making them look like a glittermonster exploded. merida wouldnt look right dressed up like the others. from what little i can tell, shes earthy and not overly girly. if that makes sense? shes look as far from the princess line design as a girl character can get.

^^^ based on the trailer since thats all ive seen of her, aside from enigmas gorgeous artwork.

magicalwands wrote:You say that like its a bad thing. I think that's how animated characters should be. Its the only way to steer clear of uncanney valley. Not to mention it takes advantage of the medium. If your going to go realistic you might as well shoot live action. You say caricatures aren't believable, I say their More believable than any "realistic" design could ever be. This is because with exaggeration you get more out of each character.
Do you really want Disney and or pixar movies to look anything like Beowulf? That's what happens when you don't caricature.

I too prefer caricatures; they're much more inventively and interestingly designed, are usually more appealing, and as you said they steer well clear of the zombie style of Zemeckis in the Uncanny Valley.

magicalwands wrote:And we do not want any animated humans looking like those in Shrek. They have this quality to them that is spooky. Almost real but not really.

No one is asking for that; no one wants Sherk or mo-cap looking characters. But why can't they have more appealing human characters like those in Tangled? That's a CGI movie and the character designs are much more appealing.

Sotiris wrote:

magicalwands wrote:And we do not want any animated humans looking like those in Shrek. They have this quality to them that is spooky. Almost real but not really.

No one is asking for that; no one wants Sherk or mo-cap looking characters. But why can't they have more appealing human characters like those in Tangled? That's a CGI movie and the character designs are much more appealing.

Well this is a case of personal preference. It isn't a given that the characters in Tangled are more appealing. I, for one, think Merida's design is gorgeous. It's new, unique. We haven't seen it all before like we had with Tangled. Don't get me wrong, I loved Rapunzel and Flynn's designs... but just because Merida doesn't have that same old Disney look and proportions doesn't mean it's not appealing. Not appealing to you, more like.

SWillie! wrote:Well this is a case of personal preference.

That's a given. I didn't say that I speak for anyone else but myself.

SWillie! wrote:I, for one, think Merida's design is gorgeous. It's new, unique.

While you might love her design, I don't think it's either new or unique. It's in the same style of other Pixar human characters.

Tangled's designs were appealing, but bland as heck. The exact opposite of the original unbraided design which seemed more specific.

Animation wise tangled was excellent, possibly the best CG human animation Ive seen to date. baring in mind animation is not the same as design. The movement itself has a level of exaggeration, (yes exaggeration the thing some of you seems so opposed to) that even Pixar characters haven't quite matched. The thing I don't get is that this exaggeration seems to go unnoticed or rather misinterpreted as realism by the same people against caricatured stuff. My mindset is why not have the design match the animation in its level of exaggeration?

Uh... okay when have Pixar humans not looked good?

People saying 'they can't animate a human unless their life depended on it' um, yes they can. They're like, the richest animated company in the world. If they wanted to create ultra realistic humans they would do it. They have the software.

Pixar animation of humans is VERY cartoony and caricatured. But they want it that way. It really gives it more unique character.

Do you think Carl and Russel from Up would have looked half as appealing if they looked like ordinary realistic humans?

And for the record.. I think the humans in Toy Story look great.

Just to give my own thoughts real quick on Pixar's humans.

They generally look great for the time they released, but some haven't aged well. The ones in the first toy story felt very robotic, but you gotta cut them some slack being the first full length CG film and all. The humans improved ten fold by toy story 2, but still feel a bit robotic iby current standards. the two stand outs would be Jerry and Al, but Andy, molly and any extras don't hold up as well. Though I do have a soft spot for them being such a part of my childhood. By TS2 and TS3 they did they best they could with the more "realistic" style they kinda locked themselved into already but they could probably stand to have pushed the designs a bit further.

The incredibles to me was when they peaked at Humans. They have gone a bit downhill though with ratatouille, Wall-e and UP (No problem with carl but Russel looked like a Wall-e extra).

And now bringing this back on topic we're down to Brave, which Ive already said but I'm not crazy about the main girl's design. Its not at all because its wierd, Its just unappealing to me. Something about the proportions of her face just bug me. They also have that light scattering effect (first introduced in the incredibles and used in every Pixar and Disney human since) turned up way too high I think.

The other designs I do like.

Sotiris wrote:

Prince Edward wrote:Another awful human design from Pixar. They make wonderful toys, rats, monsters etc, but Pixar can't animate a decent looking human even if John Lasseter's life depended on it

THANK YOU!! Finally, someone who agrees with me on this!

Yes! Some people on the same page as me ...
That's what I loved about pixar they have their own imagination and make wonderful movies about bugs, toys and animals ... I have got to say the story does like very appealing indeed but her design is absolutely awful. Don't get me wrong I love her hair and how it stands out from the background surroundings and the volume of it. But come on! Mrs Incredible looks better than Merida... Surely her face could have some character. Rapunzel on the other hand was beautifully animated and the expression and humanity of the character was heart touching.

ts not at all because its wierd, Its just unappealing to me. Something about the proportions of her face just bug me. They also have that light scattering effect (first introduced in the incredibles and used in every Pixar and Disney human since) turned up way too high I think.

The other designs I do like.

Exactly what i thought! Her features seem to small compared to her head.

don't get me wrong i am excited about this film but i have to say her character looks bad I've heard rumors that that scene of her is Merida as a teen or just not actual movie animation (like in the tangled trailer)
I hope this is true ...

Also does anyone find it funny that when Pixar first opened John Lassetter said pixar didn't want to copy disney's fairytale roots and be completely original .... oh and if they make anymore signals have Monsters 2 is released i will go MAD!

DisneyDude2010 wrote:lso does anyone find it funny that when Pixar first opened John Lassetter said pixar didn't want to copy disney's fairytale roots and be completely original

So if someone at Pixar comes up with a really good idea for a fairytale, they can't do it because Disney did it first? It seems everyone wants an original Pixar project, this is one, so give it a chance before comparing it to anything Disney has done.