DVDizzy Forum

Marky_198 wrote:So they look just like what you think is CG animation, because you are not aware of all the possibilities yet.

You continue to prove your arrogance. I'm an animator, Marky. While I strive to go for the mainstream modern CG look, as that is what will get me a job, I am more than aware that CG animation can be used in any number of styles with limitless possibilities. I hope to see more of those possibilities explored in the future, but am impressed with the work being done now.

It's just disappointing that almost all filmmakers strive to go for the mainstream modern CG look too.

But I agree, I hope to see more of those possibilities explored in the future too.

Anyway Marky_198, I guess in general what you are trying to say is that they should explore more styles than what they have now. But you get stuck in 1-2 things and you sound like a broken record (skin, realistic look, exaggeration). We all want that. But the medium is pretty young and the industry not as prone to experimentation as it once was. I'll be very surprised if Disney deviates from their formula and their look. It took Walt a long time to finally go the extra mile and experiment with different styles in Disney animation. The first truly different Walt animated film was Sleeping Beauty and that came 22 years after Snow White. It came after they had done everything before that. They created cartoony characters, realistic characters, realistic humans they reached the artform in a pretty high point and that's when they decided to experiment with different styles. We aren't there yet, but we are getting there. CGI is really young and not advanced enough to deviate too much. We are still seeing progress, textures have gotten better, lighting has gone better and only now have we started tackling the big horses (hair animation). The original Tangled could have been that different movie, unfortunately it wasn't

I have no idea when the debate about Rapunzel's eyes began. Both models look the same to me in both hand-drawn and 3D animation. Animation has always been exaggerated. It's one of its selling points. Characters too mean, too cute, too fat, too thin.

Lnds500 wrote: I'll be very surprised if Disney deviates from their formula and their look. It took Walt a long time to finally go the extra mile and experiment with different styles in Disney animation. The first truly different Walt animated film was Sleeping Beauty and that came 22 years after Snow White.

I think the extra mile was Snow White. That was the solution to a feature film that had the right feel/design for the title character, after years and years of exaggerated animation, like Betty Boop. Most CGI films nowadays can be compared to that Betty Boop era. The wait is for the breakthrough.

Lnds500 wrote: CGI is really young and not advanced enough to deviate too much. We are still seeing progress, textures have gotten better, lighting has gone better and only now have we started tackling the big horses (hair animation). The original Tangled could have been that different movie, unfortunately it wasn't

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRO6EHhPr5g

This could be that breakthrough. Strangely enough they discovered it years before Tangled came out.

But it might also be a matter of taste. Many people obviously like this "doll" quality of the actual film, but I also feel that the animation is more fluent in this clip. I really wonder why most filmmakers still fall into cliche's and the standard CGI we already know. Especially when new techniques are already there.

I haven't read through this whole thread, but it's in interesting topic. I sometimes wonder if 2d animation will be looked upon much like we look at black and white now. Sure there are classics in black and white, that hold their weight because they have a great story, characters, etc. But I think the norm in 20+ years will be CGI, and to watch a 2d animation movie would be almost more for the nostalgia. I have to admit when I watch a movie like beauty and the best or lion king, or snow white - great movies, great story, great characters, and music, and all that, but it really doesn't compare to something like Tangled or Toy Story. I remember watching beauty and the best just recently, and wishing that it was CGI. My eyes have just gotten accustomed to the depth, detail, and animation that cgi brings.

Also, regarding the 'plasticy' look of CGI and Tangled, I actually thought one of the more plastic looking scenes was when they were wet in the cave. Granted because they were wet, but this really shines a spotlight on the fact they are CGI and they are sort of plastic looking:

http://disneyscreencaps.com/tangled-201 ... m-5679.jpg

on the other hands, one of the things that looks least plastic to me, and where I think Tangled made great strides was with their lips (actually the hair too). Some of the close ups of Rapunzel at the end, the little creases in the lips, and the general softness of the skin tone, to me doesn't look plastic at all.

http://disneyscreencaps.com/tangled-201 ... -10129.jpg

russds wrote:I haven't read through this whole thread, but it's in interesting topic. I sometimes wonder if 2d animation will be looked upon much like we look at black and white now. Sure there are classics in black and white, that hold their weight because they have a great story, characters, etc. But I think the norm in 20+ years will be CGI, and to watch a 2d animation movie would be almost more for the nostalgia. I have to admit when I watch a movie like beauty and the best or lion king, or snow white - great movies, great story, great characters, and music, and all that, but it really doesn't compare to something like Tangled or Toy Story. I remember watching beauty and the best just recently, and wishing that it was CGI. My eyes have just gotten accustomed to the depth, detail, and animation that cgi brings.

That's a very interesting perspective you have there, regarding 2D being akin to b&w, I've never thought about that before. But on the other hand, I think the Disney 2D classics remain very much a part of our culture-- Gen Y'er's like myself will still be introducing their children to, at the very least, the Renaissance films. Whereas today, I think very few children are exposed to b&w film, because the best, "Casablanca," "Roman Holiday," "Rashomon," what-have-you, are not meant for children, barring The Shirley Temple movies-- but then, are those as well-made as the Disney classics? In my case, I had seen "The Wizard of Oz" (sepia I know, but many believe its b&w) and classic television, but those were all short formats. I think my first b&w film was "12 Angry Men," when I was like 12, and I remember being trepidatious towards it-- I had been exposed to b&w, but not for more than 30 minutes.

I don't know if traditionally animated films will become the b&w equivalent of the animation world-- maybe is nostalgia value, but perhaps not with the same stigma. And I certainly don't agree with your thoughts on B&TB-- CGI in its current form could not, for example, portray the ballroom scene as beautifully as the traditional forms allows. However, I do agree that attitudes towards 2D are changing. It'll be very interesting to see where it leads.

I think the classics like The Little Mermaid, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King will always be more popular than any CGI film that was produced so far.

My little nephews only want to watch those films, and they seem to stand the test of time. These are 20 to 70 year old films. Snow White is still very popular, I can't name another film from the 1930's that is so popular on Blu-Ray today.

CGI films seem to age very fast, because it is still a very much evolving style. CGI films from 5 years ago look primitive, while that can't be said of, for example, Cinderella.

I think they are part of our culture and that no CGI film has made the same impression so far.

Toy Story says hello.

Also, I traveled 30 years into the future. Tangled also says hello.

SWillie! wrote:Toy Story says hello.

SWillie! wrote:Also, I traveled 30 years into the future. Tangled also says hello.

I think a lot of CG films have already found a permanent place in pop culture. I'm not counting all of them, Bolt and Meet the Robinsons are the first to come to mind that will fade away (if they ever had much of a presence to begin with), but Toy Story and Tangled will be definitely revisited for years to come in a similar way as the most popular hand-drawn DAC's are.

I enjoyed Meet the Robinsons very much and I liked the message of the story. I really didn't enjoy Chicken Little and the sooner it fades, the better and the characters were so hateful and rude. Mainly the adults.

Guys, I just found this on Tumblr! 2D ANIMATION TEST OF KING CANDY BY ERIC GOLDBERG!

ENJOY!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... TcSXHG88Hg

disneyprincess11 wrote:Guys, I just found this on Tumblr! 2D ANIMATION TEST OF KING CANDY BY ERIC GOLDBERG!

ENJOY!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... TcSXHG88Hg

That was awesome!

disneyboy20022 wrote:I enjoyed Meet the Robinsons very much and I liked the message of the story. I really didn't enjoy Chicken Little and the sooner it fades, the better and the characters were so hateful and rude. Mainly the adults.

I really enjoy Meet the Robinsons myself, I only mention it because it's just not one of those films that people are clamoring for merchandise over. I suppose the same could be said for Chicken Little, it seems largely forgotten by the studio. I enjoyed Bolt a lot but it's not one of those iconic Disney films either. But people light up at the mention of Toy Story or Tangled.

disneyprincess11 wrote:Guys, I just found this on Tumblr! 2D ANIMATION TEST OF KING CANDY BY ERIC GOLDBERG!

Awesome find, thanks for posting!

I saw this French animated feature a week ago at a film festival screening. The backgrounds are digitally painted. The characters and various foreground elements are cel-shaded CGI. This definitely gives Paperman a run for its money for quality of CG/2D hybrid. No 'traditional animation' in the sense of paper & ink - all done through computers:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5NNf1lrj2c[/youtube]

Steve Hulett wrote:For a considerable stretch of time, veteran Disney animators were doing hand-drawn tests of CG characters to demonstrate how those characters might act and move. It was faster to do a traditional pencil test than rig and model a CG version of the character and THEN animate it.

They're doing less of this kind of thing now. Half of the veteran Disney animators have been let go.

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... o-cgi.html

Sotiris wrote:

Steve Hulett wrote:For a considerable stretch of time, veteran Disney animators were doing hand-drawn tests of CG characters to demonstrate how those characters might act and move. It was faster to do a traditional pencil test than rig and model a CG version of the character and THEN animate it.

They're doing less of this kind of thing now. Half of the veteran Disney animators have been let go.

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... o-cgi.html

Meh, nothing we haven't already heard. As long as they still have some traditional handdrawn animators, I doubt Disney will be completely done with handdrawn animation. **Waves at the upcoming Mickey Mouse short's direction**

Neal wrote:I saw this French animated feature a week ago at a film festival screening. The backgrounds are digitally painted. The characters and various foreground elements are cel-shaded CGI. This definitely gives Paperman a run for its money for quality of CG/2D hybrid. No 'traditional animation' in the sense of paper & ink - all done through computers:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5NNf1lrj2c[/youtube]

Wow, that does look beautiful. Although personally I kinda like the look of Paperman more.

Neal wrote:This definitely gives Paperman a run for its money for quality of CG/2D hybrid.

What? No it doesn't, it looks like all the cel shaded stuff we've seen to date.

Kyle wrote:

Neal wrote:This definitely gives Paperman a run for its money for quality of CG/2D hybrid.

What? No it doesnt, it looks like all the cel shed stuff we've seen to date.

While I think this is some REALLY nice cel shading, I agree - it's not really anything "new". And it isn't technically a "hybrid", as it's only CG made to look like 2D. Unless I'm mistaken, there isn't any actual hand drawn animation involved here.

Also, Sotiris - nice job on the TAG blog hahah - Steve Hulett more or less just confirmed that Get A Horse will consist of new, recent animation.

I was watching The Pixar Story and there's a section of the film Bob Iger needs to watch again. In the part where the documentary is talking about Iger promoted to CEO, he goes on and on about returning to Disney's roots and bringing back about the importance of Disney's traditions and returning to hand-drawn animation. You still believe that, Bob?

I think I might have said this before, but I just find it hard to believe that John Lasseter, somebody who studied hand-drawn animation (and taught by the Nine Old Men at CalArts, no less), won two Student Academy Awards for hand-drawn animated shorts, was heavily involved in helping distribute Studio Ghibli’s films in North America, whose favourite movie is Dumbo and who began his career on The Fox and the Hound (working alongside Glen Keane) and Mickey’s Christmas Carol would want to end hand-drawn animation.