DVDizzy Forum

JRawkSteady wrote:Although it takes a lot of talent to create a CGI, once teh characters and backgrounds are created, it's just point and click from there...believe me, I know. I use it every day.

Still, you gotta admit that it takes more than just pointing and clicking to make a character move around in a way to make it feel like it's a living, breathing, thinking personality. You have to know how to act and project that onto your character somehow in the way you program it to move. Some works have been more successful in that department than others.

For example, how do you make the performance sincere, how do you give them spirit? By being an artist and knowing how to animate well. Anyone could point and click, but it's a very refined skill to know what poses would work best and what to tweak and such. Once again, I find a direct comparison between CGI and stop-motion. Anyone could make stuff move around in front of a camera one frame at a time, but it takes a special gift to turn it into a performance.

And what Lars Vermundsberget said about the industry in the early days is very true.

Once Walt told the story that when he was on one of his train rides to California, a fellow traveler tried to make some small talk with him by asking him what he did for a living. Walt replied that he was in the film business. His fellow traveler seemed impressed until Walt revealed that he made animated cartoons. Walt said that the gentlemen looked at him as if he was a sweeper of latrines! He said he carried that conversation in his mind for a long time and used it as an incentive to gain respect for the fledgling animation industry.

Still, I feel the industry doesn't get the respect it deserves.

Handdrawn animation is not dead. It never will die. Even at Disney it's not dead - although it only lives on in the sequels. But who knows, perhaps DisneyToon Australia will one day be given time and budget to make an original feature length handdrawn animated movie? (Especially if a few of Disney's CGI movies flop).

GCI is still a new technology. It's really only been in the mainstream for 10 years or so. Look at the changes in traditional handrawn animation between 1910 and 1920, or better yet get out your Mickey Mouse Walt Disney Treasures and look at the changes in Mickey's cartoon shorts between 1928 and 1938. There's a big difference.

Now get out your Toy Story DVD and compare it to Finding Nemo or The Incredibles. Again, there's a big difference. The art form has noticably moved on.

I hate to say it, but with the poor handdrawn/CGI background compositing on newer handdrawn animated films such as Treasure Planet or Dreamworks' Sinbad, it actually looks like handdrawn animation took steps backwards over the past 10 years.

Even ignoring the CGI effect, compare The Lion King from 1994 to Brother Bear in 2003 - that's 19 years - and there is no really evolution or difference in style.

I'm not saying I prefer CGI, but you can see why audiences (on the whole) prefer CGI. They go, expecting to see something new. With an animated film, they don't expect to see something new. This pre-expectation even affects how they see the story of a film. Disney films are always critisised for being "the same old formula", even though, apart from perhaps Brother Bear, the last few Disney animated films have been dramatically "off-formula", while films like Shrek 2 (a copy of Shrek 1) or Pixar's Finding Nemo (a Pixar's greatest hits) are seen as "original". It's all to do with expectations and perception, more than the actual reality of the facts.

I think Disney maybe right to give 2D a rest. The last few Disney films (including Brother Bear, by far the highest grossing) have underperformed in comparison to other animated films released at the same time (always look at the bigger picture).

My hope is 2D isn't dead at Disney. My hope is one day DisneyToon Australia will be given the time and budget to make original, fully animated films in the Disney tradition. Then we'll have two centres of excellence - Australia for handdrawn animation and America for (hopefully) cutting edge CGI animation. That way, everybody wins.

Believe what I want? What I say about Animation is true. It does not take much time to do CGI, unlike Tranitisonal Animation. The CGI People do not do real animation. I just talked to some Disney people today, and it is true, they don't do much. And it is not real Animation. The computer does most of it, compair to the Traitisnoal Animation.

They are a sad discrase to the real Animators. They just scan in some drawings and do a little after that, not much. The rest the computer does. The just add color and punch some numbers to what they want for the drawing, and way latter they and two other people recorad some voices and sound., the main part, gone. and the other so called big part, well the computer does it. I can tell you more if you want more facts. I is true, not an opinoin!!

I will be and am sad to see 2D animated films come to close, but I do admire and enjoy 3D and computer generated CGI animation as well.

That said I wish "Home on the Range" wasn't the last 2D animation. I would like another musical please, Disney.

Last 2d, where are you peopple getting this crap from. Disney is still doing Traitisonal Animation. What ever gave you the idea that they were not? Will if they are, I say Pixar is going down. I want them to go out of buesness. I hate what they are doing to Disney Feature Animation. I don't admire 3d CGI stuff. I won't even call it aninmation. It is not.

DisneyHollywood wrote:Last 2d, where are you peopple getting this crap from. Disney is still doing Traitisonal Animation. What ever gave you the idea that they were not?

The fact that they closed down the studio, sold off all the animating desks and equipment and officially announced that they were doing so. The only Disney films in the works are CGI.

[quote="ichabodThe fact that they closed down the studio, sold off all the animating desks and equipment and officially announced that they were doing so. The only Disney films in the works are CGI.[/quote]

Wow. I didn't realise they'd gone that far.

No there not. They did not say or do that. You are missinforming people. Disney Shut down their Animation Studio in Flordia down a 2years ago or so. Thats it. Nothing more.

DisneyHollywood wrote:No there not. They did not say or do that. You are missinforming people. Disney Shut down their Animation Studio in Flordia down a 2years ago or so. Thats it. Nothing more.

Nope. Only their cheapquel department is at work. Eisner even called the 2D art "dead".

Chicken Little 2005 - CGI



A Day With Wilbur Robinson 2006 - CGI



American Dog 2006 - CGI



Rapunzel 2007 - CGI



Fraidy Cat 2008 - CGI



CGI ahead, ahoy!

Arr. The screen of Rapunzel isn't working! I was all worked up about seeing a picture!

Edit: Er, never mind. Now that I saw the pic, she looks ugly. Kinda disappointing for a future Disney princess.

DisneyHollywood wrote:No there not. They did not say or do that. You are missinforming people. Disney Shut down their Animation Studio in Flordia down a 2years ago or so. Thats it. Nothing more.

http://www.answers.com/topic/walt-disne ... -animation

Disney converted WDFA into an all-CGI studio, performing more layoffs and selling off its traditional animation equipment. As of 2004, WDFA's last traditional film was Home on the Range. Its first all-computer animated film will be Chicken Little in 2005. Disney continues to release lower-budget traditional films produced by the DisneyToons studio in Australia.

Seems like your friends at Disney don't know much!

I whole-heartedly agree with the posts made by 2099net.

DisneyHollywood, I think your heart's in the right place when it comes to traditional vs. CGI, but I'm afraid your list of "facts" don't back up your opinions.

By the way, have you ever seen Bill Kroyer's "Technological Threat?" That would be right up your alley.

* * *

I think I've said about all I can say here. We all have our opinions, and that's great; we should all be individuals and speak our minds. We also have the right to be ignorant, but that's a less admiral trait among humans.

I follow this to a certain point, but now I think I'll basically write off this "DisneyHollywood" as a "troll"...

And how do you come up with "Traitisonal" Animation?

Sorry.

DisneyHollywood wrote:Last 2d, where are you peopple getting this crap from. Disney is still doing Traitisonal Animation. What ever gave you the idea that they were not? Will if they are, I say Pixar is going down. I want them to go out of buesness. I hate what they are doing to Disney Feature Animation. I don't admire 3d CGI stuff. I won't even call it aninmation. It is not.

Okay, this message is full of errors. Here's a correct version:
Where are you people getting this crap from? Disney is still doing traditional animation. What ever gave you the idea that they were not? Well, if they are, I say Pixar is going down. I want them to go out of business. I hate what they are doing to Disney feature animation. I don't admire 3D CGI stuff. I won't even call it animation. It is not.

I completely disagree. Disney has announced that Brother Bear is their last "traitisonal" animated piece except for the DTV rubbish.

You really don't want Pixar to go out of business. They do not "stell" (correct word: steal)everything from Disney. I think Disney stole everything from them. Disney was starting to fall apart in the mid-1990s now that their "fab four" period was over. Then they found a little company named Pixar and they worked together to create Toy Story. Even the only Pixar sequel has some real value. When Disney makes a sequel by itself, it turns out to be rubbish.

DisneyHollywood wrote:Last 2d, where are you peopple getting this crap from. Disney is still doing Traitisonal Animation. What ever gave you the idea that they were not? Will if they are, I say Pixar is going down. I want them to go out of buesness. I hate what they are doing to Disney Feature Animation. I don't admire 3d CGI stuff. I won't even call it aninmation. It is not

If you actually think Pixar is going down and out of buisness then you must be very confused because as you can see they have been doing very well. I may like 2D animation alot more than CGI but I still think that Pixar has done an awesome job with the movies and shorts they have made. 2D is indeed long gone. Home on the Range was their last 2D animated film. I'm not happy with this decision but I don't see what Pixar has to do with it.

Wasn't it Shrek who started the CGI Animation?

No, Toy Story was the movie that started it, I think. It came out in 1996 and Shrek came in 2000.

You people are wrong. Eisner is lieing. Traitisonal Animation is not dead. You are missinforming people. They did not shut down the Traitisonbal Animation. It was only done in Flordia. Please read the facts.

DisneyHollywood wrote:You people are wrong. Eisner is lieing. Traitisonal Animation is not dead. You are missinforming people. They did not shut down the Traitisonbal Animation. It was only done in Flordia. Please read the facts.

DisneyHollywood!

Corrected version (and DisneyKid, if there are errors in my corrected version, you are free to correct it!)

You people are wrong. Eisner is lying. Traditional animation is notdead. You are misinforming people. They did not shut down the traditional animation. It was only done in Florida. Please read the facts.

MY REPLY TO ABOVE
Fine, if you're not willing to listen to us, then go ahead. But really-Eisner is the head of Disney at the moment. So it's a minor's word vs. Eisner's. That's really stupid.