DVDizzy Forum

Sotiris wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:Rubbery-limbed, asexual characters.

Charles Solomon, a Disney historian speaks about the way animation evolved up until Snow White.
He says: "The medium of animation still lacked technical sophistication. Up until then, animated characters had largely been just these sort of rubber-limbed, Asexual creatures".

Though these movies, such as the "Silly Symphonies series" and "Betty Boop" were all needed to finally get to the point of the sophisticated Snow White. It was a process.

The difference he describes is exactly what is happening right now:

This (hopefully in the future):



Compared to this:

Marky_198 wrote:

Sotiris wrote:

Charles Solomon, a Disney historian speaks about the way animation evolved up until Snow White.
He says: "The medium of animation still lacked technical sophistication. Up until then, animated characters had largely been just these sort of rubber-limbed, Asexual creatures".

Though these movies, such as the "Silly Symphonies series" and "Betty Boop" were all needed to finally get to the point of the sophisticated Snow White. It was a process.

*cough* rotoscoping *cough*

You do know virtually every frame of Snow White is basically Marge Champion, right?

PatrickvD wrote:
*cough* rotoscoping *cough*

You do know virtually every frame of Snow White is basically Marge Champion, right?

Yes, because they learned they were unable to get it right without that. I wonder when they will learn the same thing today.

And it's as much about the character look/designs as it is about the movements (take a look at the images above).

Seriously? We're seriously doing this again? Mods, aren't there rules against posting the same exact thing twice? Or three or four or five times?

Marky_198 wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:
*cough* rotoscoping *cough*

You do know virtually every frame of Snow White is basically Marge Champion, right?

Yes, because they learned they were unable to get it right without that. I wonder when they will learn the same thing today.

What the heck does that even mean? You don't get it do you? They got to that sophisticated movement in Snow White because they rotoscoped live action footage. CGI is inherently perfect in terms of movement because it cannot go off model.

None of the things you say make sense. Just admit that you don't like CGI because that is fine, no one will care, it's your taste.. And stop acting as though CGI is some horribly inferior medium, denying the way it has revolutionized the film industry and every other visual medium. Different strokes for different folks. No one will argue your taste, but the things you say... make. no. sense.

SWillie! wrote:Seriously? We're seriously doing this again? Mods, aren't there rules against posting the same exact thing twice? Or three or four or five times?

Yeah and I'm enabling it. Sorry people. The ignorance on display is just too damn frustrating. I will back out now, I'm done.

Again.

SWillie! wrote:Seriously? We're seriously doing this again? Mods, aren't there rules against posting the same exact thing twice? Or three or four or five times?

No need to call the mods. I don't think he is breaking any rules, just let him ramble on.

There will always be people who long for the 'good old days'. The truth is, the success of TLM, BATB, and ALADDIN, I think had very little if not zero relation to hand-drawn animation.

They were good well-paced stories. They were easy to follow. They had amazing songs and music which moved the narration along without getting it in the way. As anyone can see, they can be equally successful as a live play, or as a book, or as an illustrated comic book. I am certain that if it was animated with CG, people here would be singing a different tune.

TANGLED was an okay story. WIR and BRAVE were also okay but none of them had the kick-ass songs and story that worked together as an ensemble.

But like I said, some people will stick to their guns and live in the dark ages. The truth of the matter is that there are much cheaper ways to achieve what hand-drawn animation got nowadays -- without actually hand-drawing every frame. And to those who think that a more archaic, costly and inferior method is better due to their nostalgia, let's just say that I am happy they are not driving a good company like Disney into the ground.

Welcome to 2013.

GreatGreg wrote: The truth of the matter is that there are much cheaper ways to achieve what hand-drawn animation got nowadays -- without actually hand-drawing every frame.

That sounds absurdly impossible! Didn't they do that for Winnie the Pooh or The Princess and the Frog?

GreatGreg wrote:There will always be people who long for the 'good old days'. The truth is, the success of TLM, BATB, and ALADDIN, I think had very little if not zero relation to hand-drawn animation.

They were good well-paced stories. They were easy to follow. They had amazing songs and music which moved the narration along without getting it in the way. As anyone can see, they can be equally successful as a live play, or as a book, or as an illustrated comic book. I am certain that if it was animated with CG, people here would be singing a different tune.

TANGLED was an okay story. WIR and BRAVE were also okay but none of them had the kick-ass songs and story that worked together as an ensemble.

But like I said, some people will stick to their guns and live in the dark ages. The truth of the matter is that there are much cheaper ways to achieve what hand-drawn animation got nowadays -- without actually hand-drawing every frame. And to those who think that a more archaic, costly and inferior method is better due to their nostalgia, let's just say that I am happy they are not driving a good company like Disney into the ground.

Welcome to 2013.

Don't be a hypocrite! 2D hand drawn animation will find it's way back to be successful again. Even if it's going to take years to find a good story and the right time.

PatrickvD wrote: Just admit that you don't like CGI because that is fine, no one will care, it's your taste.. .

If you call my longing for a certain quality "taste" then that's fine.

We don't have to deny the fact that most of the character movements could still use a lot of improvement, it still feels like some kind of slow motion, with a certain stiff-ness.

This is just something I notice every time and this looks and feels awkward and makes the characters look like they are not quite alive.

So my point of view is objective. 2D aside.

I just compared the arc in quality from the films before Snow White to when Snow White was made, and that this arc in CGI is hopefully just like that, in terms of quality. Not only the movements could use improvement, but also the character looks (see the pictures).

I think CGI has a lot of potential, but I feel they are a bit stuck at the moment when it comes to improving the quality. There are thousands of more opportunities and looks that can be created in CGI.

TsWade2 wrote: Don't be a hypocrite! 2D hand drawn animation will find it's way back to be successful again. Even if it's going to take years to find a good story and the right time.

Heh. If it is only successful because of a good story and the right time, then it has nothing to do with the fact that it is 2D animation, does it?

My point is that its success has nothing to do with how the story is told, but has everything to do with the story and the storytelling itself.

DisneyJedi wrote:

GreatGreg wrote: The truth of the matter is that there are much cheaper ways to achieve what hand-drawn animation got nowadays -- without actually hand-drawing every frame.

That sounds absurdly impossible! Didn't they do that for Winnie the Pooh or The Princess and the Frog?

I don't know what was done on pooh but in patf, it was done on computer. Mostly through a wacom where you actually draw on the screen. Those are expensive as fuck though.

Super Aurora wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote: That sounds absurdly impossible! Didn't they do that for Winnie the Pooh or The Princess and the Frog?

I don't know what was done on pooh but in patf, it was done on computer. Mostly through a wacom where you actually draw on the screen. Those are expensive as fuck though.

Did they literally hand draw every frame in Princess and the Frog?

GreatGreg wrote:There will always be people who long for the 'good old days'. The truth is, the success of TLM, BATB, and ALADDIN, I think had very little if not zero relation to hand-drawn animation.

Imagine if instead in Lion King Nala sang " You can stand under my umbrella " from Rhianna and instead of Simba taking the throne, everybody had a Shrek-ending dance party. Yeah it's more than just the animation style.

GreatGreg wrote: I am certain that if it was animated with CG, people here would be singing a different tune.

Doubt it. Tangled was rather successful and most people enjoyed Ralph and many people are looking forward towards Frozen.

GreatGreg wrote: TANGLED was an okay story. WIR and BRAVE were also okay but none of them had the kick-ass songs and story that worked together as an ensemble.

Tangled had a amazing story for today's time and same with Ralph. Yeah the songs could of been better and Ralph could of done without the pop music.

GreatGreg wrote: Welcome to 2013.

It's 2013 ? Wow here is me thinking that it was 1899 !

"Tangled had a amazing story for today's time"

That makes me wonder. Why is it (and you are right about it), that today (2013) has to stand for lesser quality?
What has happened to society?

What was wrong with, for example Aladdin?

Why does the Little Mermaid on Broadway need Sushi/Mobile phone jokes?

Why do Disney Princesses have to speak like, it's 7.15? If Aladdin was made today, would Jasmine be like "Isn't that like, dangerous?"

What is wrong with acting normal and truthful and timeless?
Why can't we have good stories anymore because it's 2013?
Why does everything have to be a joke nowadays?

DisneyJedi wrote:Did they literally hand draw every frame in Princess and the Frog?

There was actually some CG in it, which has been the norm at Disney since they started integrating computers into their films at various levels since the mid-80's.

From what I recall, The Princess and the Frog was supposed to be their first "paperless" film, meaning that they'd planned on creating all the hand-drawn portions with Wacom Cintiqs. Some animators apparently preferred paper, but I think the majority of it was drawn with the Cintiqs as planned (which still makes it hand-drawn by the way, even if CG elements have been thrown in). I'm not sure about Winnie the Pooh but it would make sense if the majority of it was drawn with Cintiqs as well. I'm pretty sure I've read that the Goofy short How to Hook Up Your Home Theater was "paperless" and done entirely on Cintiqs.

Super Aurora is right about the Cintiqs being expensive, as they typically run a grand just for the low-end model. I'd love to have one but have settled for a Wacom Intuos instead. It still allows me to draw in a natural manner with a stylus directly into the computer, just not directly on the screen (it moves the cursor in a way similar to a mouse on a mousepad but handles more like a pencil on paper). I actually prefer drawing directly into the computer regardless as it allows for more control, and I rarely do anything on actual paper anymore.

Marky_198 wrote:"If Aladdin was made today, would Jasmine be like "Isn't that like, dangerous?"
. . .
Why does everything have to be a joke nowadays?

Disney films have almost always had anachronistic gags in them. Your choice to pick Aladdin as an example is a curious one, as it is very early 90's from the Arsenio Hall reference (what average modern audience member under 30 gets that now?) right down to Aladdin's MC Hammer pants. The Sword in the Stone referenced a commercial that was popular at the time (which commercial that is I have no idea since I wasn't alive back then). The Jungle Book screams 60's with its music and dialog ("I'm gone, man. Solid gone!"). Most Disney films are very much a product of their own era and I don't think any of it is a bad thing. I do believe a lot of people are blind to that since they're exposed to Disney so early on their lives and don't catch what might make them dated (like that commercial reference in The Sword and the Stone) and expect nothing to ever progress beyond Walt's era. Walt's films were modern and relevant to their respective audiences, and the company needs to stay modern and relevant with its modern films for modern audiences. Living in the past and having characters say, "Gee, that's swell!" just doesn't cut it anymore.

Hmm, you do have a point there. Every film has era-related aspects.

I just wish people wouldn't accept the "it's reasonably good for 2013" attitude so easily.
I wish the overal quality of the films today was a bit higher.

About the handdrawn versus CGI issue; I actually think CGI can be great someday. The Rapunzel concept art, including that clip, looks more promising than Paperman in my opinion.

GreatGreg wrote:But like I said, some people will stick to their guns and live in the dark ages. The truth of the matter is that there are much cheaper ways to achieve what hand-drawn animation got nowadays -- without actually hand-drawing every frame. And to those who think that a more archaic, costly and inferior method is better due to their nostalgia, let's just say that I am happy they are not driving a good company like Disney into the ground.

Welcome to 2013.

GreatGreg is from the Moon. They lack oxygen there so he should be forgiven for his nonsense.

So... Which is less costly and much easier to use to do hand drawn animation, by paper or directly drawing on a tablet?