thelittleursula wrote: Kids today are more attracted to The Shrek style of animated flicks and parents today are also attracted to the animated Shrek style, DreamWorks style of movies. So Disney has to do this to get people on the seats. Sad, but true
Sad indeed. Because it's the only thing they know, what they get to see in cincema's etc.
As long as the creators are too scared of being innovative with styles, I'm afraid it won't change.
Funny, that is the picture I see in my head everytime Disney makes another generic CGI rubbery-limbed film.
I wonder why they keep on beating that horse that died long ago.
Funny, that is the picture I see in my head everytime Disney makes another generic CGI rubbery-limbed film.
I wonder why they keep on beating that horse that died long ago.
Atleast Disney tried something different with Paperman last year. And what were the results: The studio's 1st oscar for best animated short in 43 years! Lets hope Ron & John are onboard!
Funny, that is the picture I see in my head everytime Disney makes another generic CGI rubbery-limbed film.
I wonder why they keep on beating that horse that died long ago.
thelittleursula wrote:
DisneyEra is right. Kids today are more attracted to The Shrek style of animated flicks and parents today are also attracted to the animated Shrek style, DreamWorks style of movies. So Disney has to do this to get people on the seats. Sad, but true
Gen Z reminds me of those Evolution T-shirts were we have the guy going " Head back, we messed up " !
Taste in entertainment doesn't reflect intelligence.
Marky_198 wrote:
And you fail to see my point?
We do, can hardly help it when you don't stop talking about the same thing over and over again. He was just pointing out the tendency for these threads to devolve into these same, tired discussions which you then proceeded to revive.
So what is the solution? That the world keeps it's mouth shut and we accept everything?
People can post replies that they are tired of hearing it, but without a reason why they like the stagnating Disney style so much, there is no discussion.
thelittleursula wrote:DisneyEra is right. Kids today are more attracted to The Shrek style of animated flicks and parents today are also attracted to the animated Shrek style, DreamWorks style of movies. So Disney has to do this to get people on the seats. Sad, but true
I agree. They are going with the flow (which is hardly a compliment). Still, I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out how conventional it is, rather than shrugging and ignoring it.
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ "Elizabeth Taylor"
Katy Perry ~ "bandaid"
Meghan Trainor ~ "Still Don't Care"
DisneyEra wrote:
Atleast Disney tried something different with Paperman last year. And what were the results: The studio's 1st oscar for best animated short in 43 years! Lets hope Ron & John are onboard!
^They also have different skin tone and hair color. While the resemblance between Anna and Rapunzel is obvious, I'd say they're different enough.
And to be honest, Disney females desgined and animated within a few years time have always had similar designs simply due to the same designers and animators working on the project. Aurora and Anita have always looked like long lost sisters to me:
I don’t really see much difference between their eyes/eybrows/noses/necks. They are there, but they aren’t noteworthy differences to me. The only real thing that separates them are the hair styles and colors.
Tbh, I think what hurts Disney the most is that their heroines must be appealing and model-esque beauties. I thought maybe Elsa would turn out better since I thought she would offer a darker/more mature counterpart to Anna, but she turned out just as cutesy and appealing. It’s not as if it’s impossible to make female characters look distinct (Snow White looks very different from Cinderella, and Ariel to Pocahontas), it’s just they have no real desire to--the people in charge, I mean, I'm sure the animators wouldn't be against doing something different. It’s the same reason they are using the most conventional 3D, to appeal to a larger base by copying what’s worked once before without taking the slightest risk (Rapunzel’s Ariel face).
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ "Elizabeth Taylor"
Katy Perry ~ "bandaid"
Meghan Trainor ~ "Still Don't Care"
Disney's Divinity wrote: It’s not as if it’s impossible to make female characters look distinct (Snow White looks very different from Cinderella, and Ariel to Pocahontas),
Exactly, but 2d animation has much more possibilities. The generic CGI they are using nowadays, is limited because of very simple reasons. The materials look too real, tangible, so in order to make the characters not look like scary real human beings, they need to exaggerate the hell out of the size of the eyes. So they can't make the nuances that for example Snow White, Cinderella or Pocahontas had. Round rubber balls as heads with huge rubber balls as eyes will always look like just that. I am still waiting for the big break in CGI animation.
Marky_198 wrote:Exactly, but 2d animation has much more possibilities. The generic CGI they are using nowadays, is limited because of very simple reasons. The materials look too real, tangible, so in order to make the characters not look like scary real human beings, they need to exaggerate the hell out of the size of the eyes. So they can't make the nuances that for example Snow White, Cinderella or Pocahontas had. Round rubber balls as heads with huge rubber balls as eyes will always look like just that. I am still waiting for the big break in CGI animation.
But those are all style choices of the studios making the films, not limitations of the medium.
I'm going to piggy back on RyGuy and ask if you've seen Brave? Not only because of the characters designs, but also because of the amazing things they did when animating the characters. Nuance and charisma are absolutely attainable in CGI animation, it's just taken a bit to get there. If anything, 2D animation is MORE limited when it comes to major releases because of the time it takes to animate complex character designs. If Ursula were CGI (now, not then obviously) she would have eight tentacles instead of six. Characters would be more detailed, their clothing would have pattern... I understand what you're saying and I'm very much a fan of 2D animation but you can't discredit 3D animation because of style choices from the major animation companies.
Yes, but this is not about details and patterns, but about the character designs. While 2d characters could have human proportions, that would make look CGI characters too real and therefore they look more like Aliens, and very much alike, as they can't really change the size of the eyes, or the size of the head (bigger head means smaller eyes), so the limit is reached in both ways, because they can't get any bigger either. Anyway, they look the same to me and I'm sure there is a reason for that.
