DVDizzy Forum

Which do you prefer ?

It's hard to answer a poll like this (although I put "traditional.")

Obviously, CG has only been around for a short while, and traditional animation has been around for the greater part of a century. There are many SUPERB animation films, and some that aren't so great. CG doesn't have as big of a list to draw from, and while there are some SUPERB films made with that medium as well, there are also a bunch that are just average.

I think right now the CG films are new and exciting, and people are overlooking plot, story, character development, writing, and direction in favor of "eye candy."

When it boils down to it, though, CG and traditional animation are both ways to tell stories that might be limited by live-action. They are both animation, and both can be used to make wonderful films.

I am a huge fan of animation in general, from 30's cartoons, to anime, to the latest Pixar CG movie. I have most of the Disney Animated Classics, and most of the CG movies that have come out. Just comparing those two sets, I would probably have to give a slight edge to the DAC. If I just compared non-Pixar films to the DAC, there would be no question at all.

I voted for hand drawn animation because that is what I grew up watching. Also i just generally prefer art done on some kind of real physical surface than on a screen with a mouse. They both require talent, but I'm just more impressed with the hands on stuff.

Traditional animation, no question about it.

I think both have there high points, but I generally prefer traditional animation. CGI is great when it's perfected though (see the Final Fantasy games).

Traditional animation, hands down!

Traditional animation. Nicer to look at and somehow more 'timeless' compared to GCI fare.

I have a feeling which side will win this poll.

I don't have to say what I put, do I?

Isn't it obvious?

Traditional Animation.

CG bores me.

Traditional animation.

There hasn't been a single CGI film that's interested me.

Balto123 wrote:Traditional animation. Nicer to look at and somehow more 'timeless' compared to GCI fare.

I was considering starting a new thread about this question:

Will CGI films stand the test of time ?

I think it's ok to discuss this topic here instead of creating a new one. Anyways, I want to know what you think ? I believe Traditional Animation will stand the test of time. Snow White was released in 1937, over 70 years ago! I really hope that children and adults alike will still enjoy watching these hand-drawn Disney films for years and years to come. As Balto123 said these films are timeless.

Well, you can’t say a movie’s not timeless just because of the medium its shot in. Look at the Rankin Bass Christmas Specials. There’s not much claymation on today, and Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer and Santa Claus is Comin’ To Town don’t look much like Wallace and Gromit or Chicken Run, but every year families gather around the TV to watch them. Toy Story was a heart warming movie, and it’s still talked about more than a decade after its original release. I’m not saying a CGI movie like Happily N’Ever After will be remembered, but surely Toy Story and A Bug’s Life will.

I think it has to do with the story. If kids are still willing to watch Finding Nemo and Toy Story years from now than that means they have stood the test of time. How you tell the story doesn't matter it's weather or not your telling a good one.

Neither. I like ones that can tell a good story and entertain me. But if I have to choose, Traditional beats CGI more times than not in that category

I prefer hand-drawn animation over CGI anyday! I think how much effort they put into it doesn't matter. It's all about liking the end result. And you know what? I love lines. I love the lines and colored lines and ink that is only for hand-drawn animation. I love how they can draw those lines that keep everything in place and make the object 3-D, that's right, traditional animation already had a way of making objects look round and realistically moving. You can see it if you pay attention to it. They can even do shadows. And hand-drawing them and hand-painting them, does, of course, give them the warmer, more feeling, more alive qualities. They can put their own feelings and movements into it more, I think. But I even like traditional's mistakes! Like the colors changing slightly or lines disappearing or something forgotten about or something added that shouldn't be there, etc. And besides, line drawings will always fit more for my favorite movies which are based on fairy tales since fairy tales are associated with storybooks and illustrations. However I won't mind a CGI Rapunzel because that is trying to look like a moving painting and act hand-drawn.

I like them both, but what I don't like is this:

It just seems like everything has to be CGI today because "it's hip, and cool, and now" and it's like talking down to kids (the target audience right?) if you ask me. It's like saying they can't handle something to not be computer animated.

And that just worries me

Well I like both mediums. CGI for games of course. But for films...I grew up watching 2-D animation and I just like the fact that it all starts from a pencil and paper.

Traditional animation, no question. It bring back the nostalgia factor from my childhood, and it just plain looks better most of the time.

CG won't stand the test of time.

For instance, watch Jurassic Park today. The CGI we thought was so seamless and stellar years ago looks duller and green screened. CGI tries to constantly fool us that its real, because its 3D. But it will be dated in 5, 10, 20 years and look like Plan 9 From Outer Space compared to what we'll see in years to come.

Hand drawn doesn't attempt to fool your eyes. It allows you to remember, its animated and still be drawn into the fantasy. Rather than be distracted about small details that have nothing to do with the story. Like how many leaves are on a tree. I love Pixar, but whenever they start pointing out how many leaves were on a tree or stitches on a shirt, I feel like, "who cares?".

In all fairness, with the exception of the Gallimimus herd, the CGI in "Jurassic Park" holds up surprisingly well given it was released in 1992. The dinosaurs there look better than they did in 2005's "King Kong". In any sense, that's a different matter from 100% CGI animated movies. It's not like they could just draw a dinosaur in or always use a physical animatronic dinosaur, you need a CGI model to tell the story. It's not like there's a conceivable other option. 100% CGI animated movies, however, could be hand-drawn or animated via CGI graphics and it (theoretically) would not affect the story itself.

I prefer hand-drawn animation to CGI animation simply because it's what I was raised on. I have nothing against CGI animated movies, and I think that both forms can co-exist peacefully. Still, I see no reason why you shouldn't use CGI graphics for complicated special effects sequences.