DVDizzy Forum

The Blue Umbrella short is the most realistic animation done by Pixar so far. But do they have ambitions to be even more realistic? Alvy Ray Smith may have left Pixar in the 90s, but I would assume he has kept contact with many of his former colleagues. This is what he said last year:

http://www.newstalk.com/Pixel-Pioneer:- ... -Ray-Smith

“Animators convince us that stacks of polygons (or pencil sketches in the old days) are alive and conscious, and suffer pain. Thus all that's missing are the completely realistic looking avatars, as animated characters to be driven by the actors/animators. By the way, Pixar hires animators by how well they act. The holy grail is a completely computer-generated ‘live-action’ film.”

Well, that would be interesting. And before someone starts to argue that "then one could just as well make a real live action movie", I think one should wait and see what the movie looks like first. Assuming that Smith is correct and it's a movie that Pixar is going to make not too many years into the future.

I really doubt it. And I would hope not. I hated that short. Photo realism is boring and unnecessary outside of CGI in live action movies.

Well, people also said that nobody would sit through a whole animated feature when Disney was making Snow White, while others were skeptical about a whole computer animated movie before Toy Story was released.

Obviously the story would have to justify to make it as CGI instead of live action. A city, creatures and robots as in Futurama for instance. And while the characters in Tintin did not feel 100% real, the world they lived in, a world that no longer exist, captured the time period and the atmosphere perfectly.

The point would be to make the CGI movies even more diverse, not trying to replace already existing styles.

For some reason I completely forgot about the upcoming Jungle Book while writing this. The characters are clearly CGI, but I don't know how much of the backgrounds which are virtual as well.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:"The holy grail is a completely computer-generated 'live-action' film."

Animators don't really think that, do they? Surely that can't be a widespread opinion.

The appeal of animation is its variety. There isn't just a single "holy grail." You can do anything. "Be indistinguishable from live-action" isn't an ambition that excites me very much.

And no, I'm not opposed to photo-realism if the story calls for it. But that shouldn't be "the dream."

I honestly don't know what animators in general think, but those working with software in texture, rendering and such, clearly consider it a challenge. Most styles can be done in computer animated movies these days, but realism is still a nut that hasn't been fully cracked. At least when it comes to humans and other living beings. Once that goal has been reached, it will come in handy in more than just pure animation.

In the meantime, Moana represents one step closer to CGI with a handdrawn look, from what has been mentioned so far, but it is hard to say before a trailer has been released.