Originally Posted By crapshoot At a Pixar-WDI meeting today in Glendale, John Lasseter was asked if he would ever have 2D Animation revived. His response was an Emphatic YES. That is, if a story being developed would play better as 2D instead of CGI, then by all means, yes. NICE!
Originally Posted By Blackie Pueblo That is awesome! BUUUT... will the audience still see hand drawn animation films? I would love to believe so, but I don't know if people really would pay to see hand drawn anymore. Please tell me I'm wrong. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <a href="http://www.newlineagefilms.com" target="_blank">http://www.newlineagefilms.com</a>
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA You're wrong. Seriously, though, to me it's not the medium. A movie like 'Beauty and Beast' could have been done with stick puppets and it would still work. The story is strong, the characters are realized, and the music is outstanding.
Originally Posted By basil fan I'll go. Tarzan's Dictionary <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/etc/tarmangani.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ etc/tarmangani.html</a>
Originally Posted By basil fan >Seriously, though, to me it's not the medium. I can see how that would be totally true for a film buff, but I've never been one. I am, however, an animation buff. The medeum is, well, not quite everything, but pretty close. If the animation looks right, it's already halfway there for me. Tarzan's Dictionary <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/etc/tarmangani.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ etc/tarmangani.html</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think "The Polar Express" would have been much better with hand-drawn animation. I think it had the possibility of becoming a Christmas classic, but the ultra-realistic animation produced by putting motion sensors on people's faces to capture movement made them all look a little like zombies. The realistic motion may have been there, but the eyes were blank. It was a strangely disturbing film.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle I would definitely pay to see 2D ... possibly more so than a 3D picture, but it would depend on the plot of the movie. It's a strange thing that I can't quite articulate, but 3D animated movies seem to be a lot more about "humour", I guess because that's what the first really popular 3D animated movies, like Toy Story and Shrek, were largely about. Not that I have a problem with humour, but not if it comes at the sake of sentimentality. Disney movies for me have always been much more about heart than just making me laugh.
Originally Posted By electra great news. I think we may still see more cgi films coming out from them & less 2d films(maybe one every 2 years) but thats ok, its better than nothing at all. Now they gotta get going on burning all the crappy sequels...
Originally Posted By Blackie Pueblo Liberty Belle, I couldn't agree with you more. Polar Express had potential but the eyes kind of freaked me out. It almost looked like there was nothing behind those eyes. And they moved kind of stiff. But why is it that the Disney hand drawn characters have eyes that really show emotion? Is it a drawing tehnique? And electra... here here on the crapppy sequels. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <a href="http://www.newlineagefilms.com" target="_blank">http://www.newlineagefilms.com</a>
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<But why is it that the Disney hand drawn characters have eyes that really show emotion? Is it a drawing tehnique?>> Because, computer geeks don't necessarily make good animators.
Originally Posted By basil fan Because the Disney animators were artists who honed their art until it was superb, & then honed it some more. I don't think the CGI filmmakers are as much about art as they are about graphics. Create a program that makes hair move realistically (they succeeded), but never mind making that hair move artistically (check out Pocahontas). It's not that a computer can't do it, it's just that we'll never know until somebody actually wants to do it. Did anybody watch the making of bonus features on The Incredibles? When it was suggested to the animators that they watch Jungle Book to help them with character animation, they sneered at viewing an "old school" film. Now, Jungle Book has some of the finest character animation you'll ever see, period. But no one with an attitude like that will progress as an artist. IMHO, of course. Scooby-Doo Glitches <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/glitch/sdglitch.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ glitch/sdglitch.html</a>
Originally Posted By Jim I think CGI animators are artists. After all, look at the greats who have moved from hand-drawn animation to CGI. That said, I think there is a lot of CGI animation that can't hold a candle to WDFA traditional. As far as I'm concerned, nothing from Pixar can hold a candle to the Beast's transformation scene, Jim Hawkins from Treasure Planet, the John Smith/Pocahontas first meet scene, or Tarzan swinging through the vines. I think the computer has the potential to go there (and given enough time, I think WDFA would get there because they made great strides with the technical side of things in CHICKEN LITTLE). I think if Walt Disney did TOY STORY, he would not have been content until Andy, Sid, and the other humans moved and looked like real humans and not marionettes (or of Fiona from SHREK, like marionettes with drunken puppeteers). Look how insistant he was with SNOW WHITE (and look at the growth between Snow White and Persephone in GODESS OF SPRING). I still think the artist of WDFA are still the best animators on the planet . . . at least the best employed in making movies.
Originally Posted By ctdsnark Top-quality animation in any medium---2D,CGI,stop-motion,what have you---is certainly a plus,but what it all eventually comes down to is that if you don't have interesting characters in a good story,you've got nothing.
