Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/News-ID510600.asp" target="_blank">7/18/06 Out with the New, In with the Old</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I coudn't agree more. Even with some of the later traditional features, you could tell that they were doing a fair portion of the work on computers, and it just didn't look right. The all CGI features also just seem to lack the warmth of the traditional films. Compare the scene where Snow White wakes up in a room full of dwarves to Sally's description of the history of Radiator Springs (one of the warmest looking CGI scenes that I can think of), and there is just no comparison. It just seems to lack the heart and soul of the traditional films. I don't know if it deals with the lighting techniques available for CGI, but not too long after traditional animation was invented they were able to figure it out, so it seems to be coming any time soon for CGI.
Originally Posted By basil fan Wow, wow, wow!! You said a mouthful, & beautifully, too. Maybe they'll actually listen to you. When I watch a good CGI film, I say, "Boy, that was a good movie!" Just like when I watch a good live-action film. But when I watch a hand-drawn film, I marvel, I delight, I am transported in a way no other medium can manage. I'd say more, but I'd be mostly repeating what you said word for word. Bravo Mouse Tales <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/mice.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/mice.html</a>
Originally Posted By rocket2722 Well written article. Although I enjoy the new CGI films, just because it is CGI does not make it a good movie. Only those movies that have a good story and are entertaining become part of my collection. This is true for the traditionally animated movies as well. I find some of the direct to video release, i.e., most movies that end with II (or 2), do not meet my criteria for a good movie. It is obviously subjective to the taste of each viewer, I just appreciated the way this topic was presented. Again, very good article.
Originally Posted By ctdsnark I agree with most of what he said,especially since it would be a crime if Disney,the company that practically turned traditional animation into an art form,allowed it to die,although John Lasseter has been assuring us that he won't let that happen.With traditional animation,many studios were using it to its full potential---my favorite non-Disney features include The Prince Of Egypt,The Iron Giant,Balto,and Cat's Can't Dance---but with CGI,Pixar seems to be the only studio putting any thought into the medium,creating stories and characters worthy of this process;most of the other studios have been creating nothing but slapdash nonsense,not even worth viewing at a dollar theater.Despite this,I still wouldn't want CGI to die,either---anymore than I wouldn't like to see the demise of stop-motion.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Jim, A very passionate and equally compelling argument, and as well written as anything you have published here. You make many points on which I find common ground as regards your and my perspective on the difference between the appeal of CG vs. hand-drawn animation. There are a few points, however, that I question in your argument. It isn't that I find fault with what you say so much as my feeling as if you haven't quite hit the target you intended. You say, "As of right now, hand-drawn animation appears to allow for a greater flexibility in visual development." I think you may be blurring the lines (no pun intended) between the process and the product, or at least between visual development and final rendering. I think you're missing the mark similarly as regards art direction or production design. For one thing, you can see for yourself an ice-berg tip of examples on the visual development of everything from "Toy Story" to "Cars" and "Shrek" to "Robots" and see that the attempts to render these stories is no less flexible than say "The Emperor's New Groove" or "Treasure Planet" (two favorites of mine that I know to also be favorites of yours.) Remember, Visual Development is the creative stage in the early production of a film in which a group of artists paint, draw, and even digitally render artwork that is intended to explore the various possibilities of how characters, settings and key moments of the story might be realized (on the understanding that film is a visual medium and our attention and interest is principally captured by what we "see" more so than what we "hear".) What was previously referred to in the Golden Age of animation as "story art" or "concept art", and which in the 80's took on the more literal label of "Visual Development", at least from what I see, is far from lacking in CG production. Nor do I find it to be less than what is found in its hand drawn counterparts in this area (e.g. I'd be hard pressed to fault Tony Fucile's exceptionally fine character design work on "The Incredibles" as compared to Tom Oreb or Ken Anderson's work on the hand-drawn features you hold out as favorites.) Ultimately, Jim, I suspect that it is not the medium that is failing you, but the intent. CG is simply a tool just like a pencil. That it is being used to render things literally, and to make us believe not so much in the soul of the character as that they "walk among us" is what I think puts the two approaches on either side of an artistic chasm. Nearly every CG animated feature works very hard to render reality - and even in an imagined world the intent is to sculpt the fantasy into looking as real as possible. Believability has become inadequate - it's not enough that we think of them as real, we must be convinced that they ARE real. The medium is being pushed in the wrong direction, in my opinion, and rather than aid in the execution of the illusion, it's being used to dispel illusion entirely. It is the attempt to make things look and feel and appear to be three-dimensional and thus of the "real world" that I believe is bothering you (and me and so many other people who miss the graphic nature of hand drawn films) most. The basic difference, as it is used now, is that CG is a photograph and traditional animation is an illustration. It's a question of preferring the rich imaginative world of a watercolor vs. a posed picture of real people in the same setting. Your personally evolved taste for all the various styles of design in the Disney features you cited - from Snow White's golden age of illustration to Hercules's graphic hipness - is mirrored in how much one can enjoy the pictures in books drawn by both Kay Nielsen and Dr. Seuss. Replace the pictures in "East of the Sun West of the Moon" or in "Oh, the Places You'll Go!" with photographs of real people, or even cleverly and beautifully staged photographs of people in costumes and masks, and I'd argue that you'd simply not have as much enjoyment because the unique human touch, the imagined rendering of something unreal and "other" is lacking in the literal nature of photographs. CG more often than not robs us of dreaming and pretending - it's as real as what we see in everyday life, even hyper-real, and therefore, for one thing, no longer mysterious. Sometimes the effect is actually creepy - as in the nightmarish attempt to take a previously "cartoony" character and render them three-dimensional in a world of humans, like the uber-ichy CGI Scooby-Doo. While there is something delightful and almost magical about ink and paint running around among us - as in Mary Poppins and Roger Rabbit, and which feels like an escape into a dream, having Rocky and Bullwinkle appear to be made of the same flesh and blood while retaining their cartoony silhouette has the feel of living in a science-future nightmare of genetic manipulation gone horribly and freakishly wrong. You talk about the delicate nature of the timing in "Emperor's New Groove" for example; something that can be realized in CG, but simply is not. You are absolutely right that the rigs are still rusty, but they're capable of getting the subtle and fluid feel you're seeking. Nobody's using it, however. This, I believe, is largely because people don't actually move like Cinderella or Jafar or Tarzan. If you look at any of those characters in their respective features (please...not in their cheapquels) you'll see that even the most realistic animated characters are pushed, and stretched, and dramatically posed in extremes that even 19th Century ham actors didn't manage - on stage or off. The same is seldom true of CG humans, or humanized animals, insects or monsters. This is a factor of not just design or hardware (aain, taken to the literal as opposed to kept in its more refined graphic form) but also of willingness and ability. Ultimatley, something so real looking actually prevents both the animator and the audience from feeling comfortable making it do truly unreal things. It isn't that CG can't - it's that reality looks very different that fantasy - particularly the fantastic made hyper-real (once more, look at CG Scooby - after at a good stiff drink, mind you - and you'll see how the attempts to cheat, dissolve, overlap, hold, anticipate and blur all seem clumsy and eerie like some unnatural phenomenon.) Animator Glen Keane, in an article that will appear here later in the week, has some very insightful thoughts and very ambitious goals that are worth reading about when it comes to CG vs pencil, so I hope you'll take a look at that when it's posted. In the interim, I think your passion, your intelligence, and your articulate writing continues to be one of the great highlights of this site and I always look forward to what you have to say, Jim. A terrific piece.
Originally Posted By kennethecoates I just ran across these stills from Rapunzel and they look great. <a href="http://characterdesign.blogspot.com/2005/11/rapunzel-character-designs.html" target="_blank">http://characterdesign.blogspo t.com/2005/11/rapunzel-character-designs.html</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros It looks like there might be a little bit of the problem from Polar Express, where the faces stetched, instead of moving like a real face, but it still looks great. It doesn't appear to be that big of an issue, but with graphics that realistic, I am a little worried about how the movements will match up.
Originally Posted By mawnck She's got a case of Ariel-face. This flick will definitely be a return to something.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros You're right! The faces don't look that similar, but the expressions are identical. HopefullyRapunzel can start the same sort of thing that Ariel started so many years ago.
Originally Posted By Jim Thanks for reading, everyone. It's nice to know I'm not alone. AFA, I always enjoy reading your thoughts on animation. You're right, I meant art direction when I wrote visual development (or, as I was thinking when I was writing, the ability to development a visual style that is unique . . . which is, still, art direction). I honestly thought CHICKEN LITTLE would change my perception of CG animation, but it didn't. There's a lot of strong animation, but the story wasn't too appealing. I am, indeed, holding out hopes for RAPUNZEL. Or at least holding my breath until ENCHANTED and FROG PRINCESS.
Originally Posted By bhb007 AFA and Jim... possibly the most articulate writers on the site... KUDOS!
