Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan On my frequent visits to bookstores, I had been regularly looking through the book, The Art of Cars. I recieved the book as a Christmas gift, much to my delight. The book is almost entirely pencil sketches and paintings of the various settings and characters in Cars. While I loved the film, I think in retrospect this might have been the ideal film for Pixar to render as a 2-D picture. Looking through the book at the loose, bouncy sketches of the cars, compared with how they were realized in the final film, I couldn't help but imagine how rich and fun the movie would have been as 2-D instead. I was blown away by the detail of the movie, how the car surfaces varied from sleek and shiny to aged and chalky, in ways only comuputer animation can do. Every lug nut is where it should be, every highlight is in place, every reflection is perfection. But seeing the LIFE in the pencil sketches and scruffy quick studies, how the simple but very expressive black dot eyes compared to the humanistic, fully rendered doll eyes of the finished film... well, I can't help but wonder what might have been. The drawings in the book are phoenominal.
Originally Posted By basil fan Although I haven't looked at that book, I felt exactly the same after reading The Art of Finding Nemo. The pencil drawings made the CGI look utterly static & fake, IMHO. Mouse Tales <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/mice.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/mice.html</a>
