The Animation Discussion Thread (Past, Present and Future Techniques)

[yumny]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

I think the now dated look of CGI hurts the visual experience. You can always tell what is CGI and what is not and it just doesn't fit. And in films like Treasure Planet (which is mostly CGI) it's a mess IMO

IMO Treasure Planet was okay, if you want an example of outdated CGI in a hand-drawn background I'll refer you to the "Pines of Rome" sequence in Fantasia 2000, beautiful as it is it's flawed.

[yeslek]

I think some of the 'feeling' or connection is lost when characters are CG vs Handrawn
Something about knowing a computer created a character, makes it much harder to connect or sympathise or whatever, when compare to a hand drawn one. There's so much emotion in a simple drawing that computers cant seem to imitate...yet.

that's most likely part of the reason Pixar do so well - because they are aware of this, and so they make their stories to a higher standard and/or utilise the computer more to compensate.
There will always be a sort of emotional warmth that all digital mediums loose (happened in audio with the birth of CD and DAW recording)

least that's my theory

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by yeslek

Something about knowing a computer created a character,

That's like saying a pencil created the character. The pencil/computer doesn't create. They are simply tools that help the artist to create the character.

[yumny]

If I may add to the above two comments, I think a lot of what's off putting about CGI apart from it's visual indiscrepancies is the stories.

I've been accused of bashing Dreamworks before and I won't deny that I kind of hate them. Now look at them; they have emotional and slow-paced 2D animated movies (Spirit, the Eldorado one, the Moses one) but when they made the switch to CGI.. they went full on into comedy with lots of adult humor, often slapping thin plots onto thin sceneries with thin characters and thin soundtracks.

I think that's among the reasons some of the more "dramatic" movies like HTTYD and especially Up are favored among critics; you want a movie to take it's audience seriously.

Just trying to offer a different side to the argument since the basic level of hand-drawn artistry vs computer generated imagery has been thorougly analysed by this thread already.

[kenny3001]

Wreck it Ralph doesn't creep me out as much due to the fact these are video game characters and not humans

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by Roonan

That's like saying a pencil created the character. The pencil/computer doesn't create. They are simply tools that help the artist to create the character.

the computer does a LOT more of the work than a pencil does
plus it requires less skill to programme a computer than to masterfully draw

[42041]

Originally Posted by yeslek

plus it requires less skill to programme a computer than to masterfully draw

That's crap. They're not "programming" the art (there are programmers who work on creating the tools and rendering algorithms), they're drawing/sculpting/modeling/animating it like any artist working with physical media. The process of creating good CG animation involves the same human artistry, just less human grunt work. The computer is just a dumb machine that does arithmetic very quickly. It is not creative or artistic.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by yeslek

the computer does a LOT more of the work than a pencil does
plus it requires less skill to programme a computer than to masterfully draw

I'd love to see you draw a few scenes of the same quality as Brave.

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by 42041

That's crap. They're not "programming" the art (there are programmers who work on creating the tools and rendering algorithms), they're drawing/sculpting/modeling/animating it like any artist working with physical media. The process of creating good CG animation involves the same human artistry, just less human grunt work. The computer is just a dumb machine that does arithmetic very quickly. It is not creative or artistic.

exactly my point.
Computers are less artisic as the gap between human and creation is much bigger. Humans have the skill and the pencil is the shortest and most pure way of transposing said talent to a creation. Computer can do it much quicker, yes, but the time/effort aka the love is lost and it shows

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by Monkey

I'd love to see you draw a few scenes of the same quality as Brave.

I could probably do B+W stuff, but I'm not very good with colour

and I'm not knocking the quality of CGI at all, of course CG will be of a higher quality because the computers can process 100's of times faster than a human, just the emotion (see above reply) is lost in creative works when a machine does most of the hard graft

[yumny]

Originally Posted by Monkey

I'd love to see you draw a few scenes of the same quality as Brave.

Originally Posted by yeslek

exactly my point.
Computers are less artisic as the gap between human and creation is much bigger. Humans have the skill and the pencil is the shortest and most pure way of transposing said talent to a creation. Computer can do it much quicker, yes, but the time/effort aka the love is lost and it shows

Here's the thing; both of you are right. A lot of artistry is potentially lost with CGI but that doesn't mean the option of being artistic isn't there.

Looking at Brave, it's beautifully animated and a movie of gorgeous imagery. It's because the makers wanted it to look like this; they wanted it to make a visual impression. Now compare this to your average CGI output (I'll give you.. well, eh.. any Shrek movie or Ice Age movie for example) and you'll see that the emphasis of the animation is on the characters, not on the art. Therefore, these movies look poorly made in comparison to masterpieces of artistry like Brave. It's kind of lazy because it requires less work to digitally render a background.

But to make backgrounds like in Brave with unique designs, colors and textures would take as much if note more work as rendering a 2D animated landscape (such as in Pocahontas which has the most beautiful 2D animated backgrounds IMO).

[celticmoon]

Originally Posted by yeslek

exactly my point.
Computers are less artisic as the gap between human and creation is much bigger. Humans have the skill and the pencil is the shortest and most pure way of transposing said talent to a creation. Computer can do it much quicker, yes, but the time/effort aka the love is lost and it shows

I think there is a discrepancy between what you're saying and 42041 is saying. I think when s/he's saying "it's not creative or artistic," s/he's talking about the actual computing that computer itself does (i.e. converting 1s and 0s into something that we as users can understand), not what the user is doing in the digital realm through the computer. It's just like how a pencil or paint sitting there by itself is not creative. Those things are only creative once they're in the hands of the artist, and the computer is no different. They are all merely tools that can be used to create art (I know this has already been mentioned, but you seem to be missing that point). The difference lies in where the final product manifests itself--in the physical realm or the digital realm.

As someone who has worked with both physical and digital media (and dabbled in a CGI modeling/animation course), I entirely agree with 42041. It really is not about the computer being "quicker" in terms of modelling/animation/what-have-you. Modelling/sculpting, especially, is a painstaking process that takes a lot of time. And again, like 42041 says, there is a lot of artistry and skill involved there. The computer isn't generating Woody and his hundreds of emotions all by itself. Several people are behind him. The computer does a lot of work, sure. It's computing and processing data, and allows the artist to have the modelling/animation/etc. tools at his/her disposal. BUT, it's not doing the artwork itself, which is what you seem to ultimately be implying. The artist's hand is still there, just as much as in a hand-drawn piece. It's disheartening to think that people would actually think it involves less time/effort, thus resulting in less "love" being put into the work.

Now, I can see why people say they feel that hand-drawn animation (and physical artwork in general) gives them a more "warm" impression than CGI animation (and digital artwork in general). I can't explain it myself, but sometimes I feel it too. It's all about perception and I'm sure it partially has to do with us being thrown into this increasingly digitally reliant world where so much information is thrown at us every second and we're forced to do so many things in front of a screen of some sort. A hand-drawn line evokes a simpler time and a simpler life, which in many ways is preferable. But to discredit the artistry involved in CGI animation/digital art, and giving so much credit to the computer, is ridiculous. I don't see people giving excessive credit to the pencil and ink in regards to a hand-drawn piece, so it should be the same in regards to the computer.

[yumny]

Originally Posted by celticmoon

I think there is a discrepancy between what you're saying and 42041 is saying.

[Show spoiler]I think when s/he's saying "it's not creative or artistic," s/he's talking about the actual computing that computer itself does (i.e. converting 1s and 0s into something that we as users can understand), not what the user is doing in the digital realm through the computer. It's just like how a pencil or paint sitting there by itself is not creative. Those things are only creative once they're in the hands of the artist, and the computer is no different. They are all merely tools that can be used to create art (I know this has already been mentioned, but you seem to be missing that point). The difference lies in where the final product manifests itself--in the physical realm or the digital realm.

As someone who has worked with both physical and digital media (and dabbled in a CGI modeling/animation course), I entirely agree with 42041. It really is not about the computer being "quicker" in terms of modelling/animation/what-have-you. Modelling/sculpting, especially, is a painstaking process that takes a lot of time. And again, like 42041 says, there is a lot of artistry and skill involved there. The computer isn't generating Woody and his hundreds of emotions all by itself. Several people are behind him. The computer does a lot of work, sure. It's computing and processing data, and allows the artist to have the modelling/animation/etc. tools at his/her disposal. BUT, it's not doing the artwork itself, which is what you seem to ultimately be implying. The artist's hand is still there, just as much as in a hand-drawn piece. It's disheartening to think that people would actually think it involves less time/effort, thus resulting in less "love" being put into the work.

Now, I can see why people say they feel that hand-drawn animation (and physical artwork in general) gives them a more "warm" impression than CGI animation (and digital artwork in general). I can't explain it myself, but sometimes I feel it too. It's all about perception and I'm sure it partially has to do with us being thrown into this increasingly digitally reliant world where so much information is thrown at us every second and we're forced to do so many things in front of a screen of some sort. A hand-drawn line evokes a simpler time and a simpler life, which in many ways is preferable. But to discredit the artistry involved in CGI animation/digital art, and giving so much credit to the computer, is ridiculous. I don't see people giving excessive credit to the pencil and ink in regards to a hand-drawn piece, so it should be the same in regards to the computer.

Summarized: No, the computers don't generate the images - it still requires human touch, and a computer is just as much a tool as a pencil is.

Agree.

[Lnds500]

Just an update on the purpose of the thread..

I will ask a mod to change the title of this thread to "The Animation Discussion Thread (Past, Present and Future)". Since I created this thread I didn't really want to limit it in a single discussion, but the appropriate form hadn't yet sprung to mind. I would love this to become a place when we can discuss anything animation, whether that's news, a movie, a significant person, animation in live action film, techniques, animation systems, history, CGI vs. hand-drawn - you name it.

[celticmoon]

Okay, then. I guess I'll get the ball rolling in terms of steering the discussion away from traditional vs. CGI animation.

This doesn't really have to do with animation itself, but the box office, but does anybody think we might get 5+ animated films in this year's list of domestic top 10 grossers? The Lorax has grossed over $200 million (as utterly disappointing as that film was), and Madagascar and Brave are essentially sure to do so. In the last 10 years, only 2 years had all 10 movies in the top 10 gross over $200 million each (2007 had 11 films gross $200 million+ and 2010 had exactly 10), so all three of the above are pretty safe bets for the top 10.

I think DreamWorks' Rise of the Guardians will be a sure fire hit during this holiday season and I think $200 million could be within reach. Ice Age, which is coming out soon, has a built-in audience and also has the potential to make the mark, as all three previous films adjust to over $200 million, and the last two barely missed it when considering their unadjusted grosses. Of course, with Madagascar and Brave already having come out before it, and being sandwitched between Spider-Man and The Dark Knight, some of it's potential could be squandered. Wreck-It-Ralph and Hotel Transylvania should also be pretty successful, making something around $130-150 million. But I also think both of them have big break-out potential, and I also see $200 million as a possibility for them. Out of the above four films, I think 1-2 of them will make $200 million, thus propelling it/them into the top 10.

ParaNorman and Frankenweenie should probably be considered successes if they each gross somewhere between $60-90 million, though $100 million+ would be great, especially if it would help get more stop motion films out there. For reference, Coraline (LAIKA) and Corpse Bride (Burton, but without the Disney marketing machine) made $75 million in 2009 and $53 million in 2005 respectively.

It's exciting to see animated films flourishing this year after last year's middling results. I looks like this year is more of a repeat of 2010, when 5 films made the top 10 with Toy Story 3 at #1, and Despicable Me, How To Train Your Dragon, Shrek Forever After, and Tangled in spots #7, 8, 9, and 10. Last year, no animated films made more than Tangled! Though it's somewhat understandable, as there was a significant step down in quality from 2009 and 2010, both of which were exceptionally good years overall. (Obviously, I'm generally talking about major American animation studios here.)

[Lnds500]

SIGGRAPH 2012: Going Deeper Into Paperman

[KJH6926]

Just watched Paranorman.....loved it and the stop motion animation was fantastic! I really wish we would get the adventures of mark twain on blu-ray...it is one of the most interesting claymation films i've seen.

EDIT: I found the adventures of mark twain....sold!

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-A...Blu-ray/26699/

[celticmoon]

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-f...ture-race.html

Apparently GKIDS has announced that it will be giving four films a qualifying run for Oscar consideration.

According to Cartoon Brew, that brings the number of qualifying films to 15:

The Lorax (Illumination Entertainment/Universal)
The Pirates: Band of Misfits (Aardman/Sony)
Madagascar 3 (DreamWorks Animation)
Brave (Disney/Pixar)
Ice Age: Continental Drift (Blue Sky/20th Century Fox)
ParaNorman (Laika/Focus)
Hotel Transylvania (Sony)
Frankenweenie (Disney)
Rise of the Guardians (Dreamworks Animation)
Wreck-It Ralph (Disney)
A Liar’s Autobiography: The Untrue Story of Monty Python’s Graham Chapman
Zarafa (Pathe/GKids)
The Rabbi’s Cat (TF1/GKids)
Le Tableau (Rezo/GKids)
From Up on Poppy Hill (Studio Ghibli/GKids)

Before anyone asks about Arietty, I believe it isn't eligible because it was released in Japan in 2010. I think the Oscar rules only allows a one year delay or something, between its original run and US run (not sure what the exact rule is). I remember there being a similar issue for Evangelion 1.0.

16 films need a qualifying run for there to be 5 nominations instead of 3, so it's highly likely that will happen. Considering Disney's DTV Tinkerbell movies seem to always get a qualifying run, this year's Tinkerbell movie should probably push that number to 16.

It's so great seeing GKIDS getting the rights to distribute more and more films each year. So many films that would otherwise be difficult to get a chance to see are coming through them. Last year's A Cat In Paris and Chico & Rita, both of which were nominated for Best Animated Feature, are even getting Blu-ray releases very soon! Hopefully they will continue with these Blu-ray releases for their current and future films. (Unfortunately, Mia and the Migoo was seemingly cancelled.)

Anyway, what films do you guys think will be nominated?

My guess is,

4 of the following:
The Pirates: Band of Misfits
Brave
ParaNorman
Rise of the Guardians
Wreck-It Ralph

Plus, one of the GKIDS films.

[KJH6926]

as of now favorite would have to be Paranorman but i'm still waiting to see rise of the guardians and wreck-it Ralph,which looks more than promising! And Frankenweenie of course

The Pirates: Band of Misfits
Frankenweenie
ParaNorman
Rise of the Guardians
Wreck-It Ralph

[Jacob The Great]

Paperman is not a perfect tie-in with Wreck-It Ralph, it should be released with Frankenweenie since they are both black and white.