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

[Lnds500]

I am creating this topic simply because this discussion derails every other animation thread there is on this forum ("the death of hand-drawn animation" / Princess and the Frog vs. Tangled / the future of animation / new animation techniques vs. old ones / future of animation).

I will keep it as vague as possible. Feel free to join in the discussion, post (old) news and debate.

UPDATE: 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.

[Mandalorian]

I'm loving where CG animation is going today, but I desperately wish there were more American 2D animated films. I grew up drawing, and still do from time to time, and I'm currently studying Animation and Graphic Design in school. Sad to see the lack of equality between the two though. Studio Ghibli films getting US theatrical releases is a great thing though. I was happy that Arrietty got such a wide release, but guess what....I didn't even have time to catch it.

[SquidPuppet]

I enjoy both equally.

And I really like it when the two techniques are combined in the same work, like in Archer. It looks really weird, but it works for me.

[zoodermin]

I like both formats, both have strengths on their own. The thing I don't like is that 2D is almost non-existent nowadays. I like what John Lasseter has done with the Disney Studio and I like the fact that he brought back 2D to the studio and is open for 2D animation features. I think 2D is an essential part of the studio's identity. With that being said, I loved Tangled and I'm really looking forward to Wreck-It Ralph which looks great. Let's hope other good 2D films will follow in the future.

[bluearth]

I think part of the allure of Hayao Miyazaki's movies is that they are hand drawn.

I think some movies would be better in CG and some better hand drawn

Movies that would fair better as CG are brighter, cheery tales like Toy Story or Cars.

Movies that would fair better as hand drawn are the "darker", more campy animation classics like The Land Before Time and American Tail.

I think Kung Fu Panda would be better as hand drawn, for instance

[zoodermin]

And regarding The Princess and the Frog vs. Tangled battle, I loved both films but if I have to choose one, it would be Tangled not because it was CGI but I because I liked the story better.

[dallywhitty]

I don't think I prefer one over the other. Once you've seen Toy Story as it is, it's difficult to imagine it hand-drawn, just as it's difficult to imagine Snow White and the Seven Dwarves in CGI. However, it would be nice to see more hand-drawn films released today.

[yumny]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

I don't think I prefer one over the other. Once you've seen Toy Story as it is, it's difficult to imagine it hand-drawn, just as it's difficult to imagine Snow White and the Seven Dwarves in CGI. However, it would be nice to see more hand-drawn films released today.

Agreed, with the techniques that are available today, any 2D handdrawn feature looks breathtaking. I'm in love with the look of movies like Ponyo and Winnie the Pooh.

[PuppyJonathan]

Originally Posted by yumny

Agreed, with the techniques that are available today, any 2D handdrawn feature looks breathtaking. I'm in love with the look of movies like Ponyo and Winnie the Pooh.

Especially now with blu-ray, watching Beauty and the Beast in HD just took my breath away

[zafisher94]

i enjoy both mediums very much. It's all about the story and style the movie should have. I do feel that there is a warmth about traditional animation that can't be replicated. Personally, I feel Disney should use the Disney Feature Animation studio for traditional animation and use the Disney/Pixar banner for CGI films. Both do their respective mediums better than anyone else, and it would give each brand it's own unique qualities.

However, since that's not likely to happen anytime soon, I should say I have absolutely no problems with Disney Feature Animation doing CGI films. I loved Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, and Tangled (Chicken Little was eh). And Tangled also proved that Disney can make great, classic musicals in CGI. My larger issue is the fact that no hand drawn features are coming from Disney. They have their Disney/Pixar banner that is exclusively CGI, and the majority of releases from Feature Animation have now been CGI also. There needs to be a balance. The upcoming film Frozen sounds like the perfect candidate for traditional animation, but instead they're making it CGI. Also the fact that they're working on a new Mr. Toad movie in CGI kind of annoys me. But then again, so does the fact that they're making a live action remake of Sleeping Beauty titled Maleficent and a movie about Disneyland coming to life.

It's a real shame that these empty suits view The Princess and the Frog and Winnie-the-Pooh (which both made a profit, the former specifically making a nice one) as "lackluster performers" due to them being traditionally animated. The Princess and the Frog was a fantastic film, and the best Disney film of the 2000's as far as i'm concerned. I thought it was going to start up the next Disney renaissance. The film was not properly marketed at all. Also, all of the controversy about the most stupid stuff also damaged the films appeal. And Winnie-the-Pooh was a bad idea for the get-go. While the film was very good, better than I expected in fact, it was a poor choice as the follow up hand drawn feature. Forget the fact that it was criminally under marketed, and the fact that they put it up against the last HP movie which everyone knew would slaughter everything else. The fact is that Winnie-the-Pooh is a much harder sell for the majority of people, especially since the film was so short.

[MykeHavoc]

I enjoy both for their individual merits. But even "hand-drawn" animation is done in a computer today, so technically, it's all CG. The difference is in the texture i.e. 2D and 3D.

[DavePS3]

I love all animation... hand drawn, DG, Stop-motion etc. It's the art work itself that I get a kick out of. All the detail work, the way the shots are handled, angles, lighting and color/shadows. It's the same as in real films but in animation you don't have natural environments to take advantage of... you make your own world so to me it's all good but I will say this; whenever I see a new CG title come out, I look into it and will usually grab it whereas I don't pick up every Cel-type title.

[Monterey Jack]

I dislike using the term "2D" to refer to hand-drawn animated features, as CGI features aren't in "3D" unless they're specifically released that way.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

I dislike using the term "2D" to refer to hand-drawn animated features, as CGI features aren't in "3D" unless they're specifically released that way.

Correct. Every time I see someone refer to hand-drawn animation as "2-D", it makes me want to turn the tables and call CGI "click and drag".

[Pondosinatra]

They both suck.

Stop motion FTW!

[toddly6666]

Hand-drawn (aka 2D) animation looks better than CG animation. I'll take a Miyazaki film over any Pixar film any day. I do like Pixar films and I did love Tangled, but I can't help thinking how the CG animated characters look like plastic toys - movie characters that look exactly like their toys aka a great strategy to sell toys. In other words, most CG animated films look like the Toy Story films.

The best part of Kung Fu Panda was the beginning - the dream fantasy sequence that the panda character was dreaming that he was a bad-ass martial arts expert - I'm sure that was done with computers but at least it looked stylized and unique.

[yatta99]

The trouble with CG is when it turns out badly. When it's done well, Monsters Inc (for example), it really shines and makes you want more. But bad CG doesn't just turn out 'flat' or 'lifeless' like traditional animation. It becomes 'silly' or 'goofy' or 'wonky' looking and detracts even more from the film because that 'wrong' look doesn't melt into the background but rather it jumps out at you. Even worse is that you have to watch out for the Uncanny Valley when doing people. Get too close to that and all of a sudden your nice character designs all start to look a bit creepy. Recent example of this that I saw was the anime Shangri-La. It wasn't full on into the UV, but they came close enough to turn 'cute' into 'creepy' quite a few times.

[MykeHavoc]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

I dislike using the term "2D" to refer to hand-drawn animated features, as CGI features aren't in "3D" unless they're specifically released that way.

Even the animators themselves refer to it as 3D animation. Its the same logic as video games: NES side-scrollers are 2D. N64 utilized 3D.

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by zafisher94

i enjoy both mediums very much. It's all about the story and style the movie should have. I do feel that there is a warmth about traditional animation that can't be replicated. Personally, I feel Disney should use the Disney Feature Animation studio for traditional animation and use the Disney/Pixar banner for CGI films. Both do their respective mediums better than anyone else, and it would give each brand it's own unique qualities.

However, since that's not likely to happen anytime soon, I should say I have absolutely no problems with Disney Feature Animation doing CGI films. I loved Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, and Tangled (Chicken Little was eh). And Tangled also proved that Disney can make great, classic musicals in CGI. My larger issue is the fact that no hand drawn features are coming from Disney. They have their Disney/Pixar banner that is exclusively CGI, and the majority of releases from Feature Animation have now been CGI also. There needs to be a balance. The upcoming film Frozen sounds like the perfect candidate for traditional animation, but instead they're making it CGI. Also the fact that they're working on a new Mr. Toad movie in CGI kind of annoys me. But then again, so does the fact that they're making a live action remake of Sleeping Beauty titled Maleficent and a movie about Disneyland coming to life.

It's a real shame that these empty suits view The Princess and the Frog and Winnie-the-Pooh (which both made a profit, the former specifically making a nice one) as "lackluster performers" due to them being traditionally animated. The Princess and the Frog was a fantastic film, and the best Disney film of the 2000's as far as i'm concerned. I thought it was going to start up the next Disney renaissance. The film was not properly marketed at all. Also, all of the controversy about the most stupid stuff also damaged the films appeal. And Winnie-the-Pooh was a bad idea for the get-go. While the film was very good, better than I expected in fact, it was a poor choice as the follow up hand drawn feature. Forget the fact that it was criminally under marketed, and the fact that they put it up against the last HP movie which everyone knew would slaughter everything else. The fact is that Winnie-the-Pooh is a much harder sell for the majority of people, especially since the film was so short.

amen!

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

They both suck.

Stop motion FTW!

I really dislike stop motion. Kinda freaks me out.