Disney’s Mufasa - the lion king

[Disney Irish]

If you're talking about the animals in Wicked, because they feature in a live-action film and are designed to look live-action. You'd be hardpressed to find anyone who would discuss them as animated characters, even if they technically are that.

I acknowledge that Mufasa is different in that it is entirely CG even if it strives to look live-action. Whether it's technically animated or not matters much less to me, personally, than the way it looks. I realise others disagree.

I'm somewhat surprised you're asking about Pixar. The distinction I've been drawing (!) is an aesthetic one, and since Pixar films emphatically don't try to look photo-realistic, I perceive them immediately as what they are: animated.

Got it, so they have to look more like cartoons to be considered "animation" to you even if you acknowledge CG is animation.

The reason why I asked about Pixar is because over the years they have strived to make their CG look less plastic and look more realistic, especially the worlds. Perfect example is the Toy Story franchise, where you can see the progression of their CG. Their software quite literally makes photo realistic CG. So I was trying to find where you draw the line in your distinction of what is and is not considered "animation" in the world of CG.

An example of Pixar software (Renderman) photo realistic CG -

 

[LittleBuford]

The reason why I asked about Pixar is because over the years they have strived to make their CG look less plastic and look more realistic, especially the worlds.

Every Pixar movie I can think of looks highly stylised, even if certain elements (trees, etc.) are now more lifelike than they used to be. Animated movies derive much of their charm from their stylisation; there's a reason Polar Express was so visually disturbing.

 

[Disney Irish]

Every Pixar movie I can think of looks highly stylised, even if certain elements (trees, etc.) are now more lifelike than they used to. Animated movies derive much of their charm from their stylisation; there's a reason Polar Express was so visually disturbing.

Its slightly different with Polar Express since that uses Motion Capture animation versus completely generated from scratch CG animation like Pixar. But personally I like Polar Express, I never really run into any issues with the visuals but any I do I caulk up to the early days of MoCap. If done today it would look 100x better, just look at Avatar with their usage of MoCap and how much better the Na'vi looked and that was just 5 years after Polar Express.

 

[Farerb]

WALL-E is more live action than The Lion King (2019) and Mufasa. Dinosaur as well.

 

[Disney Irish]

Every Pixar movie I can think of looks highly stylised, even if certain elements (trees, etc.) are now more lifelike than they used to.

Also just because you don't notice it doesn't mean the visuals aren't striving to be lifelike, for example much of the hair and texture of clothing in Pixar films are meant to look lifelike.

 

[LittleBuford]

Its slightly different with Polar Express since that uses Motion Capture animation versus completely generated from scratch CG animation like Pixar. But personally I like Polar Express, I never really run into any issues with the visuals but any I do I caulk up to the early days of MoCap. If done today it would look 100x better, just look at Avatar with their usage of MoCap and how much better the Na'vi looked and that was just 5 years after Polar Express.

It’s a matter of personal preference. I would hate to see the photorealistic aesthetic become common in animated films. As a technique for achieving what would be impossible or impracticable in live-action, I’m fine with it, but I want animated films to continue looking stylised. (If I had my way, Disney would leave computer animation entirely to Pixar and go back to hand-drawn animation, which to my mind is unmatchably charming.)

 

[LittleBuford]

Also just because you don't notice it doesn't mean the visuals aren't striving to be lifelike, for example much of the hair and texture of clothing in Pixar films are meant to look lifelike.

When did I say I didn't notice? On the contrary, I acknowledged that certain elements do strive for more lifelikeness. That doesn’t change the fact that the overall aesthetic is extremely and deliberately stylised. Just look at the facial features of any of the human characters.

 

[Disney Irish]

It’s a matter of personal preference. I would hate to see the photorealistic aesthetic become common in animated films. As a technique for achieving what would be impossible or impracticable in live-action, I’m fine with it, but I want animated films to continue looking stylised.

I think much of the industry will continue to push the boundary in terms of photo realistic CG, its why you see movies like Lion King, and even Avatar. I do think there will be a full photo realistic animated movie at some point in the near future.

I think there will be a place for both.

(If I had my way, Disney would leave computer animation entirely to Pixar and go back to hand-drawn animation, which to my mind is unmatchably charming.)

I think there are a few here that would agree with you.

 

[Disney Irish]

When did I say I didn't notice? On the contrary, I acknowledged that certain elements do strive for more lifelikeness. That doesn’t change the fact that the overall aesthetic is extremely and deliberately stylised. Just look at the facial features of any of the human characters.

You're missing the point, but its fine. You want the "cartoon" look to your animation, which is fine. As you said it personal preference.

 

[LittleBuford]

I do think there will be a full photo realistic animated movie at some point in the near future.

Isn't Mufasa that already? If you're referring to movies with human characters, I'm sure you're right, though it's not something I'm looking forward to, and I'm sure it will raise ethical and professional concerns in terms of what such technology means for real-life actors.

 

[LittleBuford]

You're missing the point, but its fine. You want the "cartoon" look to your animation, which is fine. As you said it personal preference.

I'm the one whose point you responded to, so I'm not sure how I can be accused of missing it! In case there's any confusion:

• I fully acknowledge that Pixar animation contains some lifelike elements. I mentioned trees, you mentioned hair and clothing textures. No argument from me there.
• The overall aesthetic of Pixar films does not strive for lifelikeness; it is decidedly stylised. This is simply an observable fact.
• I personally prefer the stylised aesthetic that Pixar (together with Disney) currently uses and would be disappointed to see a shift towards a more photorealistic approach. This is a personal opinion and not something I expect others to agree with.

No point missed on my part as far as I can see. And since I don't think I can make my position any clearer (I'm already repeating myself), I won't be continuing this particular exchange with you.

 

[Disney Irish]

Isn't Mufasa that already? If you're referring to movies with human characters, I'm sure you're right, though it's not something I'm looking forward to, and I'm sure it will raise ethical and professional concerns in terms of what such technology means for real-life actors.

Yes I'm talking about with human characters. And I mean we've already moved passed those concerns you raised with MoCap movies, so I don't think there is going to be much more concern with that.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm the one whose point you responded to, so I'm not sure how I can be accused of missing it! In case there's any confusion:

• I fully acknowledge that Pixar animation contains some lifelike elements. I mentioned trees, you mentioned hair and clothing textures. No argument from me there.
• The overall aesthetic of Pixar films does not strive for lifelikeness; it is decidedly stylised. This is simply an observable fact.
• I personally prefer the stylised aesthetic that Pixar (together with Disney) currently uses and would be disappointed to see a shift towards a more photorealistic approach. This is a personal opinion and not something I expect others to agree with.

No point missed on my part as far as I can see. And since I don't think I can make my position any clearer (I'm already repeating myself), I won't be continuing this particular exchange with you.

The point that I feel you're missing, or rather maybe not willing to acknowledge, is that Pixar actually does try to make their movies lifelike and photorealistic. Even if you still think its "stylized" in a way to be "animated" to you they are pushing each of their films in this direction. It goes way beyond just some hair and textures, which is just an example I used for discussion purposes. Its why they spend huge amounts of money on their Renderman software on every movie, like the example I provided previously.

But we can move on from this. You just have a preference and that is fine.

 

[LittleBuford]

They say a picture can speak a thousand words:

And that really is it from me.

 

[erasure fan1]

I would hate to see the photorealistic aesthetic become common in animated films.

I don't think you have anything to worry about. I do think we will see a photorealistic animated film in the future. I don't see it ever being the norm. Kids will always prefer the cartoon look with big expressive eyes.

(If I had my way, Disney would leave computer animation entirely to Pixar and go back to hand-drawn animation, which to my mind is unmatchably charming.)

I completely agree. Of course I don't see hand drawn coming back. Maybe like LPs in 20yrs it will come back into fashion. But yea, having two studios, doing different things would be good.