Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts Tres

[The Mom]

You might wanna try again. You're comparing a technology to an art form.

Interesting point, and one that Dreamfinder also makes. Did photography replace painting, sketching, etc? No, it just became another art medium, along with having common usage as a technology for recording history - from personal to international.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm sorry, but your analogy is bunk.

First, the public hasn't seen a good hand drawn film in a long time in the same way they saw The Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast etc. Trust me they still exist abroad, but the powers that be at the US studios think audiences will only watch CG features. I'll let Brad Bird, Andrew Stanton and Ed Catmull take it from here on that point.

So you think those films only were good because they were hand-drawn? Are they any less of a film because they used CAPS instead of traditional ink and paint methods?

Second, quality is independent of medium. Do you ever hear artists say sculpture is better than painting or drawing? No. It's all about the PEOPLE who make the film that makes it good. Just because a film is cg DOES NOT make it a better film. It is all about how good the film is.

Exactly my point... so why does it matter if you used a stylus or a pencil to create the output? Why does it even matter what tool they used when you try to judge their output?

The notion of judging a film as better because it was done with cell animation is a stupid notion... and that's what people mean when discredit films for not being drawn on pieces of paper first.

 

[The Mom]

Uhh.. the art is the output.. not the mechanism used to create it. Someone can create something that looks IDENTICAL to cell based art today using other tools.. and people would be upset with it because it's not done the way they THINK it should be made.

Craftsman ship is not the tools used - but in the OUTPUT.

Or... are you suggesting that when they introduced the multiplane camera which altered how they created the visuals of the cartoon... it stopped being the 'traditional art' it was before they changed how they photographed the cells? Because that's what we have here.. a change in HOW.. not a change in WHAT.

"traditionalists" are too huge up on the HOW.. and will ignore the output based on predisposed ideas that are based in nothing but 'its how it used to be done'.

There are always going to be people who appreciate the HOW as much as the OUTPUT.

 

[flynnibus]

Interesting point, and one that Dreamfinder also makes. Did photography replace painting, sketching, etc? No, it just became another art medium, along with having common usage as a technology for recording history - from personal to international.

So does everyone stomp their feet that movies aren't as good as they used to be because we use large format, color film now, instead of black and white film? Or that when we started using optical compositing that it no longer was 'traditional film making'??

Why does the simply the tool used to create the output (a film) make one film better or worse?

Do we say a movie sucks or not based on which brand film camera they used without ever seeing the film? Or segregate films based on which camera they used?

People are fixated on tradition rather than quality and poo on advancements based on tradition alone instead of legitimate consequences.

 

[flynnibus]

There are always going to be people who appreciate the HOW as much as the OUTPUT.

A great subject for industry accolades and peer recognition. But if you are critiquing the tools - you obviously aren't focusing on the content.

 

[flynnibus]

There are always going to be people who appreciate the HOW as much as the OUTPUT.

So if I were to use hand tools.. and create crap output... you'd still praise my output for the HOW?

Do we appreciate Prince of Egypt more than Toy Story because Katz insisted that was going to be a masterpiece if done using the traditional methods?

As a consumer of the product... its the output that matters.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

So you think those films only were good because they were hand-drawn? Are they any less of a film because they used CAPS instead of traditional ink and paint methods?



Exactly my point... so why does it matter if you used a stylus or a pencil to create the output? Why does it even matter what tool they used when you try to judge their output?

The notion of judging a film as better because it was done with cell animation is a stupid notion... and that's what people mean when discredit films for not being drawn on pieces of paper first.

I don't see where you're going with this to some degree. I didn't say those films were good solely because they were hand drawn, but good films are good films independent of their medium. I never criticized the use of CAPS or digital advancement like Cintiq tablets or suggested that hand drawn films that use those methods are in any way inferior to ink and paint. All of those films I posted had digital components. Ernest and Celestine and Adam and Dog were drawn on paper and then brought into the computer for inking. Kairos was animated and inked in a program called TVPaint. Walt Disney Animation Studios used ToonBoom Harmony for its recent 2D shorts/features (not sure if Get a Horse was made using internally developed software or an existing third party suite).

 

[The Mom]

So does everyone stomp their feet that movies aren't as good as they used to be because we use large format, color film now, instead of black and white film? Or that when we started using optical compositing that it no longer was 'traditional film making'??

Why does the simply the tool used to create the output (a film) make one film better or worse?

Do we say a movie sucks or not based on which brand film camera they used without ever seeing the film? Or segregate films based on which camera they used?

People are fixated on tradition rather than quality and poo on advancements based on tradition alone instead of legitimate consequences.

But there are people who will appreciate a film that can be enthralling without using all of the new technology.

No one is arguing that new technology shouldn't be used - just that they also like the older technology, and hate to see it never being used, and they appreciate the extra time and effort that goes into it.

All of us can purchase items that will look better than what we can produce ourselves - but many of us still appreciate and value a hand-crafted item, warts and all, because of the personal touch involved in making it.

 

[The Mom]

So if I were to use hand tools.. and create crap output... you'd still praise my output for the HOW?

Do we appreciate Prince of Egypt more than Toy Story because Katz insisted that was going to be a masterpiece if done using the traditional methods?

As a consumer of the product... its the output that matters.

I take it you don't have children.

 

[choco choco]

So you think those films only were good because they were hand-drawn? Are they any less of a film because they used CAPS instead of traditional ink and paint methods?



Exactly my point... so why does it matter if you used a stylus or a pencil to create the output? Why does it even matter what tool they used when you try to judge their output?

The notion of judging a film as better because it was done with cell animation is a stupid notion... and that's what people mean when discredit films for not being drawn on pieces of paper first.

I'm no longer sure what we're arguing here. I thought we were arguing hand-drawn animation vs. CGI.

Disney recently laid off most of its hand-drawn legends. We've lost "the quality of the line," as animators like to put it.

 

[flynnibus]

But there are people who will appreciate a film that can be enthralling without using all of the new technology.

That's a pivot... it's not about admiring the film FOR the technology.. this is about people poo'ing on a film based solely on what technology was used.

No one is arguing that new technology shouldn't be used - just that they also like the older technology, and hate to see it never being used, and they appreciate the extra time and effort that goes into it.

If we were just creating art for the sake of art... I'd appreciate that. But we're talking about something created not by grant or personal wealth.. but by a commercial entity for the purpose of exposition.

Do we think a film made in B&W,16mm, scratchy mono audio would be viable and sound business to release as a feature today? Hoping that purely based on the METHODS used... it will attract an audience? Or should we instead focus on what the actual movie is before deciding if its worth seeing?

All of us can purchase items that will look better than what we can produce ourselves - but many of us still appreciate and value a hand-crafted item, warts and all, because of the personal touch involved in making it.

When given the choice to watch a movie on a Friday night.. do you pop in Prince of Egypt over Toy Story simply because it's cell animation?

 

[Rodan75]

Here's the spoilery Japanese teaser.

This looks good if it were a video game...the animation doesn't look as good as I was expecting.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm no longer sure what we're arguing here. I thought we were arguing hand-drawn animation vs. CGI.

Not really - I'm saying that judging a film simply because of the toolset used is asinine. Its a kin to saying Disney jumped the shark by using CAPS and abandoning the previously established ways of ink and paint.

 

[flynnibus]

I take it you don't have children.

I have three thank you very much. And not one of them has ever said "Hey Dad, do you have any hand inked films we can watch tonight?"

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I'm no longer sure what we're arguing here. I thought we were arguing hand-drawn animation vs. CGI.

Disney recently laid off most of its hand-drawn legends. We've lost "the quality of the line," as animators like to put it.

The other issue is that Iger's wonderful tentpole strategy leaves little room for creative experimentation. You can't have an animated film that is a single or a double or a short that exists because it would be cool (WHERE'S LORENZO DISNEY??). There is no reason why Minkyu Lee, the director of Adam and Dog and Disney animator, couldn't have made that film at WDAS. Hell, almost all the animators who helped him on that project are/were Disney animators. It's even gotten so bad that while Ross was still in charge, Disney gave up theatrical rights to Studio Ghibli films. (I guess Disney forgot that they were on a trajectory to buy that studio, Totoro plush sells like hotcakes )

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Not really - I'm saying that judging a film simply because of the toolset used is asinine. Its a kin to saying Disney jumped the shark by using CAPS and abandoning the previously established ways of ink and paint.

Who said that in this conversation btw?

 

[flynnibus]

Who said that in this conversation btw?

When HMF makes the comment that Disney is guilty of "the abandonment of Traditional Animation." because they no longer use the 'traditional' methods and instead use newer tools.

To which I replied "Did people 'abandon' the traditional coachmaking when they switched from wood to steel?"

The quality of a animation product not about the tools used - but the film itself. A guy who has to animate something digitally is still going through all the same analysis and gauging of what looks good or not as the guy who was attempting with pencil and eraser.

 

[The Mom]

I have three thank you very much. And not one of them has ever said "Hey Dad, do you have any hand inked films we can watch tonight?"

I believe I was replying to the hand made crap statement. I have items I love because of the process that would be called hand made crap by anyone but a parent, who would understand why I value them.

 

[flynnibus]

I believe I was replying to the hand made crap statement. I have items I love because of the process that would be called hand made crap by anyone but a parent, who would understand why I value them.

... because that fits so well in the context of talking about commercial film studios and consumer products. Oh yeah.. totally the same principles and appreciations!

 

[spaceghost]

I like Five Guys fries just for the fact that they have malt vinegar right there as a condiment and I can drench the fries with it. Overall, In-N-Out's are better though. But since I live in Maine and Five Guys is nearby (finally) they get an up-vote for proximity to my stomach.