The Future of 2-D Animation

[ms7479a]

Here is a good article from USA Today about the future of Disney 2-D animation. It talks a little bit about some upcoming movies. Personally I am very happy to see the return of 2-D animation. But like the article says, it doesn't really matter what medium it is in, all that matters is a good story.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-05-02-enchanted-cover_N.htm

 

[dolbyman]

I know people will rant .. but it's already posted here

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=177492

 

[primetime52]

I'm glad that they haven't given up on 2D animation. I feel like both 2D and 3D each have a place, and 3D shouldn't replace 2D completely. Personally I feel like 2D looks better for human characters and 3D better for animal characters. It's no coincidence that most CGI animated movies have primarily animal characters, while we have seen VERY few CGI movies with human characters.

Based on the CGI technology that we have seen, I can imagine that movies like Beauty and the Beast and Pocahontas would look sub par in CGI form. Most of the CGI human characters that we have seen (who usually have small supporting roles) just don't look very realistic or convincing. I'm sure the technology will improve, though, and 10 years from now we will probably never see another 2D animation film.

 

[Mecha Figment]

I don'tk now. I think Meet the robbinsons was very well done and one of the better most recent films.

 

[CJR]

Based on the CGI technology that we have seen, I can imagine that movies like Beauty and the Beast and Pocahontas would look sub par in CGI form.

I know what you meant by that, but Phillarmagic is actually all CGI and it looks great. So Disney could have remastered their animated classics in 3D and they would have looked great, but there's no real point in doing that. I'm just pointing out that CGI is capable of more that what it's used for by using Phillarmagic as an example of that compaired to the CGI films Disney has released.

 

[Captain Hank]

I don'tk now. I think Meet the robbinsons was very well done and one of the better most recent films.

I think that was because the movie focused more on storytelling than "Oooooh, look! We're using Computers! Wow!"

I personally view hand-drawn animation as an art form, and CGI (at least so far) as a means to tell a story.

 

[Champion]

We're forgetting the biggest advantage of CGI over hand-drawn: Time.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I think that was because the movie focused more on storytelling than "Oooooh, look! We're using Computers! Wow!"

I personally view hand-drawn animation as an art form, and CGI (at least so far) as a means to tell a story.

wait til you see the fur in Ratatouille...there is an art to CG animation--but it is very expensive if you want to do it right, which is why most CG animation looks a bit hokey.

 

[Figment82]

Ratatouille looks simply amazing. I've been blown away by everything I've seen so far. They sure don't need to worry about selling me on this film.

 

[fizzle75]

As much as I love CGI, I love hand drawn animation exponentially better!
The thought that hand drawn animation is slowly going the way of the buffalo absolutely breaks my heart. As a child I loved art, in particular animation and comics, and I spent most of my waking hours drawing. One of my main inspirations was Disney's animators. I love hand drawn animation but, more specifically, I love Disney animation. Disney animators, in particular Walt's Nine Old Men, poured their heart and soul into the classics like Snow White,Bambi, Pinocchio etc., and in the process set the high water mark for animation that other animators have been trying to reach ever since. No offense to the current animators at WDFA, they definitely seem to be walking in the footsteps of their forebearers but some of the recent animation seems to be lacking some of that Disney "magic", it's still head and shoulders above everything else out there though.

There is a beauty and grace to hand drawn animation that CGI just can't touch in my opinion.
Everyone on this thread needs to RUN out to their local Barnes and Noble or Virgin Megastore and purchase the DVD Frank and Ollie or the book The Illusion Of Life by Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston. These are both amazing tools for understanding what exactly makes Disney Animation so amazing and "magical". CGI can be visually stunning but in comparison to 2D animation it tends to feel a bit sterile IMHO. Does anyone else understand what I'm getting at? There's just this intangible quality to Disney's hand drawn animation that sets it apart from everyone else and is hard to explain.

 

[Mecha Figment]

I think that was because the movie focused more on storytelling than "Oooooh, look! We're using Computers! Wow!"

I personally view hand-drawn animation as an art form, and CGI (at least so far) as a means to tell a story.

well if it is done right CGI can be extremly beautiful. And CGI can be many things not just 3D images. For example Bambi two's backgrounds were computer generated but they were physicaly painted with a computerized paint brush to create the watercolors on a computer screen canvas. ARt is so many things , I agree 2 d shouldn't die but 3d still has so much potentioal as well.

then again i'm one of the few people i know who loved atlantis and Treasure planet.

 

[LordHelmut]

I couldnt agree more with fiz75... I do have an additional thought to ponder, time has been referenced a number of times as an advantage of CGI, in art (which is really what we are talking about, not the assembly of a car for crying out loud) time is more often than not *required* to create.

How many 3-D wizzes have you heard about really learning the character they animate, really getting 'into' the character. In saving time, they have a model, select marks for the model to hit & let the computers 'fill in the gaps'.

Perhaps it is just my age, (and I'm not that old) but a coherent story, with multiple levels of meaning (for old and young alike) do not seem to be the exception rather than the rule.... Hopefully the folks behind the magic (according to the earlier liked article) are 'getting it' & will return to something of substance. (And not a direct-to-dvd 3 or 4th sequel with a plot that my 2 year old yawns and turns off in the first 5 mintues - and yes she does know the 'off' button on the remote !)

 

[primetime52]

wait til you see the fur in Ratatouille...there is an art to CG animation--but it is very expensive if you want to do it right, which is why most CG animation looks a bit hokey.

"Hokey" is the exact word I was looking for when I made my original reply. I must confess that I haven't seen Meet the Robinson's, so maybe it will prove me wrong once I do.

 

[DisneyMusician2]

Thank you! At least someone can appreciate a legacy, something that Walt really believed in. But now I want one of the glory age musicals back...here's hoping!

 

[DisneyDefenders]

Meet The Worst Disney Movie Computer Animated Movie Ever

I don'tk now. I think Meet the robbinsons was very well done and one of the better most recent films.

I'll admit that the animation was good...but besides that...how can you say that "Meet The Robinsons" was very well done!?!

They tried way way way tooooo hard to make the characters funny...and after all the effort...failed miserably.

The plot was beyond predictable.

So like I said, besides the animation being decent, and perhaps the overall message the movie sent...take the advice of the main character...when you're passing by the entrance to a theatre playing Meet The Robinsons...KEEP MOVING FORWARD and watch something else instead! :lol:

 

[Joepic]

I'll admit that the animation was good...but besides that...how can you say that "Meet The Robinsons" was very well done!?!

They tried way way way tooooo hard to make the characters funny...and after all the effort...failed miserably.

The plot was beyond predictable.

So like I said, besides the animation being decent, and perhaps the overall message the movie sent...take the advice of the main character...when you're passing by the entrance to a theatre playing Meet The Robinsons...KEEP MOVING FORWARD and watch something else instead! :lol:

I actually really liked the film, it definitely wasn't what I was expecting. I thought the plot was very well thought of and definitely took time to construct. The characters weren't trying to be funny at all in my opinion. The movie wasn't focused on humor. It is a family movie however, and I think Disney has definitely put their all into the film. I don't see how they "failed miserably"

 

[KeithVH]

Looks like Don Bluth is embracing a new 2-D project also http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=7&id=41315

 

[clarksfan95]

I didn't think Meet the Robinsons was too bad...I thought the Bowler Hat guy was one of the best villians in a long time.

As for the 2D/3D debate that'll probably never end...I prefer 2D myself, but have no issues with 3D like I used to. I would never want to see any of the Disney Features remade in 3D. In Philharmagice, they do redo Lumiere and also Aladdin and Jasmine (which they turned out okay), but I don't think I could survive one of them without seeing Glen Keanes work.

The one thing that 3D has that 2D doesn't always have is a consistent final character..it's always on model. 2D can't say the same and if you watch Beauty and the Beast, Belle is the perfect example. This is one of my favorite movies, but Belle was terrible...she was hardly ever the same in the movie. The model of her in the beginning walking through town is totally different than after she leaves town and is talking to her father in their basement. It's also different than the Belle that is cautiously walking down the West Wing corridor, which is totally different than the Belle who is cleaning the Beasts arm, which is completely different than the Belle who is running away and being chased by wolves. Amazingly most people ignore this...it's the films single major issue. It shouldn't matter how many artists draw that character, they are trained to draw that character on model...not on their personal look preference.