The Miscellaneous Thought Thread

[Rich T]

This animation style makes me want to commit suicide.

It’s not the animation style that bothers me (I like about 1/2 of the character designs)… it’s the way every time anyone in the trailer says “You’re not funny,” I’m thinking the same thing. Nothing in this trailer strikes me as funny, engaging, or anything but tired, forced, obnoxious, mind-numbing, etc.

But it’s just a trailer. Maybe the characters are better than they seem in this brief glimpse. I like the concept. Maybe I’ll give it a look…

When it’s free. I don’t subscribe to D+ and have no plans to.

 

[Rich T]

Used Planco 2 to make: “Casey Bros. Mine Country Tours.” In my head, they’re voiced by John Ratzenberger. Their motto: “We said ‘scenic’, not ‘smooth’.”

 

[DrAlice]

View attachment 837906View attachment 837907
Used Planco 2 to make: “Casey Bros. Mine Country Tours.” In my head, they’re voiced by John Ratzenberger. Their motto: “We said ‘scenic’, not ‘smooth’.”

I like how the engine looks scared in the first picture.

 

[Communicora]

This animation style makes me want to commit suicide.

The character design is so ugly.

 

[Phroobar]

The character design is so ugly.

It's the same cheap character design they used for Luca, Elio and Turning Red. They must be reusing assets to save money.

While the rest of the industry makes complex character designs like this

 

[Phroobar]

This animation style makes me want to commit suicide.


The way history repeats... Maybe President Trump will host his inaugural party to EPCOT!

Trump's inauguration moving indoors due to weather

Trump's inauguration will be moving indoors Monday due to the freezing weather expected in Washington, D.C.

abcnews.go.com

Don't say that in the Disney Movies, Animation, TV and Disney+ section. They will dog pile on you.

 

[Rich T]

The character design is so ugly.

I’ve seen choices I disliked more (cough*chickenlittle*)…

 

[Consumer]

I’ve seen choices I disliked more (cough*chickenlittle*)…

This is bad, but it's like Dreamworks bad.

Win or Lose is Grub Hub bad.

 

[Rich T]

This is bad, but it's like Dreamworks bad.
View attachment 837960
Win or Lose is Grub Hub bad.
View attachment 837961

See, now we’re in total subjectivity territory: The Dreamworks example I’m okay with in a comedy (And I think HTTYD, KF Panda and a few others have fantastic character designs). Chicken Little, for me, is the definition of “off-putting.” It depends on the context: I never cared for the Klasky-Csupo style, but put up with it for Rugrats and Wild Thornberries because they were great shows.

 

[truecoat]

It’s not the animation style that bothers me (I like about 1/2 of the character designs)… it’s the way every time anyone in the trailer says “You’re not funny,” I’m thinking the same thing. Nothing in this trailer strikes me as funny, engaging, or anything but tired, forced, obnoxious, mind-numbing, etc.

But it’s just a trailer. Maybe the characters are better than they seem in this brief glimpse. I like the concept. Maybe I’ll give it a look…

When it’s free. I don’t subscribe to D+ and have no plans to.

They look like Aardman characters.

 

[Phroobar]

They look like Aardman characters.

Cg versions of Aardman characters. It's not a good look. I think it is a way to save money on these simple designs.

 

[Rich T]

It's the same cheap character design they used for Luca, Elio and Turning Red. They must be reusing assets to save money.

While the rest of the industry makes complex character designs like this

In all seriousness, I would (generally) rather watch something that’s got a more cartoonish style than the more realistically styled example shown here. That image does nothing for me but make me think they look like generic stereotypical video game characters. Tons of details in costumes and hair do not automatically equal better. It just equals more detail.

But I do get your point in comparing the looks of the Pixar projects you listed. It does seem to be a trend. And, when it comes to cranking out a tv show, I have no idea whether rendering time was a factor they considered when choosing a style, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear it was.

It all comes down to story—What the heck is the story? What are the characters’ personalities? I don’t care how many arm hairs or coat buttonholes company A’s computer can render unless it matters.

Back to the TV show in question: The only thing I found interesting in the trailer was the concept of one day told from a different point of view in each episode. Character design: fine. Writing: Based on the trailer, no thanks, but hoping the actual show is better.

 

[Phroobar]

In all seriousness, I would (generally) rather watch something that’s got a more cartoonish style than the more realistically styled example shown here. That image does nothing for me but make me think they look like generic stereotypical video game characters. Tons of details in costumes and hair do not automatically equal better. It just equals more detail.

But I do get your point in comparing the looks of the Pixar projects you listed. It does seem to be a trend. And, when it comes to cranking out a tv show, I have no idea whether rendering time was a factor they considered when choosing a style, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear it was.

It all comes down to story—What the heck is the story? What are the characters’ personalities? I don’t care how many arm hairs or coat buttonholes company A’s computer can render unless it matters.

Back to the TV show in question: The only thing I found interesting in the trailer was the concept of one day told from a different point of view in each episode. Character design: fine. Writing: Based on the trailer, no thanks, but hoping the actual show is better.

Pixar used to make better looking human characters. Look at the evolution of Andy in Toy Story. Soul's humans where well done. Even Wal*E's characters had a better Pixar look. It wasn't stolen from another company.

 

[Consumer]

I don't like the new thumbs up on this website, but I do like the similar threads at the bottom of the page.

 

[Rich T]

Pixar used to make better looking human characters. Look at the evolution of Andy in Toy Story. Soul's humans where well done. Even Wal*E's characters had a better Pixar look. It wasn't stolen from another company.

I wouldn’t call it stolen… Artists and producers can hop from one studio to another and new styles can influence other artists and there’s nothing necessarilly wrong with that and I have to stop there because I have no idea how this particular show was developed….

I certainly agree Soul’s humans were great. But Pixar clearly has decided that they sometimes want to switch up the style.

And, really, the Pixar baseball game thing is just a tv show. They’re trying something different.

 

[Phroobar]

I wouldn’t call it stolen… Artists and producers can hop from one studio to another and new styles can influence other artists and there’s nothing necessarilly wrong with that and I have to stop there because I have no idea how this particular show was developed….

I certainly agree Soul’s humans were great. But Pixar clearly has decided that they sometimes want to switch up the style.

And, really, the Pixar baseball game thing is just a tv show. They’re trying something different.

They aren't trying, they are standardizing.

Even Onward could be argued as similar but I think it's more Dreamworks from a few years ago.

Coco, Up and Soul had better looking characters. It was a Pixar style.

 

[Consumer]

They aren't trying, they are standardizing.

Even Onward could be argued as similar but I think it's more Dreamworks from a few years ago.

Coco, Up and Soul had better looking characters. It was a Pixar style.

Turning Red might actually be the ugliest animated movie of all time.

 

[PiratesMansion]

They aren't trying, they are standardizing.

Even Onward could be argued as similar but I think it's more Dreamworks from a few years ago.

Coco, Up and Soul had better looking characters. It was a Pixar style.

You might call this a change in house style. I don't know that I can confidently say that there were NO characters in the older Pixar movies that resembled each other. We see this with Disney too, in the way that most of the modern princesses have had their face based off of Ariel, Anna from Frozen and Rapunzel look similar, etc.

I think what has happened is that Pixar was originally going for realism, realism, and more realism, and a few things happened:
1.) Eventually there's a point where realism gets to be a bit too much, and so the decision was made to go in a more stylized direction.
2.) Lines have been blurred between live action and animation a bit more than average in recent years ("live action Lion King," anyone?)
3.) Perhaps the artists of Pixar simply got tired of the older style and are looking to try something different? As has happened in pretty much every animation studio out there. Not all Dreamworks movies clearly look like they're from the studio that made Shrek anymore.

It's a change, but I don't know that it's definitively a bad one. And it may well swing back in the other direction in a few films if the people at Pixar decide to shift it back for aesthetic reasons or simply because it fits the story better.

 

[Disneyland/DCA]

Pixar is just doing a cg version of the CalArts style, no? The bean mouth is a dead give away

 

[Phroobar]

You might call this a change in house style. I don't know that I can confidently say that there were NO characters in the older Pixar movies that resembled each other. We see this with Disney too, in the way that most of the modern princesses have had their face based off of Ariel, Anna from Frozen and Rapunzel look similar, etc.

I think what has happened is that Pixar was originally going for realism, realism, and more realism, and a few things happened:
1.) Eventually there's a point where realism gets to be a bit too much, and so the decision was made to go in a more stylized direction.
2.) Lines have been blurred between live action and animation a bit more than average in recent years ("live action Lion King," anyone?)
3.) Perhaps the artists of Pixar simply got tired of the older style and are looking to try something different? As has happened in pretty much every animation studio out there. Not all Dreamworks movies clearly look like they're from the studio that made Shrek anymore.

It's a change, but I don't know that it's definitively a bad one. And it may well swing back in the other direction in a few films if the people at Pixar decide to shift it back for aesthetic reasons or simply because it fits the story better.

Disney has always had the same basic style since Little Mermaid when it comes to Princesses but it has evolved. When they went CG with Tangled, the adorkable look creped in with the big eyes.

This was a better look:

Then they went minimalistic for Pocahontas and Mulan.