Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

I JUST CAN'T ACCEPT CG VERSIONS OF CELL-ANIMATED CHARACTERS


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 of 24 Dick

Dick

    Producer

  • 3,966 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 1999
  • Real Name:Rick

Posted March 18 2014 - 02:54 PM

I love and have always loved cell animation. I was heartbroken when, although they made money, Disney decided to retire the process (again, this time maybe for good) after PRINCESS AND THE FROG and WINNIE THE POOH.

 

Now, we get computer generated versions of Yogi Bear and Bugs Bunny and Horton and...well, the list goes on, and will soon include the Peanuts characters.

 

Sure, CG gives them a more rounded, dimensional appearance, but it also gives them a weird, too-smooth and shiny look that somehow removes the personalities of the characters we loved as kids. Children growing up today don't mind, as they haven't the same memories and reference points we geezers have, but I still lament the loss of good hand-drawn animation in this everything-for-technology country. I love Pixar's and Dreamworks' films, but those consist of brand new stories and characters, which were born of computers. What I find offensive is all the revisionism.

 

Thank goodness for Studio Ghibli and a few other foreign studios who are keeping the process alive.



#2 of 24 Ejanss

Ejanss

    Screenwriter

  • 1,285 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2012

Posted March 18 2014 - 03:01 PM

Me, I can't accept their constantly referring to Sherman as Mr. Peabody's "adopted son"(sic).



#3 of 24 Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer

  • 14,034 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted March 18 2014 - 03:58 PM

I'm right there with you, Dick. Peanuts is especially problematic, because the holiday specials always looked like Schulz's cartoon strips brought to life. The CG robs the animation of all of the character he put into every panel. And it's odd how the faces appear hand drawn on top of the 3D models, but Charlie Brown's characteristic one curl of hair is a 3D objection.

All of the characters look a bit like Macy's Day Parade balloons that you could pop with a pin.

Edited by Adam Lenhardt, March 18 2014 - 08:56 PM.


#4 of 24 RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,418 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted March 18 2014 - 04:50 PM

Kind of makes one appreciate Bill Watterson's refusal to allow Calvin and Hobbes to be animated.


  • Stephen Brooks likes this

#5 of 24 Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,556 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted March 18 2014 - 05:18 PM

Kind of makes one appreciate Bill Watterson's refusal to allow Calvin and Hobbes to be animated.

 

Not really, since they could have hand-animated those characters and made them look fairly close to his strip. However, I do respect the guy for not turning his characters into a marketing machine, unlike Jim Davis of "Garfield" fame. I also respect that he decided to retire the characters before they became empty shells of themselves, again, unlike Jim Davis, who has milked "Garfield" so much that the strip and character are drier than Death Valley.


"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#6 of 24 RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,418 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted March 18 2014 - 08:46 PM

I also respect that he decided to retire the characters before they became empty shells of themselves, again, unlike Jim Davis, who has milked "Garfield" so much that the strip and character are drier than Death Valley.

I feel the same way about Charles Schultz and Peanuts.  It had long ceased to be funny or clever when his death finally ended it.



#7 of 24 classicmovieguy

classicmovieguy

    Screenwriter

  • 1,374 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 18 2011
  • Real Name:Byron
  • LocationAustralia

Posted March 18 2014 - 08:57 PM

The series of recent bizarro CGI sequels to "The Swan Princess" have horrified me.



"When I get a little money, I buy movies.  If there is some left over I'll attend to utilities and groceries".
 
My DVD and Blu-ray collection - http://classic-movieguy.dvdaf.com/

 


#8 of 24 Brian Dobbs

Brian Dobbs

    Supporting Actor

  • 765 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 01 2001
  • Real Name:Brian Dobbs
  • LocationMaryland

Posted March 19 2014 - 08:45 AM

I was the biggest Garfield fan.  Still have all my old books.

 

Refuse to watch the CG-crap fest they released a little while ago as movies.



#9 of 24 Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter

  • 1,503 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted March 19 2014 - 11:09 AM

Are you talking about turning 2D characters into full-fledged 3D CGI or using computers for 2D animation with high quality shading to give a more 3D appearance compared to old hand drawn 2D animation?  Two very different things.



#10 of 24 LouA

LouA

    Second Unit

  • 364 posts
  • Join Date: May 29 2012
  • Real Name:Lou Antonicello
  • LocationNew jersey

Posted March 19 2014 - 11:41 AM

 The Sherman and Peabodymovie  was pretty good, retaining the wit of the original cartoons. But the Rocky and Bullwinkle show was less about animation and more about the humor.



#11 of 24 Walter C

Walter C

    Screenwriter

  • 2,142 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2006
  • Real Name:Walter

Posted March 19 2014 - 02:20 PM

I guess Katzenberg was right, that hand-drawn animation is the thing of the past. Kids today, will probably see it the same way as most people do with black and white movies or Atari video games. I know, a bitter pill to swallow.

 

But yeah, I hate seeing classic characters turned into CG. I never thought it looked right when "The Looney Tunes Show" had Wile E Coyote and Road Runner in CG. It just did not look or feel the same, as it would have been, had it been hand-drawn.


TV Episodes Watched - 2009 (1419 ep) / 2010 (1367 ep) / 2011 (1509 ep) / 2012 (1440 ep) / 2013 (1191 ep) / 2014 - July

Feature Films Watched - 2012 (97 seen) / 2013 (100 seen)
Shorts Watched - 2012 (222 seen) / 2013 (87 seen)

Books Read - 2013 (12 read)
 


#12 of 24 Ejanss

Ejanss

    Screenwriter

  • 1,285 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2012

Posted March 19 2014 - 02:25 PM

I guess Katzenberg was right, that hand-drawn animation is the thing of the past. 

 

Huh?  I thought he was just covering his weaselly rear about why Sinbad had flopped, was taken out of context ("I think the mix of hand-drawn characters and CGI backgrounds confused the audience; of the two, they might have responded better if I had gone with all CGI"), and then later jumped on the bandwagon when the analyst press screamed up the one explanation every studio had been searching for to explain why all the kiddy-cable movies had flopped.



#13 of 24 Vic Pardo

Vic Pardo

    Second Unit

  • 441 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 07 2013

Posted March 20 2014 - 10:23 AM

I love and have always loved cell animation. I was heartbroken when, although they made money, Disney decided to retire the process (again, this time maybe for good) after PRINCESS AND THE FROG and WINNIE THE POOH.

 

Now, we get computer generated versions of Yogi Bear and Bugs Bunny and Horton and...well, the list goes on, and will soon include the Peanuts characters.

 

Sure, CG gives them a more rounded, dimensional appearance, but it also gives them a weird, too-smooth and shiny look that somehow removes the personalities of the characters we loved as kids. Children growing up today don't mind, as they haven't the same memories and reference points we geezers have, but I still lament the loss of good hand-drawn animation in this everything-for-technology country. I love Pixar's and Dreamworks' films, but those consist of brand new stories and characters, which were born of computers. What I find offensive is all the revisionism.

 

Thank goodness for Studio Ghibli and a few other foreign studios who are keeping the process alive.

 

I'll take it even further. I was upset that THE INCREDIBLES wasn't 2-D. The animation style in that film should have looked like one of the old 4-color comic books, kind of like WATCHMEN did in comic book form. If INCREDIBLES had been done in 2-D, in that style, it would have been the film that Zack Snyder's WATCHMEN wanted to be. (Of course, it probably wouldn't have been anywhere near as popular.)  I find it very hard to suspend disbelief with CGI-created characters. There's something about the way a single artist with a pen dipped in colored ink can bring life to a drawing that a team of computer artists would find difficult to replicate. Look at the way Chuck Jones and his crew brought those dog and kitten characters to expressive life in cartoons like "Feed the Kitty." Has any CGI crew done anything comparable?

 

CJLFKIT.jpg



#14 of 24 Ejanss

Ejanss

    Screenwriter

  • 1,285 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2012

Posted March 20 2014 - 10:58 AM

 Look at the way Chuck Jones and his crew brought those dog and kitten characters to expressive life in cartoons like "Feed the Kitty." Has any CGI crew done anything comparable?

 

Okay, who's going to be the one to say it?   :lol:

Spoiler


  • Aaron Silverman likes this

#15 of 24 Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,556 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted March 20 2014 - 07:30 PM

I'll take it even further. I was upset that THE INCREDIBLES wasn't 2-D. The animation style in that film should have looked like one of the old 4-color comic books, kind of like WATCHMEN did in comic book form. If INCREDIBLES had been done in 2-D, in that style, it would have been the film that Zack Snyder's WATCHMEN wanted to be. (Of course, it probably wouldn't have been anywhere near as popular.)  I find it very hard to suspend disbelief with CGI-created characters. There's something about the way a single artist with a pen dipped in colored ink can bring life to a drawing that a team of computer artists would find difficult to replicate. Look at the way Chuck Jones and his crew brought those dog and kitten characters to expressive life in cartoons like "Feed the Kitty." Has any CGI crew done anything comparable?

 

CJLFKIT.jpg

 

I'd argue that RATATOUILLE has plenty of expressive moments where the animators brought the characters to life. In fact, plenty of the animators on Pixar and Dreamworks computer animated films have managed to imbue life into the characters. I'd like to see more traditional 2D animation, but I am not going to be one to put down the quality of work that computer animators have managed to put out. Their work is not inferior to that of animators from previous generations.


"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#16 of 24 SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter

  • 1,400 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted March 20 2014 - 08:53 PM

Kind of makes one appreciate Bill Watterson's refusal to allow Calvin and Hobbes to be animated.

In it's own dark twisted way, the parody Robot Chicken did was pretty faithful to the source material.



#17 of 24 SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter

  • 1,400 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted March 20 2014 - 08:55 PM

I feel the same way about Charles Schultz and Peanuts.  It had long ceased to be funny or clever when his death finally ended it.

Isn't it still syndicated in newspapers today as "reruns" of old strips?



#18 of 24 Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,556 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted March 20 2014 - 10:14 PM

Isn't it still syndicated in newspapers today as "reruns" of old strips?

 

There still are a lot of papers that print his strips as "reruns". My local paper did for a few years, but they finally dumped it when they revamped their comics page. Unfortunately, what they replaced it with was not an improvement. I don't find "Pickles" very funny. About the best "new" strips I have seen have been "Pearls Before Swine" and "Get Fuzzy".


"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#19 of 24 Aaron Silverman

Aaron Silverman

    Lead Actor

  • 9,375 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 1999
  • Real Name:Aaron Silverman
  • LocationFlorida

Posted March 21 2014 - 11:48 AM

Heck, I'm still annoyed when South Park uses 3/4 profile views!


  • Mark Walker likes this
"How wonderful it will be to have a leader unburdened by the twin horrors of knowledge and experience." -- Mr. Wick

#20 of 24 John Kilduff

John Kilduff

    Screenwriter

  • 1,650 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 27 2001

Posted March 24 2014 - 11:34 AM

*
POPULAR

Truthfully, what matters to me with animated movies is not the form of the animation, but the script. For me, the script is the most important part of a movie, whether it's live-action or animation. I've seen horrible cel-animation movies and great CGI movies, and vice versa, but for me, it's never been about the visual style, although it's certainly nice to notice it...It's the script.

 

When I was younger, I liked the Spielberg/Warner Brothers shows like "Animaniacs" and "Tiny Toon Adventures", but it wasn't because of the animation...It was because of the dialogue, especially if it was written by my biggest influence, Sherri Stoner. It's still like that nowadays. "Frozen" could've been cel-animated, and I still would've enjoyed it, but that's because of the script. I'm all about the words.

 

Sincerely,

 

John Kilduff...

 

It's the same thing with songs. I pay a lot of attention to the lyrics, while almost everyone else pays attention to the music. It would be very uncomfortable to hear my Mom singing the old school funk music I liked when the lyrics were so sexual. There's plenty of people you want to imagine having sex...Your parents aren't among them.


  • Aaron Silverman, MatthewA and Walter C like this
Forget the Rewind. If you want real retro action, go to http://www.retrojunk.com.

Proud member of the American Film Institute and a Wal-Mart employee (Yes, you can be both).

From Michelle Pfeiffer to Daryl Hannah and all points in-between, I love 80s women. Don't believe me? Scope out this link: htt.....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users