Is digital animation killing cel style animation? (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

There is a certain off-model expressivness in cel animation that is missing from most CGI. Heck, it's missing fom most modern cel animation.

------------------------------------------------------------

This is succint and true statement. The Scrat from "Ice Age" is probably one of the few CG animated characters that recaptures some of that lost expressiveness. Most modern 'Cel' animation including the backgrounds has a "flatness" to it that the older animated classics didn't.

To make a 'cel' animated film that has the qualities of the old classics would make "Tarzan"s" 137,000,000 price tag look like chump change. "Tarzan" is probably the closest Disney has come to making an animated film with the qualities of their older films, in a long time.

 

[David Rogers]

"Range of art styles within a single movie"

I would disagree extremely strongly with this as something I prefer or enjoy in cel-animation, in any animation.

I like a consistent look across the entire piece. An example of how it bothers me, and thus interferes with my enjoyment of the content, is the Hironi Kenshin (horribly misspelled I'm sure, but they're not my DVDs) Japanese cartoon series. My roommate is heavily into anime, and this is one of the many titles he owns on DVD. It's the only series he has that I like a lot.

What I don't like about it is that the artists involved change every 6-10 episodes in the series. It irks me, especially when I like the other artists a lot and they shift to other artists.

When they change the artists they change out how they draw, the styles and methods they use, the shot selections, everything about the show changes. It basically becomes a "World Of" type kind of thing, where a popular book series has other authors come write stories "in the world of" the popular universe created by another author who's working on other projects than the existing one.

I want the art styles to be consistent across the piece. Period. I prefer certain types of things in the art I've found I enjoy, in the types of art I've found I enjoy; I look for these things often. When you hook me on something then change it around it upsets me severely. While I like the characters and most of the stories, the Kenshin series is very frustrating to watch because some episodes are absolutely beautiful, and others are such utter crap in appearance.

Come to think of it, reminds me of Spiderman in the early 90s (I quit comics in like 91/92 if I recall correctly); Todd McFarlane had recently hit the pages of Spider-man as the penciler and the spidey-readers were heavily divided as to whether or not they liked it. Most agreed he was a talented artist, but not everyone liked his style or how it made the book look. I remember thinking McFarlane's style was VERY different from previous artists, but that I did like it. I can easily see how devotes would be torqued if the art changed radically like that.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I've started to lose faith in traditional (aka, non-CGI) animation because its starting to suck, period. Unless Disney rips off a previously written story, they're movies suck, and even when they do rip off a story, the movie ends up sucking, being too childish for me to enjoy (I'm not some big bad tough guy but I prefer a little bit of maturity in storylines other than life/death/love and such), or aren't good because they are rip offs. Other studios also have trouble making decent original animated movies, and it shows. Iron Giant is probably the only truly original animated movie that I can think of (from recent memory) that wasn't bad. Mulan is probably another one, though I'm not sure if its totally original.

Anime movies often have similar art styles for the faces of the characters, and will contain the strange little references to pop culture or the weird innuendoes that are in most anime movies, but at least a good portion of the art is original (and good) and the storylines don't suck. Princess Mononoke is an excellent example of a good idea that could have made a good Disney movie, but its too mature and contains things that Disney would never consider putting into their films because they only make movies for children (and most adults just so happen to like them).

CG movies are expensive, so the studios make sure that they like what they are making before they invest in them. Look at all the CG movies made since (and including) Toy Story and you will see that all but maybe 2 are good. With that kind of quality, its no surprise that CG movies are gaining popularity.

My point is that American animation (the classic style of hand drawn) is degrading in overall quality beyond just visuals while CG animation is raising the bar. That is why CG movies are more popular.

Also, on that list of CG/stop motion/hand drawn animated films, all (except maybe 3) of the hand drawn ones had CG in them. If we could compile a list of animated films from the last few years that had absolutely no CG, then it would probably be a better comparison.

 

[Robert Cook]

Morgan Jolley wrote:

Also, on that list of CG/stop motion/hand drawn animated films, all (except maybe 3) of the hand drawn ones had CG in them.

But many of the "traditionally animated" movies--including their CGI elements--are aesthetically superior, and far more appealing to me as an adult, both visually and with regard to storytelling. It's nice to know that CGI elements in movies don't always have to make me feel like I'm in kindergarten.

 

[Bill Slack]

Prince of Egypt was mostly traditional animation (though, I'm assuming done digitally.) It was a kick-ass movie, and great animation.

Traditional animation was sucking for awhile till Roger Rabbit came out too. And then soon after we had a bunch of quality Disney movies.

There's no reason for regular animation to die.

Right now, CGI seems to mean automatic money because people are digging it. I assure you in due time, the novelty will wear off.

CGI and cell-stype are vastly different beasts. I don't see why one would kill the other off. Can you imagine Aladdin as a CGI movie? Toy Story as cell-style?

Here's the main thing: If Beauty and the Beast were to be relased today, it would still bring in bucket loads of money, 'despite' being cell-based. It's a damn fine movie, with great animation, good music, and can be enjoyed by all ages.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Here's the main thing: If Beauty and the Beast were to be relased today, it would still bring in bucket loads of money, 'despite' being cell-based. It's a damn fine movie, with great animation, good music, and can be enjoyed by all ages

Agreed, but the thing is that most current Disney (and cel-based animated films) lack the qualities that would make them good movies.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I disagree with 90% of Morgan's last post, so I don't now where to start. The idea that Disney's quality is continuously decreasing is simply not true. They reached their modern nadir five years ago when the Clements/Musker team effectively told the same story for the third time in a row with Hercules. The film was not awful, but they had already told the same diamond in the rough story better in Aladdin and The Little Mermaid.
Dinosaur, a CGI film from Disney, was easily the worst major animated film in years.
Since Tarzan, and maybe even Mulan, Disney's non-CGI films have been much more diverse and interesting. I have nearly polar opposite views on Atlantis from Morgan, although I freely admit that they botched the ending of that film by rushing through it. I thought Emperor's New Groove (another stand-up comedian movie, Robert probably won't like it either ) was nearly as funny as the Pixar movies, and liked it a little better than Shrek overall.
For acting and expressiveness, I have yet to see any CGI that touches the work of the best Disney animators such as Glen Keane and Andreas Deja. Pixar comes close, though.
Regards,

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Overall, I found Atlantis to be one of the worst Disney movies in the last decade. The whole movie was pretty boring, I didn't connect with any characters (beyond maybe one), the writing was pretty bad, and they rushed the whole thing. Had they gotten a better script and used a different style of animation, it would have been better.

Disney already reached their peak. They are now going back to the old Disney movies to get their inspirations and they are making more bad movies. Hunchback 2, Peter Pan 2, Little Mermaid 2, Lion King 2? If they are so good at making animated movies, why not make some ORIGINAL ones? Every time they make an original movie, it either is below the quality of their rip-offs or they don't put enough into it and it ends up sucking.

If Disney decided to make a 100% original movie with a GOOD story, then they would probably make a lot of money. Pixar is doing that right now and they have made 4 good films in a row. They might be aimed at kids, but they still have some content (likes jokes, characters, and such) that are more mature or are not made for children. Shrek (not Pixar, I know) was reviewed by Ron as having some jokes in it that were more for adults but the whole film could be enjoyed by everyone. Thats better than Disney's cookie cutter animated films that are directly aimed at children.

So back to the topic, the quality of CGI films is what is making them more successful (in some ways) than hand drawn animated films, which have degraded in quality.

 

[Jared_B]

I agree 100% Morgan.

Out with the old, in with the new. Some people can't let go of the past. The story is what counts, only the medium is evolving. Most People are (obviously) ready for this evolution.

 

[TheLongshot]

If Disney decided to make a 100% original movie with a GOOD story, then they would probably make a lot of money.

Disney makes a lot of money no matter what they do.

To answer your question, tho, it looks like Lilo & Stitch is the movie you are looking for. An original story that looks like the characters aren't going to be cookie cutters. I'm also looking forward to Treasure Planet. Some of the preproduction art on this looks amazing.

I'm also interested to see how Spirit does. It would be nice to see animals that DON'T talk for a change.

As for Atlantis, I haven't seen it yet, so I can't judge it, but Mike Mignola did the character designs ("Hellboy" comic book) and I thought that they were pretty darn good.

BTW, CGI films aren't without fault either. Most of the films that have been made so far have been by two companies. (Pixar with 4, PDI with 2) Disney's Dinosaurs was a failure. So was Final Fantasy. Jimmy Neutron was a moderate success. It looks the same for Ice Age.

As far as traditional animation goes, Disney and Dreamworks are the only ones in the business anymore. Course, we know that Don Bluth probably will turn up someplace...

Jason

 

[Adam Tyner]

Jimmy Neutron was a moderate success.

A moderate success, but its budget was a tiny fraction of what Pixar and the like have been shelling out for their films.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

BTW, CGI films aren't without fault either. Most of the films that have been made so far have been by two companies. (Pixar with 4, PDI with 2) Disney's Dinosaurs was a failure. So was Final Fantasy. Jimmy Neutron was a moderate success. It looks the same for Ice Age.

Dinosaur was partial live action and CGI. It also originally didn't have any dialogue. The higher ups at Disney screwed that up.

Final Fantasy failed because it broke the American animation taboo of having a mature storyline with depth and not being aimed at people below the age of 10.

Jimmy Neutron was up for an Oscar. That's pretty good.

Ice Age has had pretty good reviews and has been making a lot of money. Maybe not as much as Shrek, but its still pretty good.

 

[Edwin-S]

Dinosaur was partial live action and CGI. It also originally didn't have any dialogue. The higher ups at Disney screwed that up.

------------------------------------------------------------

I don't seen this as a screwup. A modern film where none of the main characters spoke would have been a major mistake. Dialogue, whether internal or external, allows a person to get an insight into a character's personality. A no dialogue film would have been excrutiatingly boring.

------------------------------------------------------------

Final Fantasy failed because it broke the American animation taboo of having a mature storyline with depth and not being aimed at people below the age of 10.

------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of people would disagree with your assertion that this movie had any depth to it, or that it was particularly mature. Explosions and FX don't automatically make something mature.

------------------------------------------------------------

Jimmy Neutron was up for an Oscar. That's pretty good.

------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that this movie was even nominated says volumes to me about the value of the animation oscar.

------------------------------------------------------------

Ice Age has had pretty good reviews and has been making a lot of money. Maybe not as much as Shrek, but its still pretty good.

------------------------------------------------------------

I saw this movie recently and while watchable, I would consider it to be merely average. In fact, some of the character motivations in this movie were ridiculous......even "Titan AE" had better character development than a lot of this movie did. "Ice Age" is actually lower in quality than any recently made Disney film that you are so fond of bashing.

 

[Robert Cook]

Morgan Jolley wrote:

Quote:

There are exceptions to every rule, and in this case, Final Fantasy is an example of a movie that was looked at as live action, which it is in some ways, namely because the movements of the characters were captured as live action. It's also an example of a CGI movie that is not an overly jokey comedy full of stand-up comedians, which may prove that both of these qualities are needed for automatic box office success. This may help explain the repetitiveness of CGI movies.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

About Dinosaur, the higher ups at Disney thought the same way as you, Edwin. No dialogue means nobody could possibly be able to enjoy it, so instead they made them throw in really BAD dialogue and a comic relief. I would take no dialogue over the dialogue they had anyday.


Quote:



A lot of people would disagree with your assertion that this movie had any depth to it, or that it was particularly mature. Explosions and FX don't automatically make something mature.





No offense, but did you see the movie? There is TONS of depth and symbolism if you look into it. The eight spirits, the phantoms, the gaia, everything. There is a theory in the movie about the existence and purpose of the human soul in relation to the Earth, and while some would say its ludicrous and stupid, it at least shows depth and maturity beyond ANYTHING Disney has attempted.


Quote:



The fact that this movie was even nominated says volumes to me about the value of the animation oscar.





The fact that all the movies up for Best Animated Film were CGI also shows me the value of modern hand-drawn animation.


Quote:



"Ice Age" is actually lower in quality than any recently made Disney film that you are so fond of bashing.





It's pretty hard for a movie to get lower in quality than Atlantis. The story, characters, style, dialogue, and pretty much everything besides the visual quality were pretty bad compared to some of Disney's earlier works.


Quote:



They're no more rip-offs than movies in general. If you want to discuss specific examples, then bring them up.





Recently, they have become more original (like Atlantis and Emperor's New Groove were original stories). The thing is, as they become more original, they start getting to be bad. When they try to make half-assed sequels to popular Disney movies (which they've done to pretty much all of their big movies from the late 80s and early to mid 90s) they come out REALLY bad.


Quote:



As for animation quality, I disagree, and really have no idea what aspects you're talking about and why. At least human characters can be portrayed effectively, as opposed to CGI.





The visual quality of the animation has gone up, but the styles have become crappy. Atlantis' characters had block fingers that looked really bad and stupid. Emperor's New Groove had a pretty unique animation style, and while I didn't appreciate it that much, I will say that it was of a higher quality than most of their newer stuff. I'm not saying the animation quality is bad, its the styles.

And humans can be portrayed more realistically or effectively in CGI or animation based on how its done. As a matter of fact, anime is generally looked down apon because it has characters with big eyes and big mouths and they are pretty unrealistic visually. But sometimes an anime TV series or movie will have the characters talk, react, and think more realistically than most American dramas. Its not the visual quality that makes them realistic or effectively portrays them, its more about the writing of the script.


Quote:



I think that Atlantis is rather well written. The dialogue is clever, and the story skillfully combines themes about the nature of cultural development with what appears at first glance to be a pure adventure story. The metaphors, mainly involving what the Heart of Atlantis (the large crystal) and the Shepherd's Journal symbolize, are handled very appropriately, with a good balance between directness and subtlety, which I find lacking in many other movies. Despite a few moments of narrative weakness, the themes come across very well, and the movie is very entertaining





But the problem is that it wasn't written well enough to make me care enough to think about the themes of the movie. It lost my interest very quickly and no matter how much I tried to get back into it, I couldn't. I didn't leave the movie thinking "gee, they were right about this theme and that theme" I was thinking "boy did that suck." The themes might have been good, but if you can't get your audience to care enough to think about them, then they are lost. This was a big problem for Final Fantasy, in that most people didn't care.


Quote:



By the way, when you said "I could have cared less," I assume you meant that you could NOT have cared less. So what were you saying about the writing in the movie?





You're right, I couldn't have cared less.


Quote:



Most CGI movies certainly try not to offend anyone's sensibilities, which is a big reason I find most of them a bit bland. When they do try to be more "edgy," they end up as quite childish in an adolescent way.





Toy Story is probably the best example of a CGI movie that was well written and had many themes. The characters being toys and fighting for the love of Andy throughout the whole thing, along with their reactions when they get taken away from him and even when Buzz finds out what he really is are all events that have deep, well thought out themes behind them. The movie certainly wasn't childish, but rather just had some things that are associated more with kids (like toys). Overall, the movie didn't come off as childish, but rather as well written and thought out, as did the sequel, which is more than Disney has done in the past.


Quote:



Disney movies, on the other hand, appeal to me more as an adult, enough so that I can overlook the moments I might not like. That's a lot better than being childish all the way through.[/





The thing is, you shouldn't have to overlook certain moments for a movie to be good. If I watched a movie and only thought about the good parts, I wouldn't be giving a true opinion on the movie. If most of it sucked, then I should remember that in addition to the good stuff.

And I don't see where you get off saying that CGI films are childish. Could you explain?


Quote:



That's because Disney has better taste, and they're too busy trying to tell decent stories. If you want to talk about rip-offs, Shrek is your movie. It might be a parody, so fine, ha ha, but it's not much of a real movie.





First of all, if Disney had better taste, they would make GOOD original movies with decent stories instead of ripping off ones. Second, Shrek is ONE rip-off compared to the tons of ones Disney has ripped off. It is a real movie, and while it might have things from other movies/stories (like references or characters) its still an original story based around those things. Disney takes everything from a story and rips it off instead of just a character or two.


Quote:



Obviously, Disney's symbolism is too subtle for some. Not all of their movies are equally sophisticated, of course, but thank goodness their better filmmakers (e.g. Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale) are mature and talented enough to not have to beat audiences over the head with their subtexts.





Final Fantasy only beat people over the head with one of its many themes. The other ones were more subtle than anything I've seen in a Disney movie, like the representations of the individual spirits (they each represent a different thing, can you figure it out?). Disney movies also have themes on the surface of the films so little kids can figure them out or they flat out tell them to the audience because the average person going to a Disney movie doesn't expect that much depth in a Disney movie.

Toy Story had themes that could be seen easily on the surface, but when you think more about it, you could see more of the complexities of those themes. So while you might easily get the gist of it, you could get even more from the film if you wanted to.


Quote:



Disney's movies may not be the most original, but they are not generally aimed at children. Do you think that The Hunchback of Notre Dame was aimed at children? Do you think that Beauty and the Beast and Atlantis were solely intended for the enjoyment of children? If so, then we have nothing to talk about, because we're from different planets.





No, I don't think they were aimed just at children, but do I think they were aimed at mature adults looking for a thought provoking experience or a quality storyline with depth, complexity, and realism? No. Do I think they were made so they could be watched by the whole family and enjoyed? Yes, but the problem is that American animation has such a low standard for depth, complexity, and realism that even if it sucks by international animation standards, it could still be thought of as a perfectly appropriate American animated film.


Quote:



Yes, and they're practically the only way to deal with that, according to Pixar and their imitators, anyway. Let them prove that they can do something else, or want to.





I can think of two movies with stand up comedians that are CGI and probably dozens of hand drawn Disney ones. Aladdin was good mostly because of Robin Williams, as was Shrek to a degree because of Eddie Murphy. The difference is, Shrek had comedy come from things besides Murphy, but almost all of the comedy in Aladdin (that was worth laughing at) was from Robin Williams. There are also other comedians who have done voices in Disney movies to provide comic relief. Not nearly as many have done so in CGI movies (except Ice Age where the three main characters are all comedians).


Quote:



Disney's way ahead of them there, but I'll give the others a chance...I'm still waiting....





(This quote was in reference to animated films not being as dramatic as I would like)

I think Disney is probably the farthest from it. When I say dramatic, I mean thought provoking storylines with realistic characters. I'm not looking for American Beauty, but I think that there is an unspoken taboo that an animated film in America can't be anything like AB. If they made a good, dramatic, animated film that was aimed at a more mature crowd (Final Fantasy coming the closest to that) then it would fail because of the stereotype that animation has (which is that its a children's medium).


Quote:



A certain style was evident, as it is with all artists or groups of artists, but they didn't make two movies about wooden boys, or three movies about elephants in a circus





Rather than quote the whole paragraph, I just quoted this.

I see what you are saying. But Disney went and made sequels to a lot of their big movies (Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, Hunchback, they're making another Atlantis, etc.) and they all suck. They use the same animation, characters, etc. and they suck, big time. It just goes to show that Disney can't write good original scripts and is making several movies about the same things.

Also, Antz and A Bug's Life were made by two different companies. There are dozens of storybook and video versions of Aladdin and the Little Mermaid, so by your argument, Disney has just remade a story several times. If Antz and ABL were made by Disney, I would also be a little upset at them rehashing material, but they fact is that they weren't.


Quote:



Modern Disney animated features do share certain similarities with each other, but they also look and feel much different from each other, at least compared to CGI movies





And how many Disney movies are there or are being made compared to CGI? You have to consider that there are only a dozen or so big CGI movies and probably over 100 big Disney movies. They have had a long time to differ in style and animation quality, but CGI hasn't. Final Fantasy cost $140 million to make, and if you watch it, there are some subtle things that show where all that money went. The characters all look realistic, but in Toy Story, the human characters don't look realistic at all. The ants in Antz and A Bug's Life also look different.


Quote:



There are nearly 50 movies about Tarzan, and not one of them has told the story in the novel. Disney's doesn't either, but it does come closer than perhaps any of the previous movies in some ways, and it's also starkly different from any of them. Although the movie does borrow some elements from previous Disney movies, as a Tarzan movie, I think it's highly original





But the thing is that the core story remains. Everybody knows that Tarzan meets Jane, falls in love, and then they stay together. The ifs, ands, or buts of the story don't matter THAT much because every version is going to be slightly different. I'm sure Phil Collins didn't sing during all the other version of Tarzan, either, and I don't think Rosie O'Donnell was a comedic relief in each of them, so of course there are differences. The small stuff doesn't matter, its the fact that they didn't make it up.


Quote:



Shrek might be based on an obscure children's book, but more significantly, it's based on practically every other children's story and animated movie. I guess that's to be expected of a parody, but that hardly makes it original.





It is a parody, not a rip off. Thats why its able to have the same characters from other stories without being a rip off. And actually, the core storyline is original. The Farquuad character, Shrek, the princess, and Donkey are all original characters, as is his whole quest to get back his swamp. So the core story is original.


Quote:



Oh, so it's conceptually based on and named after a well-known video game. Not only is that unoriginal, it would seem to explain a lot about the movie....





Assuming you don't know that much about the games and their relation to eachother and the movie, let me explain...

The games only share 3 or 4 things: moogles (a little white furry magical creature), chocobos (yellow birds), a character named Cid/Sid (only the name is the same, not the character), and the common themes of love/life/death/rebirth/destruction etc. The movie is the same. Its an original story that only shares the name of a character and its themes with the games. It has the same title, a character named Sid (who is actually used in a different context than he usually is in the games), and the themes. The story is original. Because of that, it is not a rip-off.


Quote:



With one or two exceptions, they feel like the same movie with different original ideas merely thrown on top.





Many Disney movies have a male and female lead who are in love with eachother, a wise ass sidekick, a bad guy with a sidekick, and the two people who love eachother being kept apart by some odd means. Considering that CGI movies only "feeling" like the same movie is a negative thing, then Disney movies shouldn't be considered good at all because they are factually similar.


Quote:



Is Beauty and the Beast much like Aladdin?





Yes. Aladdin/Beast likes Princess/Belle, but can't get together with them for some odd reason. They have sidekicks (monkey and carpet/candlestick and clock) who try to get them with the other person. In the end, they are together and live happily ever after as the King and Queen (or equivalent) of some kingdom or place. While there are some small differences or different characters, similarities can still be drawn quite easily.


Quote:



Take virtually any pair of Disney's movies of the last 13 years or so, released back-to-back, and tell me if they seem as similar





First of all, you fail to mention the similarities of CGI movies by the same company. Second, even if they aren't released back to back, there are movies that are very similar that either came before or after them. Sometimes, the exact same story is told with VERY similar characters only a different situation. One male lead, one female lead, at least two good guy sidekicks, one bad guy, one bad guy sidekick, the female lead's father being some weird old guy, etc.


Quote:



I don't, but I generally like how they use it. The medium is not as important as its proper use, and the overall aesthetic qualities. They'll use whatever techniques are necessary to tell their stories, so they have fewer limits than they would with pure CGI.





I like how they use CGI in hand drawn films, too, but I wouldn't call those added uses big steps in the right direction. If anything, they are just minor enhancements.

Also, if people looked into what they could do with CGI, they would see that they could make CGI movies that honest to god look like hand drawn movies. There is a style called cel shading that is often used in videogames that will make games look like saturday morning cartoons. The fact that people don't like when animation is different from the preset "norm" is what is keeping them from using different styles or techniques.


Quote:



You keep asserting these things, but offer no convincing arguments. You're the one accusing them of sucking, so why don't you prove it?





My father, who LOVES Disney, has seen most of the sequels to their old classics that have recently come out (Lion King, Hunchback, Little Mermaid, etc.). He bought most of them and said that for the most part, only the Lion King 2 wasn't bad. I've seen some of them, and they did suck. The stories are below sub par, the animation is lower quality, and they make new characters that I could care less about. They are using a cookie cutter formula to make sequels of cookie cutter movies.

Atlantis and Emperor's New Groove are two of the latest original Disney movies. ENG just seemed to go on and on with little happening that I could have cared about at all and seemed to move too fast with little continuity. The jokes didn't make sense and were there for cheap, quick laughs. Atlantis moved too fast and I didn't feel any emotions for any characters beyond MAYBE the Atlantian chick. The story was pretty dull, they didn't exactly convey and themes, and if they did, they were lost in the badness of the movie that lost my interest.


Quote:



These movies mean a lot to them, and I think it shows in the final product, despite the compromises they sometimes have to make. It's the CGI-only filmmakers who seem to be complacent, at least so far.





CGI is more expensive and has a higher standard to be met. Its more of a pass or fail thing with no inbetween. Thats why CGI is only made if they know they will make money.

While Disney might have good visual quality and production values, its the scripts that are lacking. The movies look gorgeous and amazing, but the content sucks. Too much effort on the presentation.

I only care about quality, as I perceive it, not popularity.quote]

Do you mean visual quality of the animation or the quality of the scripts? American Beauty had an amazing script, whether it won the Oscar or not. Do Disney movies get written with the same level of quality? I think not.


Quote:



You're entitled to your own opinions and tastes, of course, but to me, this is like saying that you like beverages served at room temperature. Depending on the type of beverage, I prefer most of mine either hot or cold.





I'm saying that CGI is a form of animation with more realism. Is there something wrong with that? Its all in the style its told. Animated movies present their own little worlds, and I'm getting sick and tired of stupid worlds that lack any and all realism but supposedly take place in our world. I think adding swears to Disney movies would add realism, but without them, they are creating their own separate world. If you prefer the fake world of happy endings and good always wins while the odd man out or the princess achieves greatness with the help of little fairies or magic beings, then fine. But you shouldn't say that CGI shouldn't be able to create its own world if it has similar bases.


Quote:



Yes, but I think they should either be realistic or stylized, in a visual sense. Coming close to realism without being truly realistic is distracting.





This train of thought has always confused me. I don't see what the big deal about CGI being too real is. Who cares? Its just a movie made to entertain you. If you don't like the fact that the characters look as real as they do, then you should hate Disney movies for making such false representations of humans in all of their movies.

Did you hate Roger Rabbit? It had animation AND live action without the movie really being either. Does that mean its a bad movie or of low quality? No.


Quote:



There are exceptions to every rule, and in this case, Final Fantasy is an example of a movie that was looked at as live action, which it is in some ways, namely because the movements of the characters were captured as live action. It's also an example of a CGI movie that is not an overly jokey comedy full of stand-up comedians, which may prove that both of these qualities are needed for automatic box office success. This may help explain the repetitiveness of CGI movies.





The basis for all character movements in animation is from real life. Final Fantasy just had a motion-capture studio to get the animations (which were actually edited before they were used). And that was only for some animations, not all.

Name one Disney movie released in the last 10 years that didn't have a comic relief. Now name a Disney movie in the last 10 years that didn't have a main character with a sidekick. Now name a Disney movie in the last 10 years that didn't have some sort of poor/normal person being thrust either into a conflict or situation with a rich or upper class person or where they became royalty or something like that. Disney movies are more cookie cutter than CGI, and even have all the elements that CGI movies share. Even if there are exceptions to the rule, the majority are not.

Seeing a new Disney movie is like seeing an old one only it looks better and has a different story. There are premade templates where they just fill in the blanks with a rip off.

 

[Terrell]

Computer animated films are more popular right now. It all runs in cycles. I expect sooner or later that traditional animation will come back into favor again.

Final Fantasy failed because it broke the American animation taboo of having a mature storyline with depth and not being aimed at people below the age of 10.

No, Final Fantasy failed because it sucked moose tool. Lifeless, boring, stupid, and any other adjective I could throw at it. It was completely uninteresting and downright awful. Being mature had nothing to do with it. As for depth, you've got to be kidding. This film was nothing more than eye candy, and I lost interest in that after 10 minutes. FF was a total dog. That's why it failed. Just another useless attempt at a videogame conversion. Sorry Morgan, there is nothing about that film that's good other than the visuals.

 

[Edwin-S]

About Dinosaur, the higher ups at Disney thought the same way as you, Edwin. No dialogue means nobody could possibly be able to enjoy it, so instead they made them throw in really BAD dialogue and a comic relief. I would take no dialogue over the dialogue they had anyday.
------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said before dialogue allows a person to get into the head of a character. In "Dinosaur", no dialogue would have been a death knell because there would have been no way to differentiate these characters other than by looks. Adding dialogue allowed a person to relate to these characters by giving them "human" emotional traits. Regardless of the quality of dialogue used it was necessary, otherwise it would have been like watching "Walking with Dinosaurs". Even in "Ice Age" the Scrat who is wordless still has a "form" of dialogue that allows a person to see some human qualities.
I did not particularly like "Dinosaurs" and do not own it because I felt the story possibilities for something set in this time period are inherently limited. The only thing you can do with characters like these is constantly retell "Land before Time" over and over.
------------------------------------------------------------
No offense, but did you see the movie? There is TONS of depth and symbolism if you look into it. The eight spirits, the phantoms, the gaia, everything.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I have seen "Final Fantasy" and I, in fact, own a copy. I have watched it more than once. I am a big fan of animation and see more in it as an art than most average people would. I get kidded a lot by friends when I tell them there is a difference between an animated film and an animated cartoon. That being said "Final Fantasy" is most likely going to appeal to someone who likes anime because "Final Fantasy" contains many of the strengths and a lot of the weaknesses that anime suffers from. Anime covers a lot of themes but a lot of times it suffers from poorly structured storytelling, including subtexts that go nowhere and subplots that surface from the depths of someone's imagination and submerge just as fast, with no resolution. Anime will introduce concepts without even the faintest amount of setup and explanation which would allow a person to at least nod their head and go okay it sounds plausible (even if it is totally implausible) and allow them to suspend their disbelief. "Final Fantasy" suffers from the last item in the list. It is fine and dandy to say that each spirit represents something but nowhere in the film is there even the faintest allusion as to what those meanings are. Don't bother telling me that the whole point is for you to sit there and "think" about what it all means; this is a movie running at a set pace, people have to be able to "get it" in the space of a few minutes so that they can continue to follow the story. If what they are being told sounds like so much mumbo jumbo then the "suspension of disbelief" goes out the window, to be replaced by "what the hell is this crap, their insulting my intelligence". The entire eight spirits part of "Final Fantasy" ends up becoming mumbo jumbo because there is no explanation for it, for example how are any of these spirits,represented by plants, animals, etc., injected into Aki's chest plate. There was never any explanation as to how these eight spirits could actually be used to create the final "cure".
If the writer couldn't come up with some kind of explanation that would at least sound plausible, then it becomes obvious that he had no idea himself and just chose to ignore it. That is bad storytelling. It is one thing to have a "deus ex machina" like a Faster than Light drive in your movie because it is just a prop, people just accept it as "fact" because it has no real bearing on the story, other than as means to get from one locale to another. When you start introducing concepts that have spiritual or philosophical overtones and are integral to understanding the "meaning" of the story, then you had better have some kind of "framework" underpinning those concepts. "Final Fantasy" in large part fails in that department, the writers just expect you to swallow their mumbo jumbo without any critical thought. Visually, this movie is still stunning to look at and regardless of complaints about the reality of the characters movements, it the most fluid and realistic computer animation of human movement to date.
I like Japanese anime because I can see lots of qualities in it and because it differs from North American animation in lots of ways, however, unlike you apparently, I can also see a lot of subtexts in animation such as Disney puts out that tells me that their animation is not just aimed at children. I have watched a lot of animated shows and I know when a show is meant only for children. "Bambi" is still a favorite of mine and it doesn't seem childish to me at all.
------------------------------------------------------------
And I don't see where you get off saying that CGI films are childish. Could you explain?
------------------------------------------------------------
I found this comment amusing because you are asking him to explain why he thinks CGI films are childish, yet you repeatedly state that Disney's animated films suck and are childish, the stories suck and childish and so on. You constantly make those statements, provide absolutely no analytical basis for making generalized statements like that and yet are demanding that another person defend his generalized, unsupported statements.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but the problem is that American animation has such a low standard for depth, complexity, and realism that even if it sucks by international animation standards, it could still be thought of as a perfectly appropriate American animated film.
------------------------------------------------------------
This statement is also amusing. What evidence do you have that American animation sucks by international standards. Back up your statements with facts, please. Osamu Tezuka is considered the father of modern Japanese Manga and animation and he was heavily influenced by American animation, especially Disney....you know the ones whose animated movies all suck. It is obvious that he didn't think it sucked by "international standards", whatever those standards are. Animation in North America cannot buy respect as film art, which is entirely ironic because it is the only true native American film form.
------------------------------------------------------------
I see what you are saying. But Disney went and made sequels to a lot of their big movies (Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, Hunchback, they're making another Atlantis, etc.) and they all suck. They use the same animation, characters, etc. and they suck, big time. It just goes to show that Disney can't write good original scripts and is making several movies about the same things.
------------------------------------------------------------
All of these movies were direct to video productions similar to Japanese OAVs. It is obvious to me that these were quick and dirty projects designed to "cash in" on the popularity of their various progenitors. The quick buck mentality is operation with these releases which is no different than the mentality in Japanese animation...ex: The Tenchi Muyo series of OAVs, TV shows, etc. I guess since Japanese anime companies exploit their successful properties to death, it automatically means they are incapable of doing good, original scripts....or does this only apply to Disney? I don't know why anyone would bother to buy any direct to video movie based on a theatrical release......they are always going to be of lower quality because the production budget is a fraction of what is spent to make a theatrical feature.
------------------------------------------------------------
Many Disney movies have a male and female lead who are in love with eachother, a wise ass sidekick, a bad guy with a sidekick, and the two people who love eachother being kept apart by some odd means.
------------------------------------------------------------
Is this supposed to be a knock against the quality of Disney's animated features? These themes are universal and widely used in all kinds of film productions. I just finished watching "The English Patient" and guess what?....It is about two people in love, who are kept apart because of some odd means. Also at first glance one of the main characters appears to be somewhat of a bad guy. I guess "The English Patient" is just another cliched, bad movie, right? So much for Disney's movies being childish.
------------------------------------------------------------
CGI is more expensive and has a higher standard to be met. Its more of a pass or fail thing with no inbetween. Thats why CGI is only made if they know they will make money.
------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. First of all, I believe CGI is in the ascendant at the present time because many studios think, due to the success of other CGI features, that it is a license to print money. It is a fad right now to produce CGI movies. Secondly, I do not believe that CGI films are more expensive to produce than cel-style films. I, personally, think that per dollar of foot of film, CGI films are actually probably cheaper to make than a cel-style hand done film. One CGI animator can probably turn out in terms of footage what used to take 10 men to do, so from a labor cost point of view, CGI production is probably cheaper.....I'm just guessing here though. I would really like to own stock in the studio that knows that a film they are making is going to make money. CGI or not, there is not one film studio in existence that can be sure that any project they embark on is going to make money. Even film studios cannot predict what is going to catch the public's whim. If they could, every film they produce would make money, instead of what?!......two out of every ten?

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Quote:



No, Final Fantasy failed because it sucked moose tool





To each their own, but I found it to be entertaining. Apon further discussion with other HTF members and further viewings, I was able to find more little things here and there and more symbolism. It was a lot of eye candy because the Director wanted it to look as life-like as possible. That way, he could convey the themes to the viewers without making it live action, not just to make it eye candy.


Quote:



Like I said before dialogue allows a person to get into the head of a character. In "Dinosaur", no dialogue would have been a death knell because there would have been no way to differentiate these characters other than by looks. Adding dialogue allowed a person to relate to these characters by giving them "human" emotional traits. Regardless of the quality of dialogue used it was necessary, otherwise it would have been like watching "Walking with Dinosaurs". Even in "Ice Age" the Scrat who is wordless still has a "form" of dialogue that allows a person to see some human qualities.





The Scrat in Ice Age does not talk, and in Dinosaur's case, the higher ups MADE the team working on the movie add the talking. The dinosaurs still reacted to eachother, but they originally didn't talk. Without the talking, I would have probably liked it better, seeing as how the written dialogue sucked.


Quote:



I did not particularly like "Dinosaurs" and do not own it because I felt the story possibilities for something set in this time period are inherently limited. The only thing you can do with characters like these is constantly retell "Land before Time" over and over.





And this movie was made by just Disney, which is why it just screams "rip-off".


Quote:



Anime covers a lot of themes but a lot of times it suffers from poorly structured storytelling, including subtexts that go nowhere and subplots that surface from the depths of someone's imagination and submerge just as fast, with no resolution





I don't think these are negative points of anime, but rather strengths. The storytelling is actually well structured and is usually designed to let you get to know the characters as well as the story. Sometimes, the emphasis is on character development instead of storyline progression.

The subtexts/plots that go nowhere (hereon referred to as tangents) do go somewhere. The only thing is, its usually not spelled out for you. It requires thought to figure some things out, a concept totally devoid of American animation. God forbid people use their minds to either figure something out in a movie or logically deduct the reasoning behind someone's actions.

In Final Fantasy, the constant dreams that Aki had were symbolic. They represented something to both the audience and Aki. With a little thought, the average viewer can figure out what they meant.


Quote:



Anime will introduce concepts without even the faintest amount of setup and explanation which would allow a person to at least nod their head and go okay it sounds plausible (even if it is totally implausible) and allow them to suspend their disbelief. "Final Fantasy" suffers from the last item in the list. It is fine and dandy to say that each spirit represents something but nowhere in the film is there even the faintest allusion as to what those meanings are





Actually there are. The 8 spirits represent the 4 cycles of life and the 4 elements, 8 things that make up peoples' lives. With a little thought, you can figure out which spirits represent which things.


Quote:



Don't bother telling me that the whole point is for you to sit there and "think" about what it all means; this is a movie running at a set pace, people have to be able to "get it" in the space of a few minutes so that they can continue to follow the story. If what they are being told sounds like so much mumbo jumbo then the "suspension of disbelief" goes out the window, to be replaced by "what the hell is this crap, their insulting my intelligence".





People have lost two important things: imagination and intelligence. Boo-hoo, you have to think about a movie to get it. People talk about movies after they're over, so why shouldn't they have to think about Final Fantasy? The stuff in it might seem far fetched at a certain point, but it doesn't mean that anyone's intelligence is being insulted. If someone is too slow or stupid or just has no imagination at all, then of course Final Fanrasy will seem like a lot of mumbo jumbo.


Quote:



The entire eight spirits part of "Final Fantasy" ends up becoming mumbo jumbo because there is no explanation for it, for example how are any of these spirits,represented by plants, animals, etc., injected into Aki's chest plate. There was never any explanation as to how these eight spirits could actually be used to create the final "cure"





The 8 spirits were life forms that had the hope for a better future inside their souls. They formed an energy wave pattern (a "life" pattern that counteracted the "death" pattern of the phantoms) and the information about the wave was put into Aki's chest plate. The last spirit, the phantom inside her, felt the presence of Aki's child (she was pregnant, if you didn't pick up on that) and felt the hope for a better future because of it. There is an explanation for most of the things in there, and the rest you can logically figure out.


Quote:



If the writer couldn't come up with some kind of explanation that would at least sound plausible, then it becomes obvious that he had no idea himself and just chose to ignore it. That is bad storytelling





If you sit and think about it for a little while, you can figure it all out. Its actually well written.


Quote:



I like Japanese anime because I can see lots of qualities in it and because it differs from North American animation in lots of ways, however, unlike you apparently, I can also see a lot of subtexts in animation such as Disney puts out that tells me that their animation is not just aimed at children. I have watched a lot of animated shows and I know when a show is meant only for children. "Bambi" is still a favorite of mine and it doesn't seem childish to me at all.





I can see the subtexts and such, but they aren't hard to find. They are quite shallow. At least anime has shallow subtexts, but when you read into it more, you can find either more subtexts or more complex information about the storylines, characters, etc. Disney doesn't do that. The characters wear their emotions on their sleeves and make everything very apparent, and IMO, unrealistic. When some tragic event happens, people would react differently than they do in Disney films. I never once sensed a feeling of depression from a Disney character so much that it would make me feel depressed for them as I have in anime.

Granted, anime shows can go on for hours while Disney only has like an hour and a half to tell a story, but still, my argument stands.


Quote:



I found this comment amusing because you are asking him to explain why he thinks CGI films are childish, yet you repeatedly state that Disney's animated films suck and are childish, the stories suck and childish and so on. You constantly make those statements, provide absolutely no analytical basis for making generalized statements like that and yet are demanding that another person defend his generalized, unsupported statements.





Well first of all, in many Disney movies there is a bumbling idiot character who provides silly comic relief, themes that are very easy to pick up on (so kids can figure them out), a puppy love relationship between the male and female leads, and bright colors that kids like to look at. The films are made to be liked easily by children or adults, but their aim is at children and they don't deny that.


Quote:



This statement is also amusing. What evidence do you have that American animation sucks by international standards. Back up your statements with facts, please





Well, for one thing, Disney, unlike most animation studios that create some of the best animation ever, rips off century old fairy tales that everyone knows. They might have beautiful animation and the characters show many emotions, but the characters lack a certain level of depth and realism compared to other forms of animation. The movies also have a lot of songs in them to keep peoples attention (taking a 5 minute story that everybody knows and turning it into a 90 minute movie is going to require some songs).

But besides the actual final product, the scripts are where the problems lie. The stories just plain suck. They are uninteresting, boring, lifeless, and lack a large amount of realism. Anime scripts have swears, possibly nudity, violence, and other Disney taboos because they are realistic, not because the people making them are sick. If a Disney movie at least included the word damn or showed some blood then I would be satisfied that they have some level of realism. The characters are also quite fake. They take characters that are supposed to be human but remove any sense of humanity from them and replace it with either heroism or cowardice, there is no other variation. Maybe a character could have a psychological breakdown halfway through the movie because of stress or "not being able to take it anymore." At least it would be realistic.


Quote:



Osamu Tezuka is considered the father of modern Japanese Manga and animation and he was heavily influenced by American animation, especially Disney....you know the ones whose animated movies all suck. It is obvious that he didn't think it sucked by "international standards", whatever those standards are





He probably meant the quality of the art, not the stories. You can be impressed by a movie without knowing whats going on just on visuals alone. I don't think he was influenced by the childish fairy tales with songs scatterred althroughout them.


Quote:



Animation in North America cannot buy respect as film art, which is entirely ironic because it is the only true native American film form





Music used to be a well respected medium, but look at what happened to that. Why can't animation also be changed for the worse over time?


Quote:



All of these movies were direct to video productions similar to Japanese OAVs





The only difference is that OAV/OVAs are not made just to cash in on a famous series. They have pretty high production values and are made to tell a story. Anime is looked apon differently in Japan than animation is looked apon in America. They see it as an expressive art form worthy of depth, complexity, and thought, whereas we see it as generally being childish entertainment. Thats why most poeple think of animation as Disney and saturday morning cartoons in America.


Quote:



I guess since Japanese anime companies exploit their successful properties to death, it automatically means they are incapable of doing good, original scripts....or does this only apply to Disney?





Well they don't exploit them to death, and if and when they do, they at least make quality products in relation to the originals.

Neon Genesis Evangelion, a big anime series that I personally love, has 2 movies in addition to the 26 episode series. The first movie has a re-edit of important scenes from the series followed by the first half of the second movie. Some said that it was pointless to make because they only re-edited some things we already saw and showed us half of something that we would see anyway. I beg to differ because they did the first half as an introduction to the second half of the movie. They put some scenes, interactions, dialogues, etc. into your head so they would be fresh in your memory when you saw the second half. It was also very artistic in its style, and while it might not have been 100% original footage (there were some things added to it, actually) it was still very artistic and in the style of the series. I enjoyed it VERY much.

So even when they don't use something 100% original or it seems to be made just to make a quick buck, it still has higher quality than Disney's sequels.


Quote:



Is this supposed to be a knock against the quality of Disney's animated features?





It was a knock against the quality of their scripts and the formula they use.


Quote:



These themes are universal and widely used in all kinds of film productions. I just finished watching "The English Patient" and guess what?....It is about two people in love, who are kept apart because of some odd means. Also at first glance one of the main characters appears to be somewhat of a bad guy. I guess "The English Patient" is just another cliched, bad movie, right? So much for Disney's movies being childish





But the English Patient didn't have a bunch of songs, a comic relief sidekick, and had good acting with an original and well written storyline. Disney movies are cookie cutter, formulaic, and unoriginal. The English Patient is a love story, so of course it has two lovers, but the company that did The English Patient hasn't written dozens of movies with the EXACT same set of circumstances.

The quality of TEP was also above Disney's works because of things beyond just the story. Production values, acting skills, cinematography, etc.


Quote:



One CGI animator can probably turn out in terms of footage what used to take 10 men to do, so from a labor cost point of view, CGI production is probably cheaper.....I'm just guessing here though





Creating a brand new studio and buying the latest in technological equipment and putting together a mo-cap (motion capture) studio is pretty expensive. Final Fantasy's $140 million was mostly spent on the development of the studio than the actual movie. Thats why CGI is more expensive.


Quote:



Even film studios cannot predict what is going to catch the public's whim





Agreed. The Fast and the Furious showed us that last summer. It was a surprise hit (and I'm still trying to figure out why; it seemed like a porno but instead of sex they had cars crashing and racing).

 

[Todd_Brown]

it looks like Lilo & Stitch is the movie you are looking for.

It seems cel based animation is certainly not dead. Not only does Disney give us cel animation, but water color backgrounds that are awesome. Combine these with very different characters and a fresh look, I'd say that there is plenty of room for both styles (not to mention stop motion puppets- I saw Nightmare before Christmas for the first time last night and was amazed!), in the world.

Todd