Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Michael St. Clair, Jun 19, 2002.
Considering the "quality" of Katzenberg's work, he's the *last* person who should be critical of others...
Computer Animation is the flavour of the month. We're at the early stages of CG features right now, and as such there hasn't really been a bad CG film yet (excpet for those who didn't like Final Fantasy). What's going to happen is this: The studios are going to believe they've found a golden goose, and make more and more CG features. Sooner or later, they're going to produce some mediocre films, and then one of the studios will quietly release a classicly animated film, and the public will respond because it won't look like everything they've been handed by the studio for a while. This is the point when studios will hopefully realize that it's not the medium that counts, it's the content. Animation, CG, Live action, it all comes down to the film itself. 2D isn't going anywhere, but it may take a brief hiatus while the CG world implodes on itself. Eventually, Pixar, Disney, Dreamworks or Fox will make a cg film that just sucks and people will begin to understand that just because it's been made on a computer doesn't mean it's going to be good.
I agree wholeheartedly with Katzenberg. Why even bother with traditional canvas art...use a computer to draw the picture
2D animation is a beautiful artform, and Disney, it's greatest artist (but not it's only one). I am a huge fan of 3D films, but that in no way changes how I feel about traditional animation. There is a real beauty in the artform that is timeless. If it fades away for any reason, in due time, it will return. While I am amazed and thrilled at how quickly computer artists have elevated themselves to the current level they play at, how their characters can emote, how artistic they have become, it's apples and oranges to me. I see Pixar films because they are PIXAR films...not 3D animation films. I saw Shrek because it was funny. I saw Atlantis because it was Disney. I'll see Lilo & Stitch for the same.
Katzenberg is just a bitter man. He knows what he knows...that doesn't make it the truth. I expect Lilo to beat Spirit hands-down.
Edit: Geoffrey made on of my points better than me...read his bit again about 2D taking a "break" at most. The film is what matters, not the medium.
While Katzenberg has some bitter memories of Disney, he forgets that 3-D animation wouldn't have happened without traditional animation.
I think The Emperor's new Groove shows that the flat 2D visual style is far from dead. I was put off at first, because, for Disney, it seemed rudimentary. But then the movie sucked me in, and I realized it was a really fun movie, with a novel (for Disney) artistic style.
I love the new 3D stuff (Toy Story 2, esp.), but I also love the 2D stuff. I look forward to Lilo & Stitch, as well as Spirit (since it seems to be, at heart, a 2D animation).
There is a difference between CG movies and movies made with computers. What they should do for 2-D animated films is have the artists do the drawings in ink, scan them into a computer, and then do all the colors and animation using the computer.
2-D animation, back when it was first coming out as films, was usually used for films that were surefire successes. Now, its not that way. Same will happen to 3-D CGI.
Also, CGI is used in a LOT of animated films.
Why haven't they made a CG film with cel-shading (a special effect used mostly in videogames that adds a black outline to the 3-D models)? It would be like a mix of 2-D and 3-D.
2D animation will/should never go away. It is an artform in its own rights.
CG Films like FFTSW where great technical demos, but they don't replace 2D animation. If anything at all it challenges real actors.
emperor's new grove. iron giant.
Of course Iron Giant was a mix.
3-D CG animation is fine and neat and a beautiful new art form. But how in the hell does big K equate that to the death of another art form that is DIFFERENT and UNIQUE from the new one.
I'll tell you how he does it...he is a short sighted maroon on the subject.
If you look at Toy Story, it was 100% CGI, but it was directed, animated, voiced, and overall felt like an animated film. FF:TSW was done in a totally different fashion, so it felt like a sci-fi live action movie as opposed to an animated one.
If you watch the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, they feel like cartoons; you don't accept the characters as humans. But go watch a movie like Princess Mononoke and you can accept that the characters have human emotions and act like humans.
My point is that just because a film is CGI doesn't mean its automatically going to try to push the limits of simulated realism.
And also, the director of FF:TSW said he made the film totally CGI because of several reasons, one of them being that the film would not be doable in live action. If you watch the movie and think about it, it wouldn't be doable without a LOT of CGI. I'm talking Episode II levels.
The transcript of the April 18, 1999 live chat with Bill Kinder and Leo Hourvitz of Pixar has a couple of interesting passages which address some of the issues in this thread. Here they are, for your convenience:
Frankly, I can't wait for movies to be all CGI, get rid of the actor, get rid of their overinflated ego. Seriously, it isn't the medium, it is how well it is used to tell a story or convey a feeling.
I respect Katzenberg, but that seems like a really silly comment to make. Perhaps his thinking was addled by his need to take another shot at Disney (please Jeff, that had a soap-opera appeal to it 5 years ago, but get over it. Didn't they pay you 400 mill or something?).
Katz implies that the mere passage of one century into the next makes an art form with a rich 70 year history obsolete. That is nonsensical.
I want to see them create a way to create a character in a computer in 3-D (so that there are no mistakes in their designs between frames, pretty much achieving perfection in the likeness of the character between different shots), then animating them in 3-D with a cel-shaded technique so it ends up looking like a 2-D production with realistic shadows, animations, etc. Hey, maybe even find a way to make each frame turna 3-D image into a 2-D image so that it looks like someone drew it by separating a character from the background.
To draw inferences to Katzenidiots quote:
"There should never be another black and white movie, now that we have color!"
"There should never be another 2d live action film, because 3d is available!"
"There should not be any more small format prints, now that we have IMAX available!"
Black and white films can be more effective in expressing emotions. 3d movies can be a lot of fun, but do we really need them? And IMAX, while impressive, is exhausting to watch!
2d animation will continue on. Frankly, let Katzenmoron stop making 2d. Let him spend 5 years per movie. Less competition should finally get my Disney stock some upward momentum!
Bhagi Katbamna wrote:
Are you talking about simulating certain imperfections? The whole point behind hand-drawn animation is the artistic nature of caricatures and their movement, as done by hand, which is impractical to simulate using other techniques. Maybe you could, if you really, really tried, but why not just draw the characters, which would be easier and more effective? In analogy, does everything look like a nail whenever you have a hammer in your hand? That's what many people think of computers, especially in the movie industry.