George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
Frozen:
I thought it had personalityTangled moved beautifully. Frozen was boring and there was nothing memorable about the animation. Agreed.
The impression I get from the Winnie the Pooh movie is that Disney never intended for it to be a big hit at the box office, but rather rake in millions over the years as parents buy yet another Pooh video for their kids. I'm glad they made it, it's a great film and worthy successor of the original.GameGuru59 said:Making Winnie the Pooh at all was stupid as fuck, frankly.
To me, 3D animation serves a different purpose from 2D. In 3D, it feels to me as though an artist can better explore "the world" or the characters because the space is fully rendered (or as rendered as it needs to be). 2D is better for expressing the characters themselves within the scene. 3D often feels formulaic because of the rendering algorithms used to generate the scenes. Basically, most 3D films have a similar "look" to me. While 2D is much easier to diffentiate because you have different layers built into the process. Different people do the drawing, animating, painting, inking, and backgrounds for any given scene. Though this is also true for the construction of a 3D environment, the whole area is actually rendered in a similar way. 2D is rendered by many different people, and that work shines through much better in 2D to me. Its a shame Disney has dropped 2D (even though the last films they made with it made millions).
Making Winnie the Pooh at all was stupid as fuck, frankly.
I rewatched Sleeping Beauty the other night and was astounded by the quality of animation, the naturalness to characters' movements, expressions etc. It was so convincing I suspected rotoscoping, and lo and behold, Disney dabbled in this for a few of their early classics. Some might call it cheating and not really counting but I think it looks incredible, and yes I wish we still had more 2d animated films from them
I think Tangled and Frozen are both good, very well-made films (with some minor issues but I can say that for almost every Disney movie) and I admit that my preference for hand-drawn animation is purely a preference. I can't speak for anyone else, I just hope you didn't get the wrong idea from my last post.This thread got kinda rough. You won't find too many people more in love with traditionally animated Disney than me, but making insane statements about Frozen or Tangled lacking personality or not being expressive just makes you seem unhinged.
I can pretty much guarantee you that if someone took a scene from one of those two movies, traced it out in the style of those sketched animatics upthread and told people it was a pre-production animatic for a 2D version of the film, people here would be singing its praises.
I think Tangled and Frozen are both good, very well-made films (with some minor issues but I can say that for almost every Disney movie) and I admit that my preference for hand-drawn animation is purely a preference. I can't speak for anyone else, I just hope you didn't get the wrong idea from my last post.
If a robot were to do art, this is probably what it'd come up with.
This dude would probably slap Alex Ross' shading over Mike Mignola's art, too.
The Girl Who Leapt Through Time. Great Film.
Haven't seen Tangled yet but this looks really neat.Pretty cool to see how Tangled would look in 2D.
I can watch these gifs all day.
The second one is actually from Treasure Planet.Haven't seen Tangled yet but this looks really neat.
Agreed. There needs to be way more CGI love in this thread.
One of these days I'll make a Don Bluth thread
But today is not that day.
Apparently I haven't seen Treasure Planet yet either! But thanks for the correction.The second one is actually from Treasure Planet.
The second one is actually from Treasure Planet.
Yeah, the sketchy look means xerox actually replicates the animators exact pencil lines while rejecting the smooth delicate look of traditional inking (apparently Disney himself missed this look). It gave films/shows a different aesthetic compared to inking, especially if the animators lines aren't really cleaned up. Not to mention also helped greatly reduce costs.Sleeping Beauty was the last Disney film that was rendered fully "by hand," too. After that, they got the Xerox process which allowed them to zoom in and out of shots, and scan line drawings directly into film without inking. However, this sacrificed the colored lines that inking allowed- until computers came along. It also made their movies look much more "sketchy" (again, until computers came along). This is why all Disney movies post Sleeping Beauty and pre Beauty and the Beast have a certain look that hugely differentiates them from the renaissance era films.
I never understand the praise concept/sketch board stuff gets.
Yeah sure they're magical, etc. but that's the point. You're pitching them. And said magical stuff have a tendency not to translate well once they actually start working.
It's the same reason when a certain Mario fanart gets posted with people saying "why can't Mario be like this?!" I'm eager to point out a lot of shit in that fanart that ignores a lot of gameplay elements.
That just showed how same-facey female Disney characters are.
I did once. It was fun.
My favorite Bluth film (and animation in general) is Nimh.
Never has there been an animated movie that has gotten the reaction this has for me, and that reaction has been "Holy shit you can see the money they spent." I love the movie, but it also has to be the most expensive looking animated film I've seen. Now I don't know much about the ins and outs of animation, but when you have two completely separate teams dedicated to a single character (One for Silver and one for Silver's mechanical arm), you know there's money being spent.
One of these days I'll make a Don Bluth thread
But today is not that day.
One thing that harms CG is that almost every CG film looks the same. Compare Disney and Dreamworks in 1998 and now.
These were their two films in 1998:
Radically different art styles. Now:
There's still an stylistic difference when you look at the character design, but it's not as pronounced as it used to be and the environments are always going to be gorgeous and perfect which ends up being sterile. Furthermore while the two major studios both have a "house style" that informs much of their design, lately it's stayed roughly the same from movie to movie. Mulan and PoE were completely unique in their art direction. If you stuck Mulan next to Moses it would look weird. I don't think Hiccup would stand out among the Frozen cast.
Wow you need to get your eyes checked.
the 80s were a decade of transition and experimentation with new techniques. It was an interesting era, even though it didnt produce any memorable movie, till Little Mermaid came along
]
Also in the underrated 1986 movie, Basil The Great Mouse Detective, CGI was used in the Clock Tower scene. One of the most memorable scenes of any Disney movie.
I think Atlantis looks good, too. I thought it was a really pretty looking movie. Saying it looks like shit is insanely harsh.I watched this movie two days ago and I thought it looked rubbish. Clearly Silver looks pretty good but the rest is awful, especially the rock guy looks like pure shit. The CGI looks shitty and bland too. In contrast Atlantis which came out a year earlier looks far more impressive.
I thought it had personality
Really, Disney's always been on the cutting edge of animation. You should look at the Pinocchio documentary (somewhere on Youtube) and how they rendered the cage and cart scenes in the movie by tracing the lines of live motion objects. The actually built a cart and cage, filmed it, and then traced over the lines to make the movie more realistic. This same process was later brought (as you mentioned) to movies like Great Mouse Detective and Oliver and Company, where the cars were apparently rendered in wireframe, animated by Pixar (which was part of ILM at the time), and traced over by the animators. I don't think the cars and gears in the clock are actually being rendered by the computer, but rather being traced over by the animators and being colored into the movie.You mentioned Oliver and Company, and this one also had quite a bit of early CGI in it too. Especially for the vehicles and traffic sequences:
Though it did come out two years after the great Mouse Detective. Disney was really experimenting with blending CGI and traditional animation together in the '80s.
Have you seen the short he did for google? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qnQqXr838E
I miss traditional animation. Sad it's dead in the west.
Agreed. There needs to be way more CGI love in this thread.
Vanellope was ADORABLE
Love the animals are animated. I have no problem with rotoscoping its just that the way snow white animates just looks empty to me.http://youtu.be/hQZ6zzLpoNQ
Just watch Snow White. Even though it was made almost 80 years ago it still stands up today. The rotoscoping still is some of the finest examples in animation ever.
One thing that harms CG is that almost every CG film looks the same. Compare Disney and Dreamworks in 1998 and now.
These were their two films in 1998:
Radically different art styles.
...
Mulan and PoE were completely unique in their art direction. If you stuck Mulan next to Moses it would look weird. I don't think Hiccup would stand out among the Frozen cast.
Love the animals are animated. I have no problem with rotoscoping its just that the way snow white animates just looks empty to me.