OT?: CGI: Your Thoughts

[The "Chase"]

You know, after Thad posted his reasons why CGI sucks, now I'm curious. What's your guys opinion on CGI, whenever postive or negative, and how it's used, like whenever it's used as special effects, or something Pixar and Dreamworks pulls out, or both?

[nickramer]

You know, after Thad posted his reasons why CGI sucks, now I'm curious. What's your guys opinion on CGI, whenever postive or negative, and how it's used, like whenever it's used as special effects, or something Pixar and Dreamworks pulls out, or both?
I think computer animation works well if done right as Pixar proves. As for others, it's mixed. Dreamworks, for example, jumps ahead to later stages of a film and spend more time on these than the story. However, I think they are starting to get the point because I though "Kung Fu Panda" was theier best film to date.

[frizfrelengfan]

I'm not in the business; in fact I can't draw at all. I'm just a fan. My opinion is, if the cartoon is effective, I don't care whether it's CGI or hand-drawn. For a cartoon to be effective, either it's funny, or it's sad, or it sends a message, or it's visually beautiful, or it's timed well to music. The folks at Pixar seem to do everything well; the folks at Dreamworks (except for the Shrek franchise) are less effective.

I used to dislike Hanna-Barbera stuff when I was growing up. I thought it was because of the limited animation; now I realize it's because it just isn't as funny as the WB stuff that I also watched growing up. Limited animation can be successful; I particularly enjoy the UPA cartoons that were based on short stories, maybe because I read those stories. On the other hand, big budgets don't always been good cartoons (example: Famous Studios).

[Bugsy-Kun]

Thad make a excellent analysis about how the computer replaced the hand-drawing animation overall over the last years, especially since the CGI was created. I use to love the early Pixar movies Toy Story and Monster's Inc. (Even if Thad think it's a more or less tribute to a cute Jones cartoon)

But when i want to know is "Where the real artists in this movies?" Today, the drawing artists and animators are replaced by the directors and big name actors who make huge profits into the recent CGI movies. (Think how Shrek being the most surprised movie in summer 2001 and how they was ripped a few years later with Unhappily Ever After?) Like a artist myself, i feel hugely disappointed that many talented Digital artists on DA was too lame for make a traditional sketch with many details. And besides, their fans are itty-bitty childs who know nothing in draw and animation. If peoples could give a better chance to artists and animators, the movies have a better treatment, but for now, it's just... shame!

And did you know why many peoples are addict to the cell shaddings? I give you for $1000 bucks: They had nothing magic on this. That's staying a flat picture with a other flat colour. Trust me!

[dandu]

I agree with Frizfreelingfan, I have noticed with CGI that there are very few "Artistic" creations, most of CGI films are made for commercial interests. I do enjoy looking at experimental CGI films, they can create a really creative atmosphere (look at the 1981 demo for Tron).

[CueBallCat79]

I agree with Frizfreelingfan, I have noticed with CGI that there are very few "Artistic" creations, most of CGI films are made for commercial interests.

Psst, all the cartoons we talk about here were primarily made for "commercial interests". The Hollywood theatrical shorts of the golden age were not art films. So I don't really get that line of logic.

CGI is still in it's infancy IMHO. Hand drawn animation has been around for a century, but it really didn't get truly spectacular as an art form until the late 30s and early 40s. It's only been 15 years since the first full-length CGI theatrical feature. There's lots of time to develop it and see where it can go.

[Marty26]

As an art medium, CG in movies is fine. The problem IMO is that there are JUST TOO MANY CG MOVIES THESE DAYS!!! I remember, when Toy Story came out, CG was the talk of the town. It was something completely new and innovative. However, ever since Shrek became the surprise box office smash of 2001, everybody's been jumping on the CG bandwagon. With a couple minor exceptions (The Spongebob Square Pants movie :rolleyes: ), there hasn't been a proper 2D hand drawn movie since Treasure Planet - a movie that came out almost six years ago. And most companies (Sony Pictures I'm looking at you) are basically just ripping off what Disney and Dreamworks have been doing. Fancy CG artwork, big-name voice talent for characters that don't even fit their voices (David Schwimmer's lame portrayal of Melman the Giraffe from Madagascar comes to mind), etc.

Again, CG in and of itself is fine. And, when used properly, it can really add to the movie. But it's become way too commercialized and the whole novelty is rapidly wearing off now.

[CueBallCat79]

With a couple minor exceptions (The Spongebob Square Pants movie :rolleyes: ), there hasn't been a proper 2D hand drawn movie since Treasure Planet - a movie that came out almost six years ago.

Brother Bear
Home on the Range
The Simpsons Movie
Curious George

and...ummm......

[ohmahaaha]

To me, hand-drawn or CGI makes no difference as long as the story is good. Story is everything. It's just like special effects in a movie just for the sake of special effects; they are not enough in and of themselves.

This is why a masterpiece like "Pinocchio" can stand right next to another masterpiece like "Monsters, Inc." IMO.

I do kind of agree with one of the earlier posts on this thread suggesting that there are way too many CGI films - but then again, this wouldn't be much of a problem if they were all good ... but they're not all good.

[ohmahaaha]

Brother Bear
Home on the Range
The Simpsons Movie
Curious George

and...ummm......
How about "Spirited Away" or "Howl's Moving Castle?"

[CueBallCat79]

How about "Spirited Away" or "Howl's Moving Castle?"

I'm just talking about American animation here. I haven't seen (nor do I care about) either film you mentioned. Just never been an anime fan, no matter how "good" everyone says that stuff is.

[thornhill]

It's getting to be too much. Either there needs to be a government order that only 2 CGI films can be made a year, or it needs to die the death it surely will sooner. (I'd like to see Flash stabbed to death as well.)

Also, I think Thad's blog is starting to jump the shark.

What.... ?

[Leviathan]

As for the topic at hand, CueBallCat kind of hit the nail right on the head there.

[CueBallCat79]

As for the topic at hand, CueBallCat kind of hit the nail right on the head there.

Here or on Thad's blog comments?

It's appropriate, so i'm just going to cut and pasta what I wrote there:

If your really good with a computer you should be able to inject some “human spirit” into what you do. Just because a computer itself is cold and unfeeling doesn’t mean the work that comes out of it has to be. As fashionable as it is around here to trash Pixar at every opportunity, those films DO connect with people on an emotional level. So the company must be doing something right, even if the technique can’t match the type of animation that was produced decades ago. And yes, I do prefer the classic stuff but (as I seem to constantly be saying) I still enjoy what Pixar puts out.
There’s no reason both forms of animation can’t co-exist. But you can’t blame CGI for the fact that everyone in Hollywood milks it like a hormone-fed cow. Or that the mainstream audience is stupid enough to keep going to see garbage like Shark Tale, Madagascar and Shrek.
I agree with Thad that we’ll probably never see the likes of Emery Hawkings, Ken Harris or Jim Tyler ever again. But that was then and this is now and we’re living in a vastly different world. One has to roll with the punches and at least acknowledge that as time advances and technology changes the talent itself is going to change as well. I would love it (LOVE IT) if a company somewhere was producing 2D animation on the same level as the Warner, Disney and MGM stuff of the 1940s. It kills me that this is no longer happening. But I have all these cartoons on DVD to enjoy whenever I want and I’m realistic enough to know that times, styles, techniques and sensibilities have changed in the past half decade. I enjoy Tom and Jerry, Donald Duck and Daffy, but I also enjoy South Park, Spongebob Squarepants and (shock and gasp) Family Guy. I enjoy Disney’s features of the 1940s and 50s but I also enjoy their stuff from the 1990s, as well as all of Pixars features.
When one is stuck on just one type of style and technique as much as some golden age “pursts” around here are I can understand the resentment and hostile attitude towards what is being made today. But I’m thankful that I can enjoy a variety of animation without tearing something apart because it’s not done the same way as something else that I may enjoy just as much, if not more. I can sit and watch Tom and Jerry for hours upon hours and be mesmerized by the fantastic animation by Ken Muse, Ray Patterson and Irve Spence, fascinated by every aspect of each hand drawn frame. But then I’m perfectly capable of watching a film like Aladdin or Monsters Inc and enjoying them for what they are.
That said, Dreamworks sucks hard.

[Leviathan]

Now that you've posted your blogpost, both actually.

I guess my earlier post wouldn't have been so heated if Jerry Beck and the people at Toon Zone weren't the only ones NOT doling out resentment and hostility right now.

[CueBallCat79]

I guess my earlier post wouldn't be so heated if Jerry Beck and the people at Toon Zone weren't the only ones NOT doling out resentment and hostility right now.

And thank goodness for both of them. But I don't think GAC is bad at all really. Especially considering, if you really want to talk about Family Guy or Animaniacs, you could just head over to Toon Zone. So most of what's here is pretty much on-topic. More or less.

[Matthew Hunter]

I think we need to define some boundaries here. What someone says on their blog is their own opinion, and if you disagree, fine. You're all welcome to discuss topics brought up on blogs here, but it's NOT okay to attack the author personally, especially if the author is a fellow poster here. That's why blogs have a "comment" option. I will guarantee you that Thad is not the only person who has ever expressed hatred for something on a blog. Why not just discuss the topic he brought up, rather than discuss him?

[Bugsy-Kun]

Also, I think Thad's blog is starting to jump the shark.


I don't agree. Thad and John K. helped me to find some values about how a real cartoon was made. Today is just stupidity and randomness in the animations and the majors TV stations don't care to this anymore. And that's i did a few months ago in my blog, and then i transfered in my DA account when i closed my Blog (And that was a mistake!!!). Today i want to ringing the alarm to the reality of today's animation to youngs, often based in the plagiarising. And i want to prevent to fake models like Paris Hilton or Miley Cirus who look stars for pedophiles. Ugh, i hate pedos!

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, it's getting to that point. I know that it's Thad's blog and his opinion, but the blog has gotten too opinion driven. I'm getting tired of his jerky attitude and his harsh coments about the state of animation and bashing anything that isn't done by Lantz, Warners, Fleischer or MGM. He reminds me of a recent flash animated character who I won't name as he'll probably bash this guy's cool styles, too

If I were Thad, I would just try to make my own animation films and show how they should be done. Sure it's going to be a hell of a lot of work, but it's better than to spend most of the time complaining on a blog and act like you're Mark Mayerson or John K.

For me, Thad is in the right way. He's really care to animation. Not some of the DA peoples i know who just like because it's their times or because it's fashion. And i find it weird if he says in each sentences "Kawaii" or "Desuu"! It's one of the big problems in internet in the actual times. I just wonder if he's left GAC forever. I see his drawings on DA from the old cartoons and that's need improvement. No ones is perfect here.

[Tom Stathes]

Well said, Matt. I will second that no one here has to like or agree with what Thad or anyone else states on their blog. While we do encourage open discussions here, let's not make it into "Thad's bad" or anything like that. You can act on such an opinion by simply not reading one's blog that you dislike especially if he is a member here, for instance.

[nickramer]

Well said, Matt. I will second that no one here has to like or agree with what Thad or anyone else states on their blog. While we do encourage open discussions here, let's not make it into "Thad's bad" or anything like that. You can act on such an opinion by simply not reading one's blog that you dislike especially if he is a member here, for instance.
Okay, sorry about that. I'll edit my posts and delete my big rant.

[Matthew Hunter]

I didn't think I was needlessly insulting or inflammatory of character (especially since my grievance is with not only Thad, but with people like Amid as well). I certainly didn't intend for my response to be an "attack". I just put in my two cents in what I feel is an increasing negativity on Thad's part that has manifested itself in posts like the one being discussed.

Jussssst keep going. You are now officially warned.

[mikematei]

Many others have stated their opinions as to WHY cgi animation sucks. (see michael barriers wall e review) So I'm not going to describe why I don't like it. But I wholeheartedly despise all computer generated animation.

[Surenity]

Eh, it just bothers me when I look at how great animated movies of the 80's and 90's were, and how today we're stuck with Madagascar, Shrek and Shark's Tale. It's very easy to get angry and blame computer animation itself. They've almost stopped doing traditional animation altogether. Yes the two mediums can co-exist, but nobody lets them. But, it's quite possible that if the childrens movies of this decade weren't being made as CGI, then we'd just have a lot of terrible traditionally animated movies polluting the movie screens. The writing is as much to blame for the lack of quality as anything.

[That 70s Mom]

Brother Bear
Home on the Range
The Simpsons Movie
Curious George

and...ummm......

Pooh's Heffalump Movie, the Tigger movie, the Piglet movie, the Clifford movie - why are most 2D movies these days aimed at preschoolers?

The animated part of Enchanted was a step in the right direction. Let's hope that Princess and Frog movie continues in that direction, instead of just repeating the CGI cliches. (If the frog farts, I'm leaving.)

[Marty26]

Eh, it just bothers me when I look at how great animated movies of the 80's and 90's were, and how today we're stuck with Madagascar, Shrek and Shark's Tale. It's very easy to get angry and blame computer animation itself. They've almost stopped doing traditional animation altogether. Yes the two mediums can co-exist, but nobody lets them. But, it's quite possible that if the childrens movies of this decade weren't being made as CGI, then we'd just have a lot of terrible traditionally animated movies polluting the movie screens. The writing is as much to blame for the lack of quality as anything.

Unfortunately, many executives didn't realize this. And when movies like Shrek and Ice Age were breaking box office records while movies like Treasure Planet and Return To Neverland weren't, the executives decided to blame 2D animation rather than the lack of original/new writing (you'd think the success of Lilo And Stitch would've convinced them otherwise, but I guess even THAT wasn't enough since Ice Age and Shrek beat it at the box office). And that's why we haven't had a single Disney-style 2D animated movie since 2002 (barring some aforementioned preschool/kindergarten-aimed movies and one movie based on an adult animated sitcom), and instead we've been getting a constant glut of CG movies - which, by the way, aren't doing as well at the box office now as they were at the beginning of the decade (see The Ant Bully, Open Season, Doogal, etc. for details). The animation industry is now another victim of the whole "technology before art" mantra.

[ohmahaaha]

Many others have stated their opinions as to WHY cgi animation sucks. (see michael barriers wall e review) So I'm not going to describe why I don't like it. But I wholeheartedly despise all computer generated animation.
I still think that if the right person with enough imagination and good enough story were to put together a CGI movie that would knock your socks off, I'll bet you'd like it just as much as some of the best hand-drawn animated films.

My point is don't just throw up your hands if you see that it's CGI, give it a look first.

[Marty26]

I still think that if the right person with enough imagination and good enough story were to put together a CGI movie that would knock your socks off, I'll bet you'd like it just as much as some of the best hand-drawn animated films.

My point is don't just throw up your hands if you see that it's CGI, give it a look first.

I will agree that this "cartoon elitism" tends to get too out of hand. As long as it actually benefits the film, CG can add quite a bit to an animated movie. The problem is simply that it's being used in movies that, for all intents and purposes, not only don't need it but would actually work better with 2D animation (certain dramatic moments, for example, just have a much more emotional impact with 2D animation than with 3D animation).

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I like all forms of animation -- whether it's hand drawn on cels, stop motion puppets, clay animation, paper cut-outs, or CGI. All I ask is that it's good.

All of these methods have their strengths and weaknesses, some more so than others. I love the cel animation from the 40's the best, but lots of hand drawn animation leaves me cold (namely the Disney features from the 50's onward and limited animated tv shows). CGI can be cold and sterile at times, and some of the animation seems like stilted rubber puppets, but I enjoy many of the Pixar features, and some from other studios as well. There are some good poses and animation in Pixar's Toy Story 2, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille.

[Boy Wonder]

When Toy Story came out, I thought the technology was cool. It was fresh, original, but at the same time, the movie never felt over-the-top or outrageous.

Watching Wall-E, everything is the opposite. I miss hand-drawn animated flicks a lot.

[CueBallCat79]

When Toy Story came out, I thought the technology was cool. It was fresh, original, but at the same time, the movie never felt over-the-top or outrageous.

Watching Wall-E, everything is the opposite. I miss hand-drawn animated flicks a lot.

The sad thing is - even if CGI films were to completely go away and we suddenly found ourselfs swamped with "hand drawn" features - these 2D movies would still fail to have the rough, hand made "soul" of the older works from the Golden Age. The characters would still be inked, painted and cleaned up by computer, resulting in something that (even if animated by the finest animtors out there) would still look vaguely mechanical. Background artists would still no doubt be aided considerably by computers - look at the pathetic looking 2.5/D backgrounds from that "Princess and the Frog" trailer. Characters would still be obnoxious and voiced by celebrities, the marketing would still suck and fart, booger and vomit jokes would continue to be the norm.

Even if Shrek was completely remade without one solitary computer to aide the production...it would still be Shrek. And it would still suck.

Look at "The Simpsons Movie". The show wasn't always that bright, loud, colorful and refined. Going digital ripped the heart right out of the show and everyone on that show now is an on-model automoton. Look how much Spongebob Squarepants, Powerpuff Girls or Ed, Edd and Eddy changed visually when those show went digital. It's going to take a lot more than a few new films with "flat" characters to convince me that true hand-drawn animation isn't a dead art form.

But as long as the writing and characters are good I can look past that. Sadly, that hasn't been the case with most 2D films that have been released in the past decade. My favorite 2D film from that time frame would have to be Lilo and Stitch. And the water color backgrounds and soft, rounded character designs definitely helped in the regard. It's a shame Disney closed their Florida studio as well as their Austrailian studio, which was really the last place where Disney was producing cartoony-looking character animation.

[thornhill]

If 2-D is dead, 3-D is its walking corpse! But 3-D will die again, just not soon enough.

It's going to take a few really good 2-D features to bring back a demand for it. If Pixar had any real integrity, they would do 2-D as well as 3-D. As is, the staff isn't being utilized to its full potential. All of those artists are influenced by Jones, Kahl, Blair, Noble, et. al, though none of it is reflected in the films.

As it has since the 60s, the art form is going to be carried on by the independent animators.

[CueBallCat79]

If 2-D is dead, 3-D is its walking corpse! But 3-D will die again, just not soon enough.

Spare me.

3-D will die again? When did it die the first time? And 2-D certainly isn't dead, just 100% hand-drawn 2-D, which is what I said in my last post. 3-D and 2-D can co-exist peacefully. But right now 3-D is just more popular and (like it or lump it) all of the most recent 2-D animated films actually have been crap. It's entirely possible to produce a well made hand-drawn film, but right now the interest and money is in 3-D. Eventually the interest will subside and people will come back around to 2-D animation. But that doesn't mean CGI animated films are going to go the way of the dinosaur. Of course not. I think as time marches on CGI is going to improve to the point where stuff like WALL-E and Kung Fu Panda look like children's darwings by comparison.

It's going to take a few really good 2-D features to bring back a demand for it. If Pixar had any real integrity, they would do 2-D as well as 3-D. As is, the staff isn't being utilized to its full potential. All of those artists are influenced by Jones, Kahl, Blair, Noble, et. al, though none of it is reflected in the films.There's a difference between being influenced by something and outright copying it, thornhill. Just because an animator says they were influenced by Maurice Noble doesn't mean the backgrounds and worlds they create need to look like they came out of a 1950s WB cartoon. What were you expecting out of WALL-E? Backgrounds that looked like they came out of "Hareway to the Stars"? You can be influenced by something but still have your own artistic style and vision. What a ridiculous argument. The staff isn't being utilized to it's full potential? Well I know not everyone agrees with me but WALL-E blew me away. If that's not representative of a staff that's being realized to their full potential I don't know what is.

And I think it's adorable how you say that Pixar needs to be making 2-D films in order to have any real integrity. Considering Lasseter's goal is to help bring back in-house 2-D animation at Disney why in the world would Pixar want to be competing with their boss and the company that owns them by turning out 2-D work. I'd like to see Pixar put out 2-D stuff to be honest, but I'd rather see hand-drawn animation at the Mouse House get back on it's feet first.

As it has since the 60s, the art form is going to be carried on by the independent animators.Because stuff like Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Lion King, The Little Mermaid and Lilo and Stitch are absolute crap, right?

[FleischerFan]

Regarding Disney & Pixar in talking about 2-D versus 3-D animation, I think at this point with both brand names owned by Disney and both under John Lasseter's control, the point of attempting 2-D animation at Pixar is sort of moot.

John is bringing back 2-D animation under the Disney brand name. If it clicks with the public, we'll see more of it.

Stop motion animation hasn't died because of computer animation. It just offers animators more choices. And Hollywood doesn't care about format - what they care about is box office.

But, geez, we start to sound like cranky old curmudgeons complaining about "those kids and their crazy music. That's not music, it's noise!" Only instead of "music," we're cranky about cartoons.

Nothing stays the same. I love old black and white movies, but I'm sure not holding my breath waiting for Hollywood to churn out a bunch of new ones.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

The sad thing is - even if CGI films were to completely go away and we suddenly found ourselfs swamped with "hand drawn" features - these 2D movies would still fail to have the rough, hand made "soul" of the older works from the Golden Age. The characters would still be inked, painted and cleaned up by computer, resulting in something that (even if animated by the finest animtors out there) would still look vaguely mechanical. Background artists would still no doubt be aided considerably by computers - look at the pathetic looking 2.5/D backgrounds from that "Princess and the Frog" trailer. Characters would still be obnoxious and voiced by celebrities, the marketing would still suck and fart, booger and vomit jokes would continue to be the norm.

Even if Shrek was completely remade without one solitary computer to aide the production...it would still be Shrek. And it would still suck.

Look at "The Simpsons Movie". The show wasn't always that bright, loud, colorful and refined. Going digital ripped the heart right out of the show and everyone on that show now is an on-model automoton. Look how much Spongebob Squarepants, Powerpuff Girls or Ed, Edd and Eddy changed visually when those show went digital. It's going to take a lot more than a few new films with "flat" characters to convince me that true hand-drawn animation isn't a dead art form.

But as long as the writing and characters are good I can look past that. Sadly, that hasn't been the case with most 2D films that have been released in the past decade. My favorite 2D film from that time frame would have to be Lilo and Stitch. And the water color backgrounds and soft, rounded character designs definitely helped in the regard. It's a shame Disney closed their Florida studio as well as their Austrailian studio, which was really the last place where Disney was producing cartoony-looking character animation.
Amen, brother. You're absolutely right about Shrek sucking in any animation medium, be it hand drawn or CGI. Ugly designs and obnoxious stories aren't limited to just CGI animated films.

I also liked (most of) Lilo & Stitch. That film, however, also used CGI for the vehicles (rendered in cel shader to fit with the hand drawn animation). Someone told me that the filmmakers somehow worked the computer animation so that it wasn't perfect and symmetrical, as is usually the case with CGI. I thought it blended nicely with the character animation.

One minor disagreement I have with you is about The Simpsons. The "on model" mindset on that show started way before they went to digital ink and paint. If the artists seem like automatons to you, remember that most of the remaining crew from the original early seasons never worked on another show, and in fact for some of them The Simpsons was their first job in animation. (The ones with animation backgrounds left the show early on, like Brad Bird.) They have internalized all of Groening's rigid rules for drawing the Simpsons characters. Groening would make a new rule at least once a season too, so you can imagine what that was like after 16 seasons of working on the show.

Ren & Stimpy used digital ink and paint before most other shows did, and the episodes from season two that utilized it look good. Before digital ink and paint the finished clean-up drawings were photocopied onto cels, and not hand-inked like in the golden age. Often the lines looked thin, weak and broken because of it. Digital ink and paint helped bring back a look akin to the self-inked line of old.

[thornhill]

Because stuff like Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Lion King, The Little Mermaid and Lilo and Stitch are absolute crap, right?

You're making baseless assumptions. I only hate Roger Rabbit and Aladdin off of that list. Beauty & the Beast , The Lion King, and Lilo & Stitch I just disliked. The Little Mermaid is good. The animation of Sebastian was closer to Chuck Jones than Chuck Jones was at that point.

I sense a prevailing sense of whininess from you here (and elsewhere). If you turn on the waterworks over one making a generalization, saying "A sucks", how can you say "B sucks", in this case anime? (I don't really like Miyazaki either but he brings more to the table than anything in CGI or 2-D here.)

BTW, I can't make an honest assessment of Wall-E. My other half and I made chit chat with the others next to us after about 40 minutes of it. Sorry.

[Matthew Hunter]

I'm closing this thread. If everyone is going to take this subject personally, it's best to drop it. Enough of this!