|
Post by Quickstride on Jun 9, 2006 19:48:28 GMT -5
I originally meant to post a new topic every month in this forum, but what with trying to graduating and starting my new job I completely skipped May. Well, here goes:
Traditional U.S. animation is becoming an endangered species these days, at least as far as movies are concerned (not counting direct-to-video sequels.) Everything seems to be going CGI- even Disney revamped its animation department a few years to make computer animated films exclusively. It wasn't totally unexpected- Pixar and Dreamworks had both had huge success with their CGI films, and traditionally animated Disney films hadn't been doing very well in the box office for the past few years. Like many other things, computers were changing the face of animation.
I've always loved animation- it's perfect for the genres I like most, fantasy and science fiction. Animation allows for stories with bizarre elements to be told without having to worry about special effects that end up looking bad or eat up most of the budget (or both.) Until computers became sufficiently powerful, traditional animation was for the most part the only way to tell some stories on film- this led to more mature material being made into animated films, The Last Unicorn, Watership Down, and The Plague Dogs being examples. Even today, one of the strengths of anime that makes it popular is the fact that anything is possible- even series with mundane settings often benefit from the surreal nature of the medium they're being presented in.
I have nothing against CGI- I've enjoyed quite a few computer animated films. However, I see it as more of a different style, not necessarily a superior replacement for traditional animation. Most of the criticism launched at Disney's last cartoon films concerned things such as characterization and plot- things that wouldn't improve if it went digital (although the quality of Disney animation had dropped.) In any case, now that the novelty of CGI features has worn off, the recent string of mediocre films done in this style would seem to indicate that the switch isn't improving animation as a whole. Perhaps studios will realize that just because something can be done on the computer doesn't automatically mean it's better, and will start making traditionally animated films alongside CGI ones. Disney is apparently working on an animated/live action movie called Enchanted, in which a princess from an animated fantasy kingdom finds herself in the "real world" (a switch from many other "mixed" films, in which the opposite usually occurs.) Perhaps even hybridized CGI/traditional films will emerge- an anime called Appleseed has an interesting style, being basically a 3-D cartoon. Even the video game Kingdom Hearts II re-inacts key scenes from various Disney films, transporting them into a 3-D environment while maintaining their original feel. The possibilities are intriguing- only time will tell if they are realized.
Thoughts?
|
|
Buttercup
Junior Scholar
Ain't life grand?
Posts: 316
|
Post by Buttercup on Jun 9, 2006 21:06:58 GMT -5
Well, your topic speaks mostly of movies versus movies but the first thing that came to mind was the fact that the other day in the waiting room for my son's doctor, I saw an old re-run of Smurfs...THAT brought back some memories let me tell you. Anyway, the three year old that I regularly babysit is currently on a Snow White kick and as many know, Snow White was the first full length animated feature put out by Disney.
Looking back and thinking of all the movies that I have seen recently, such as Toy Story, Madagascar, and a few others, while being funny, I gotta tell ya, I still go with the older Classics. New does not mean better. I appreciate the originals for the effort and quality put into them overall, from design to plot to characterization. The newer videos and such with all the neat computer graphics are great, especially for special effects style scenes, but I guess I am just a little old fashioned thinking in the fact that if it takes longer to make it, it's worth seeing.
However, if it weren't for CGI, there are a lot of stories that might not have been told soooooo, I think it all depends on your point of view and whether you would rather read or watch, in a way! Does that make any sense?
But for non animated movies....I am in favor of computer graphics and add ins definitely as long as any remakes stay true to the originals as much as possible. There is nothing worse than a good oldie remade with great graphics that screws the story up because then you can't enjoy the computer stuff because you find yourself saying constantly, 'That NEVER happened in the original!" I guess the same could be said for animated remakes as well. There, that's my opinion...any other's?
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Jun 10, 2006 10:15:14 GMT -5
CGI is a LOT faster, involves less material and less manpower then conventional animating... There's just no profit in in drawing everything, the cartoons that are still made ARE made with CGI and animation because it'd take a kazillion years to get anything done if they didn't... Besides most cartoon series and movies are mainly for small children while it seems with CGI older people can identify too so the market for it is larger. I stopped watching cartoons at age 12 or something, you know the whole 'cartoons are for little children' thing. I guess if they make it less cartoony teenagers can get away with watching it without it being socially unaccepted? I have to admit I don't even remotely like the kind of kids stuff thats on TV though. Everything gets replaced by bad anime or by things even more crappy then that... (I know there is supposed to be good anime but I haven't seen anything interesting anime-wise on local TV yet, they just go for the popular stuff). I liked the old cartoons MUCH better but maybe thats just me not being very interested in contesting and fighting, which seems to be the main themes in recent children's programmes (DBZ, Pokémon) or just plain encouragement of bad behaviour (various series the names of which I don't know because I don't speak Japanese.). I see my siblings use sentences and behaviour which is recognisably from TV and get in trouble for it! Don't you count anime in the 'cartoon' category? It seems the amount of anime cartoons has gone crazy over the past decade so in that there is as much cartoon stuff going on as ever, its just all been anime-ed. But I do love the LOTR movies of course which also involve a lot of CGI. I didn't see any of the movies mentioned here, aside from Snow white. Remakes always spark a dicussion and always will disappoint a few fans, be it a movie-remake or a book put on the silver screen...
|
|
|
Post by Quickstride on Jun 10, 2006 10:52:24 GMT -5
I've noticed a drop in the quality of cartoon writing, as well- I wasn't sure if it was just me growing up (despite my best efforts to the contrary) but there does seem to be a real decline. Part of the reason, I think, is that at least as far as movies are concerned the family genre is spitting apart- instad of films that can be simultaneously enjoyed by kids and parents, writers seem to ty ro appeal to kids by injecting silliness into the movie and to adults by making pop culture references and raunchy jokes that survive a G rating only by being way over childrens' heads. The result can be very uneven, and can give all such movies a "sameness" because they're following the same formula. It's like they've forgotten how to make something universally appealing- and yes, I agree that CGI films do this because they are trying to appeal to adults, as well.
As for CGI being cheaper, that just turns it into the "poor man's cartoon"- one of the things that made Disney animation superior to other studios' cartoons is the extra expense put into it. Given the lower quality of CGI films coming out, it's cheapness is starting to show. In any case, good artwork can make up for cheap animation- anime is produced very cheaply because of its low framerate (which does bother some, but its popularity would indicate that many don't mind it) and the low-budget The Plague Dogs (which had pretty crummy animation but beautiful handdrawn artwork.) Hybridizing the styles could also cut down on the costs (much computer work was going into traditionally animated Disney films as it was.) More costly or not, animators of any style are going to have to come up with something that at least looks good- people have already complained that some of the more recent CGI films look cheap and ugly.
As for good anime, don't bother with anything on TV (except for Adult Swim- sometimes they get a good show.) Because cartoons are primarily a kid's medium in the U.S., series that will appeal to kids are usually the ones broadcast- after they've been cut and dubbed over into something more "kid friendly" than the original. Anime is a style that has been used for many genres- if you like or don't mind animation, there's probably something you'd like out there. (Also, although anime has been gaining in popularity in recent years, it's still not really mainstream yet.)
And just to be clear, I'm not talking about CGI in relation to special effects for live action movies- I'm perfectly fine with that (as long as it's good CGI- I'd rather there be none at all if they're not going to put the money in to make it look good) or computers used to animate traditional cartoons- in all honestly, I simply like the style and don't much care how it was done. I just think that Hollywood was too abrupt in abandoning it for CGI.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jul 2, 2006 4:55:56 GMT -5
For my cartoons, I turn to the Cartoon Network. And not just for genuine anime. There are, or at least were, some non-anime series I watched for its content and franchise relations. Basically most of the stuff produced by Bruce Timm was stuff I tried very hard to tune in to. Of course, this pretty much ended for me with the last episode of Justice League Unlimited earlier this year. I'd say there's something to be said for Genndy Tartakovsky's work as well. I don't know how much CG they incorporate (I gather most modern animation uses computers somehow to smooth out the frame sequences and such) but it's still recognizably animation.
- Aric
|
|
|
Post by Quickstride on Jul 6, 2006 22:56:17 GMT -5
I just saw Cars last weekend, and I find myself with an irrational fondness for this movie (probably because I love classic cars, and after seeing the surprisingly impressive gas mileage a Hudson Hornet can get, I'm hoping to someday own one.) Anyway, Cars is a pretty good movie- metallic textures look great in this medium, and the movie had some genuinely funny moments (and a great soundtrack, ranging from doowop to hiphop.) It also has a surprisingly Dinotopian angle to it- but I don't want to give it away.
I also saw ads for three new 3D computer animated films- Sony's Open Season, Disney's Meet the Robinsons and Pixar's Ratatouille. Open Season is another talking animal film (which, apparently, got a PG rating for some crude humor) the Disney one has human characters but I'm not exactly sure what it's about, and Ratatouille is about a rat who lives in Paris and, uh, likes good food (given that Pixar hasn't let me down yet, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment.)
Judging from what I'm seeing and what others have noticed, I think I've figured out what's rubbing me the wrong way about a lot of new 3D films- there are certain quirks to the medium that cause them to gravitate in a particular direction. Humans are difficult to convincingly animate in 3D, hence many movies either opt for very cartoony humans or anthropomorphize something else (usually animals, as they're easiest to do this with.) Because detailed animal models can be expensive (the fur is a pain to render- this is why many people theorize that Red XIII is omitted from new Final Fantasy VII games and the movie) a more cartoony style is used for them as well. The result can resemble a 3D Saturday morning cartoon- not necessary bad art, but not what we're used to seeing in a full length feature (which have traditionally had better art quality.) I guess the studios also feel that this simplistic style won't lend itself to a more serious story, meaning that the movies are often silly, perhaps with a few "adult" jokes thrown in to try and give it a bigger audience. There's nothing inherently wrong with this formula (well, I dislike movies with uneven humor- at least Cars had jokes everyone could appreciate to some extent) but it can get tiring after a while and make animated features seem stale. Hopefully, people will get sufficiently tired of this that studios will start experimenting with other types of 3D animated films instead.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Quickstride on Jul 29, 2006 13:05:58 GMT -5
Apparently, Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea series is going to be made into an animated film by none other than Studio Ghibli (the renowned anime film studio behind movies such as Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away.) It also seems that they have been trying to get the rights to make this movie for some time. The movie before this one, Howl's Moving Castle, was also based on a book by an English author, British Diane Wynne Jones. Although this certainly isn't enough to say it's a trend, I wonder if English fantasy books are going to start seeing more animated film adaptations made overseas (heck, some older animated fantasy films, such as The Hobbit and The Last Unicorn, were produced by American company Rankin-Bass but animated by Japanese artists- many of whom would later form Studio Ghibli!)
|
|