Friday, January 06, 2012

Deep Thought

Watching the clip of the new Tangled short, I had what you call an epiphany ...

I wish that Tintin had been made with this animation team ... in this animation style.

The motion capture just doesn't do it for me.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Agreed!

Anonymous said...

And that's how you do CG, fellas.

Anonymous said...

Yes!!!!!
Made by puppetiers!

Anonymous said...

Puppeteers with more talent than most 2D animators!

Steve Hulett said...

Be kind to the puppeteers. They are the future.

Anonymous said...

^Unless they're the Muppets.

Anonymous said...

2D animation still has the best look. I'm looking forward to seeing Arrietty in theaters this year and nothing else. You can keep your Madagascaar 325, or whatever it is now.

Anonymous said...

Hardly. CG has FAR more visual possibilities. And acting and character in CG tends to be stronger and more consistent.

Anonymous said...

^I disagree with the first point, each has limits to the medium, but I agree with the second.

Anonymous said...

Of course you disagree since you work on CG movies. You're too close to be objective.

The fact is that the vast majority of animation critics and historians alike still believe that CG has yet to achieve the artistry and craftsmanship of early hand-drawn animation (like Pinocchio, Bambi or Fantasia).

Anonymous said...

"The fact is that the vast majority of animation critics and historians alike still believe ..."

That is not a "fact," it is a narrow minded opinion. And an ignorant one, at that.

Having spent 30 years as a character animator, designer, and director on some of the biggest traditional and CG films, I prefer the limitless artistic possibilities of what CG brings to the table. Especially when it comes to Character Animation.

As far as "artistry" is concerned, there's a LOT of work being done today that matches and surpasses any of those older films. But the reality is, audience members don't go to movies for "artistry.". They go to be entertained by stories and characters they can relate to.

Your limited experience in the medium of film is reflected in your opinion.

Please stop being bitter about not being able to find 2D work because you failed to prepare yourself for the artistic capabilities made available with the computer. The future is now.

g said...

^
|
|

Agreed!

Anonymous said...

Of course you disagree since you work on CG movies. You're too close to be objective.

I don't work CG, so your assessment of me and my POV is wrong.

2D still hasn't explored all of it's possible visual looks. One thing 2d does better than CG is it's ability to be "cartoony".

CG tries but when Scrat or other characters try to Squash and stretch so much it looks unnerving at times.

One medium isn't better than the other, but are decidedly different - so I say let's have more of both push the limits.

Steve Hulett said...

Quite right. One medium isn't better or worse than another.

From an artistic standpoint.

But our conglomerates don't look at it from an artist's perspective. They look at box office. And the decision has been mostly decided.

CGI makes the big bucks. And CGI is what's (mainly) getting made.

Anonymous said...

Of course you disagree since you work on 2D movies. You're too close to be objective. CG can do far more "cartoony" work than it's currently doing... if and when the story calls for it. Artistically, the computer affords far more artistic choices.

Anonymous said...

Goes to show you, I don't work 2D either. I work Stop motion in case you need to turn that into the basis of a failed argument.

You know you can do 2D in the computer too. And the computer offers more time consuming artistic choices for something you want to look like a 2D looking cartoon, with line work etc.

Karen Krajenbrink said...

Pencil and paper... Computer screen and tablet/software... It doesn't matter. They're both mediums to create a story, and only as good as the people and teams that are creating it.

Site Meter