Will 2D animation die?

Post by **Shambler** » June 30th, 2006, 3:51 am

Woops, I accidentally posted twice, but can't delete. Sorry. Moderator? Help me out.

Following Christian's advice below...

Have you ever heard Eisner say that he likes to make one plus one add up to five? Well, when Disney bought Pixar, they made 2d and 3d add up to 8d. That's right folks, Buckaroo will be back in the driver's seat in no time.

Bonzai!

Post by **Christian** » June 30th, 2006, 4:26 am

Just re-edit your second post and say something relevant to the thread.

Post by **Shambler** » June 30th, 2006, 4:27 am

Christian wrote:Just re-edit your second post and say something relevant to the thread.

You couldn't just hook me up? You had to get me monologuing in front of all these people? Who's gonna pay my therapy bills? What will I do with all the lightning ready to discharge through my shambling talons? Oh, wait, maybe my master Buddy has a use for it. I'll go ask him.

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 30th, 2006, 2:23 pm

That's for the Walt Disney Feature Animation to do. Not Pixar.

Um, no offense meant but...who says?

As it was said earlier, Ed and John are running WDFA now.

Isn't "Pixar" just as much Disney as Disney?

Why is WDFA held to the 2d legacy while Pixar isn't? This still doesn't make sense to me.

Is it because "Oh Pixar's 3d movies are excellent while Disney's are lame."? Well not EVERYONE thinks Disney's 3d efforts were bad, and not eveyone thinks that Pixar's were wonderful. This is all completely arbitrary....

Maybe because Disney used to make 2d. Well, John Lassetter, Brad Bird and a bunch of other Pixar guys also used to make 2d, but they gave it up for 3d. Like I said, it's all arbitrary.

Maybe the Pixar guys had some artistic motivation for doing 3d as well, but like with WDFA it was a business decision, they saw an opening in the market for 3d (and believe me, they did plenty of commericals in addition to shorts--shorts don't support a studio!) 3d was starting to be in demand, so Pixar filled that demand.

Likewise, around 2001 there started to be an even bigger demand for 3d (at least according to box office grosses--and that's all ANYONE has to go on) so WDFA decided to try to fill that demand. So they started the films we've heard about--Meet The Robinsons, American Dog, Rupunzal, etc...
And you can't say that it was all money and that none of the artists had artistic visions in their head....because they did, just as much as the Pixar guys. And they still do.

It's not all black-and-white. It's money. It's opportunity. It's circumstance. Pixar is not an independent island of artists...they respond to market forces, market shifts. That, as they say, is entertainment.

Yeah, let's blame the medium for how bad most animated movies are nowadays instead of the people making them. Rolling Eyes

No, not blaming the medium....just the market of what we've been seeing. Like Ben said, ALL the animated films we've been seeing--Pixar, DreamWorks, Disney--have had the same basic theme of an animals/cars/creatures adventure/buddy comedy. It's not "the medium" per se, just the kinds of stories we've been seeing. And no matter how good they are, who wants to see the same stories over and over again?

Post by **Shambler** » June 30th, 2006, 10:25 pm

Ok, I'm gonna throw out a potentially controversial question: Anyone like Final Fantasy?

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 30th, 2006, 10:36 pm

I saw part of it once. I liked the art, (kinda creepy though) but the story was blah.

They could have done a whole lot more with it.

I liked James Woods though.

Post by **PixarVixen** » July 1st, 2006, 12:34 am

Final Fantasy...never played the games, never saw the movie. LOL

People always tell me that Final Fantasy is great, but I haven't gotten around to taking a look at any of it. Maybe I'm just not interested in it enough to want to. It looks kinda neat though.

I'm guessing when you asked about Final Fantasy, you meant the movie, but when it comes to video games, my faves are from the Zelda, Metroid, and Mario Bros. series. ^o^

~~=oP

Post by **fani** » July 1st, 2006, 12:45 am

*is a self-proffessed FFIX addict*

Main reasons
1)The characters and the story is well-written. It could have elaborated a little bit more. (More about The Tantalus gang, Beatrix, Queen Brahne, Cleyra, elaborate the story points more on Pandemonium, later on before the ending FMV should be a little longer I wouldn't have minded a six-disc game)
2) The sidequests are fun. (esp. Card game)
3)The music is awesome. (Fav pieces Aloha de Chocobo, Kuja's Theme, The Petrification of Blank, Main Theme)
4)The environment is really believable.

BTW,ShyViolet, your quote is from that story about Gregor Samsa?

Post by **Shambler** » July 1st, 2006, 1:49 am

PixarVixen wrote:I'm guessing when you asked about Final Fantasy, you meant the movie...

Yup, I meant the movie.

Personally, I thought FF was visually amazing, and I don't mind that they "cheated" by using motion capture. But IMHO, if you're going to model an entire world in the computer and then tell a sci-fi story, why not take bigger risks and go places that haven't been explored yet? While I still maintain that FF was spectacular to look at (especially for the first attempt at a photo-realistic CG feature film), there wasn't anything really new about the sci-fi itself or the world it took place in. I've seen it all before. Heck, I think Battlestar Galactica is better sci-fi than FF. BSG explores "proven" issues, but in new ways, and it always portrays both sides of an issue, reminding us how complex the real world really is. It's edgy, gritty, and has 14 essential vitamins.

But I'm bummed that FF failed at the box office. It's gonna be a while before someone wants to take a risk like that again.

<donning nomex suit>

Post by **PixarVixen** » July 1st, 2006, 1:56 am

I don't know whether I like motion capture or not. It was kinda creepy looking to me when they used it in The Polar Express. I know they also used it in the upcoming Monster House, but it doesn't bother me this time.

~~=oP

Post by **Shambler** » July 1st, 2006, 2:04 am

Isn't anyone gonna yell at me for threadjacking? You guys are all so easy going.

Post by **PixarVixen** » July 1st, 2006, 2:12 am

HOW DARE YOU CHANGE THE SUBJECT ON A THREAD!!

But seriously, we don't mind discussing things on the side every once in a while. As long as you don't cause any trouble, we won't yell.

~~=oP

Post by **Meg** » July 2nd, 2006, 11:22 am

I've always found photo-realistic animation...just...wrong.

Post by **PixarVixen** » July 2nd, 2006, 2:02 pm

If they wanna go that far, they might as well use real actors.

~~=oP

Post by **Ben** » July 3rd, 2006, 12:50 pm

FF was on TV here over the weekend and I took a look at its first hour again.

It's far more interesting down the line than it was way back when. The story we'll pass on...everyone knows and accepts it wasn't as rounded as the animation.

I wasn't aware they used mo-cap extensively on FF...not like Polar or Monster House. Which is why I find myself thinking...twn years on, how come the animation in those films aren't ten years better than what was done on FF???