Will 2D animation die?

Post by **Daniel** » September 15th, 2007, 4:54 am

ShyViolet wrote:Since we don't really have a specific thread on it, I put it here. Hope it's all right!

I searched, but nothing... So yes!

ShyViolet wrote:the BEST way to do epic animation is in traditional. (I just can't, no matter how I hard I try, picture POE, Pocahontas or Mulan in CGI)

Well, naturally, because you were exposed to them in 2d from the get-go. Had they been introduced as CG, your opinion might be different. I can't picture it either, btw!

ShyViolet wrote:Even all those terrible 2d films from the 80s (Heathcliff the Movie, etc...) had a sort of charm about them that you just don't see in a terrible CGI film like Happily Never After.

Yes!

ShyViolet wrote:Much as I love DW I would love them 100X more if they went back to doing at least some traditional films.

I completly agree. I mean, I love the general look of their CG films, but Spirit is in a class of itself. Its just so beautiful to look at.

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 15th, 2007, 5:30 pm

Yeah, I'm not saying that CGI is inferior, just that.....like any artistic tool, some techniques are just better for particular stories. I don't think it's a matter of saying "traditional is better than everything" or "CGI is the best."
Art is too complex for that.

Also, with stop-motion, it's the same idea. Aardman chose stop-motion for a particular type of quirky, charming type of short art form. They chose stop-motion because that's what they liked and that's what they felt best served the stories they wanted to tell.

And....just to make a point, not to bring this up again with Pixar, but to supplement what people have said, on the question of why doesn't Pixar ever do traditional? "Because it's not what they do." Exactly.

Well, naturally, because you were exposed to them in 2d from the get-go. Had they been introduced as CG, your opinion might be different. I can't picture it either, btw

Yes, I just don't know if it would affect people the same way. However, we might not even have to wait too long to find out....isn't that CGI Ten Commandments thing coming out soon?

I'm kinda unsure about that...

Post by **Ben** » September 16th, 2007, 7:38 am

Well...you always wondered about The Prince Of Egypt in CGI...

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 10th, 2007, 12:24 am

Yeah, but that doesn't mean I want to SEE it, too!

Speaking of which.....has anyone seen the trailer for this?

http://www.epicstoriesofthebible.com/trailers.php

bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad rip off rip off rip off rip off rip off rip off rip off rip off rip off bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad.....

'Whew! I guess those should be enough.

(Thanks for the link Animation Nation)

*****************************************

Watched it again....it copies the camerawork, scenery, screenplay....pretty much everything from that other animated Ten Commandments movie....(kind of like a CGI Gus Van Sant Psycho ) except the CGI makes Happily Never After look like Rupunzel.

Only interesting thing is that Alfred Molina's in it (Rameses)......

I can't quite identify the voice of G-d but it sounds like William Hurt. What were they THINKING?????

Also interesting how they actually do spend more time on well, The Ten Commandments themselves, and that Aaron is with Moses when he confronts Rameses, not his wife. (The way it should have been in POE.)

But overall, this looks....staggeringly bad.

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » October 10th, 2007, 8:03 am

ShyViolet wrote: Only interesting thing is that Alfred Molina's in it (Rameses)

Alfred Molina wast his time on this cheap rip-off? don't he have anything better to do?

.
Well,i don't like Prince Of Egypt but that rip-off makes me mad

.

Post by **Ben** » October 10th, 2007, 10:15 am

Send it direct to video where it belongs!!

"Elliot Gould as God".

Oh, man...

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 10th, 2007, 8:45 pm

Yeah, and Christian Slater as Moses....!!

I should see this just to see how bad it is. And I can't believe that they can get away with ripping off so much from POE....this is even worse than that "Ratatoing" movie from Canada....

Post by **CharlieBarkin** » October 12th, 2007, 11:46 am

2D animation will never die, never I say! In fact, the glut of CGI films this decade has seen could actually spell the triumphant return of hand drawn 2D flicks, as audiences become bored with CG. Lets be honest, only Pixar and maybe Sony have produced CG films that are original and stunning, with Dreamworks having long ago fallen into the quick buck barrel. Audiences are getting bored with rehashed CG flicks offering no originality in storyline and being all style over substance. It's also not as nice to look at compared to 2D animation, though Pixar are an exception to this rule. Compare the visually stunning Beauty and the Beast to Shrek, and you tell me which is the more visually appealing.

2D will return with a bang come the release of 'Princess and the Frog' in 2009. This decade has been the age of the CGI film, but come 2010, this may well change.

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » October 12th, 2007, 11:56 am

CharlieBarkin wrote:2D animation will never die, never I say! In fact, the glut of CGI films this decade has seen could actually spell the triumphant return of hand drawn 2D flicks, as audiences become bored with CG. Lets be honest, only Pixar and maybe Sony have produced CG films that are original and stunning, with Dreamworks having long ago fallen into the quick buck barrel. Audiences are getting bored with rehashed CG flicks offering no originality in storyline and being all style over substance. It's also not as nice to look at compared to 2D animation, though Pixar are an exception to this rule. Compare the visually stunning Beauty and the Beast to Shrek, and you tell me which is the more visually appealing.

2D will return with a bang come the release of 'Princess and the Frog' in 2009. This decade has been the age of the CGI film, but come 2010, this may well change.

Yeah,2-D is making a comeback

.
about Dreamworks-they are keep making films about talking animales (with celebrities's voices) who want to to do something like escape from zoo and also Blue Sky and Sony (Aunt Bully,Surf's Up).

Post by **Ben** » October 12th, 2007, 12:15 pm

OUAD...I have asked you before not to quote a message if you are replying directly below it.

"Aunt Bully"...I'd like to see that actually!

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » October 12th, 2007, 1:39 pm

You know i meant Ant Bully

.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 12th, 2007, 4:31 pm

CharlieBarkin said:

Lets be honest, only Pixar and maybe Sony have produced CG films that are original and stunning, with Dreamworks having long ago fallen into the quick buck barrel.

Sorry, I don't really agree with that.

And just to be honest I don't find all of Pixar's movies to be dazzlingly entertaining either....or even as "aesthetically appealing" as everyone says they are. Not that I don't like their movies, but they don't all strike a chord with me the way they seem to do with many other fans.

BTW, while neither were "perfect" films, Meet the Robinsons and Happy Feet were both unique and interesting too. (I prefer MTR but Happy Feet did have some cool stuff too.)

It's also not as nice to look at compared to 2D animation, though Pixar are an exception to this rule. Compare the visually stunning Beauty and the Beast to Shrek, and you tell me which is the more visually appealing.

CGI and traditional animation are both their own art form. While I do have a soft spot for traditional, I like CGI as well: Pixar, DW, Sony, Disney, etc.....everyone has there own style. Shrek was made in a certain style which fitted the story--I don't think it would have had the same impact if Shrek and Donkey had been all cute, squishy 'n googly eyed like in some Pixar film.

And I agree, we do need more traditionally animated movies. But why should Pixar be an "exception"? CGI is CGI, whether someone deems it "good" or "bad." Why should Pixar not ever be expected to make any 2d films but other studios are? I still don't understand this.

Audiences are getting bored with rehashed CG flicks offering no originality in storyline

Very true, and I'm sick and tired of every single film nowadays being about some cute toy/bug/fish/rat learning to fit in/be there own person/make friends yadda yadda.

But....just my opinion.

Post by **Ben** » October 13th, 2007, 9:01 am

K...let's not go the old, old, OLD DreamWorks argument again. I know Charlie's new, but it's boring!

DWs, like it or lump it Vi, is now about pleasing their shareholders, and they're in a much more precarious situation than Disney/Pixar.

That's why we'll be seeing Shreks 8, 9 and 10, probably, intermingled with "sure-bet" commercial properties.

DreamWorks makes two kind of pictures: the Shreks, and the celebrity voiced off-beat comedies. All of them have the same kind of angle on them: hey animals are human too.

Since going to CG, there really isn't the variedness in their films, however enjoyable and/or well made they may be.

Post by **Dacey** » October 13th, 2007, 11:53 am

That's why we'll be seeing Shreks 8, 9 and 10

I hope not. Five is already too many.

They should just make that "Puss in Boots" movie and then put the franchise to rest after 4.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 22nd, 2007, 3:20 pm

BTW The Ten Commandments got 18% on RT:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/epic_st ... mandments/

I'm surprised it even got that much.

The film is basically a CGI carbon copy of POE, except really, really ugly.

Good review here: (as in well-written)

http://www.decentfilms.com/sections/rev ... s2007.html

....and much quicker trailer download: