Does the type animation effect the movie?

[jcvaldez]

Does the type animation effect the movie?

What I mean is that, would an animated film have more success using a different animation technique (2D, CG, Stop motion). The most important thing of any film is the story. But, can the style of animation improve it's quality?

For example, would "Nightmare Before Christmas" be better or worse if it was not Stop Motion?

Why is Disney releasing "The Frog Princess" as a tradiational animated film while they will be releasing "Rapunzel" as Cg animated film? Is it just for marketing purposes? Or does Disney really want to bring back Traditional Animation?

Does the type of animation even matter? Or just as long as the story is good the type of animation is pointless?

Well, here my thoughts... maybe some of you will agree.

I think the type of animation used in a film does matter. The style reflects the mood the film. The visual style and animation are part of the components that make a film. These components are storytelling tools. The designs, music, lighting, editing, animation, are all storytelling tools. They work together as a whole to tell the story in the best possible way.

So the question... would "Nightmare Before Christmas" be better or worse if it was not Stop Motion? I think if the "Nightmare" was not Stop motion, it would not have the same storytelling impact as it did. Stop Motion animation moves differently than 2D or Cg animation. It's a little more jittery or (for the lack of a better term) a poppy movement. This gave a creepy visual, which helped the mood of the film. Or the animators just made it that way. But still, there is a quality to Stop Motion that was the best animation type that fit "Nightmare Before Christmas".

Is it possible that some animated films that recently came out would have had better success if they used a different type of animation?

If so what movies do you think would have been better with a different type of animation?

What does everyone think? Agree? Disagree? I'm interested in what you all think. :D :D

[Ben]

Sometimes, sometimes not...

[Dusterian]

Why is Disney releasing "The Frog Princess" as a tradiational animated film while they will be releasing "Rapunzel" as Cg animated film? Is it just for marketing purposes? Or does Disney really want to bring back Traditional Animation?

Well "Rapunzel" started back when Glen Keane thought it was only going to be CGI from then on. So he did the most wonderful thing and worked to make computer assisted animation more like hand-drawn animation, and he the test footage and example images we've seen show he has made the CGI look like a painting.

When they said they were going to try traditional animation again, he had done so much work to make "Rapunzel" beautiful, he saw no reason to change it. Frankly, I quite agree. His work is gorgeous, and still fairy-tale like. Having yet "another princess film" have a distinct look from every past princess film is a good thing.

[Macaluso]

Not so much the kind of animation, but the quality of it. I'm sure hoodwinked was funny and all, but I refuse to see it because the animation looks so godawful. Same with Beowolf.

[eddievalient]

I'm sure hoodwinked was funny and all, but I refuse to see it because the animation looks so godawful. Same with Beowolf.

You're making a mistake, Mac. As so often happens (Rocky & Bullwinkle, etc), in these cases good writing saves bad animation and makes the films enjoyable (although I thought Beowulf was pretty impressive visually).

[Macaluso]

Not to me.

[jcvaldez]

Every component of an animated film needs to be at it's best. A good story can save the movie with bad animation, but who would want to see it. After all, animation is a visual format and the acting comes through the animated characters. If the animation can not support the story, then the entire movie is a failure. Just like if a live action film with a great story is wasted with terrible actors. Everything needs to fall together and work together.

By the way "Hoodwinked" and "Beowulf" were both very, very bad moives aside from the bad animation.

[eddievalient]

A good story can save the movie with bad animation, but who would want to see it. After all, animation is a visual format and the acting comes through the animated characters. If the animation can not support the story, then the entire movie is a failure.

Gee, I guess it's the writer in me, but I don't particularly care if the animation is Grade-A as long as it's well written. Example: Season one of The Simpsons had terrible animation but it succeeds because of the writing. Same goes for Hoodwinked and Beowulf. In fact, I would say that Beowulf succeeds even more because it makes me want to read the original story, something that not all movies based on books do. But, hey, to each his own.