isukun
Apparently, you're missing the point. You probably don't know shit about building a nuclear reactor either. Does that make it an art? I never said anything about 2D being "better".

You were acting like people who model all know how to draw and base everything they do off of drawing and therefore drawing is more important to their job than modeling.

isukun
That's an awful defeatist attitude. One I don't happen to share.

Pixar films are an art that everyone in the world can achieve if they follow they're dreams because we're all special creative people.

I really don't mind CGI at all. It makes movies look great, but if the movie is lacking in other areas, then CGI won't make it any better. Unfortunately, too many people invest too much time and effort into CGI and not enough in what really matters, like the story, dialogue, and characters.

All of the CGI cartoons I've watched are fantastic, too. They're just as good as they would have been if they were traditionally animated, I'm sure. Up, Shrek, Finding Nemo, Horton Hears a Who, Ice Age, Wall-E, Monsters, Inc., Ratatouille, and a lot more. They were all great, and I definitely don't fault them for being computer animated instead of traditionally drawn.

However, other than Jimmy Neutron, I haven't seen a computer-animated cartoon show that I've liked, which seems to be the new thing for America's cartoon/kid networks. Some new cartoons, too, just seem way too flash animated, which definitely lowers the quality. Has shipping everything to Korea gone out of style already?

Anyway, liking CGI media doesn't stop me from getting giddy every time something traditionally animated comes out. I'm super stoked to see the Princess and the Frog, and I always look forward to a new film from Miyazaki. And NEW FUTURAMA EPISODES.

While pixar and othert such arts are very valuable,cartooning has a time tested value 3D
just can't catch,But at the same time people Don't make 3D movies as well as cartoons,and tend to focus more on graphics,making the 3D movies look cheesy

Acuturbo
Anyway, liking CGI media doesn't stop me from getting giddy every time something traditionally animated comes out. ... And NEW FUTURAMA EPISODES.

Quite a lot of Futurama is done in CG, if you listen to the audio commentaries. It's just done well so you don't notice it most of the time. Not just effects or backgrounds, but 3d models of characters (usually robots), objects (like the ship), buildings and backgrounds. Crowd scenes, when things have to move fast, small objects and pieces of the environment that characters have to interact with, etc. All the coloring is done in cg (I believe) and the entire thing is post-processed on computers so they can slow things down, speed them up, chop things up, re-edit mouths to match a changed line, etc.

Jonko
Have you seen the "Special Edition" where they added a whole scene of Hans Solo talking to Jaba the Hutt?

Yeah, that was the one they showed. That scene was terrible, not only did it not add anything plot- or character-wise, it just looked so far out of place.

You were acting like people who model all know how to draw and base everything they do off of drawing and therefore drawing is more important to their job than modeling.

I'm wondering how you got that from: "I know many people who can model, texture, light, rig, block, and animate 3D models, while barely being able to draw stick figures."

skoolmunkee

Acuturbo
Anyway, liking CGI media doesn't stop me from getting giddy every time something traditionally animated comes out. ... And NEW FUTURAMA EPISODES.

Quite a lot of Futurama is done in CG, if you listen to the audio commentaries. It's just done well so you don't notice it most of the time. Not just effects or backgrounds, but 3d models of characters (usually robots), objects (like the ship), buildings and backgrounds. Crowd scenes, when things have to move fast, small objects and pieces of the environment that characters have to interact with, etc. All the coloring is done in cg (I believe) and the entire thing is post-processed on computers so they can slow things down, speed them up, chop things up, re-edit mouths to match a changed line, etc.

Didn't know that. That's pretty damn cool, especially since it isn't noticeable.

isukun

You were acting like people who model all know how to draw and base everything they do off of drawing and therefore drawing is more important to their job than modeling.

I'm wondering how you got that from: "I know many people who can model, texture, light, rig, block, and animate 3D models, while barely being able to draw stick figures."

Wait. Now I'm confused. It was too long ago, I can't figure out what my point was.

It was probably something like "I can't do what they do either, it's not easy to do, I still think it's art."

Just as much as there are bad 3D efforts out there, there is plenty of of 2D efforts in animation that are horrible.

Toy Story from the get go, when I first saw it, let me experience what people who are artisans in every respect were capable of with advanced animation technology.

But I was floored with an animated short by Blue Sky Studios (Ice Age, Horton Hears a Who, Robots) called "Bunny" that is on the first Ice Age dvd.

It has no speaking, and has a warmth and power of presence to the story that ranks close to the emotional run of imagery in "UP" telling the story of a couple's years of marriage.

Most all of the guys at Blue Sky, Pixar, Filmax Animation (makers of the wicked ass Nocturna film)and to some extent Dreamworks are guys that spent time in figure class, sculpture, had full on art degrees and morphed their career directions into computer animators, directors, storyboard artists, etc..

I mean John Lasseter is is first and foremost an illustrator at heart. But he took his technical knowledge and makes it the refining agent to the story and art ideas at the heart of Pixar's movies.

I think if anything, the good 3D movies are a culmination of all that is best in the art world.

Never forget that time has merely left the bad exploitation films behind. As soon as a new effect or gimmick is introduced in cinema, studios pounce on it while the audience is still wowed by the novelty of it. In time movies like "Day After Tomorrow" will be forgotten because great special effects like that will be the norm and people will see such films for what they are. This is already happening.

It's also helpful to remember all the gimmicks that would never last that are, in fact still with us: cell animation, sound, colour, movies that ran for longer than 10 minutes... Also, remember the ones that failed, like smell-o-vision.

That said, I don't mind CGI animation if it can be justified. If your story requires elaborate settings or incredibly complex-looking characters, CGI may be the way to go. Even then, you have to decide whether or not it actually needs to be animated at all since live-action is much faster, easier and cheaper to film. For me, "Final Fantasy: Spirits Within" is a film that would have benefited from using live actors and CGI effects only when absolutely necessary. The characters weren't stylized and weren't quite realistic, so it landed squarely in Uncanny Valley.

Most all of the guys at Blue Sky, Pixar, Filmax Animation (makers of the wicked ass Nocturna film)and to some extent Dreamworks are guys that spent time in figure class, sculpture, had full on art degrees and morphed their career directions into computer animators, directors, storyboard artists, etc..

I actually know a number of people who work at Blue Sky and Dreamworks, and the people that I do know who are out there aren't particularly great artists. Doesn't mean they haven't taken figure drawing classes and gotten their BA in an artistic field, but I wouldn't ask them to draw something for me. In particular, places like Blue Sky and Dreamworks tend to emphasize one's 3D portfolio over their 2D when it comes to jobs for modelers, lighting, rigging, etc.

Even then, you have to decide whether or not it actually needs to be animated at all since live-action is much faster, easier and cheaper to film.

That's debateable. If you want a movie to succeed in the box office, a live action film isn't necessarily cheaper. The most expensiv movies to be produced are live action films, after all. Typically, you aren't going to animate a dramatic film that doesn't need to use a lot of special effects (well, unless you're Japanese), but generally those films aren't your heavy-hitters in the box office, anyway.