Another strong argument for hand-drawn over CGI

That "Donald Duck" video (it isn't actually worthy of his name) might give me nightmares. Really bad, cheap CGI, though I've seen hand-drawn cartoons over the years that were just as horrible. These characters don't deserve such treatment in the hands of talentless hacks.
 
This isn't really an anti-CG argument, rather an anti-sloppiness argument (and maybe an anti-mo-cap argument, but I've seen too much better mo-cap to use this as an example of the medium).
 
I've never liked the CG-fied Mickey Mouse and company. They simply LOOK better hand-drawn, or at least Flash-animated so they appear that way.
 
Well, if this continues then, the talented cartoonists in animation could be doomed to be replaced by computer geeks who can't draw but can use programs.
 
CGI is just like everything else; some studios do it well, and others, well...suck at it.

Honestly, I don't get all the CG hate. It's just another art form not meant to replace hand drawn animation or anything else. CG animation is hot now. That's why we see so much of it. But if you'll look around, you'll that 2D animation has not died. Like rock 'n' roll music, 2D is here to stay!
 
This is mo-cap, not traditional CG Animation. It's also very obviously a knock off of trademarked and copyrighted characters.

While it's amusing, it's also really hideous, lol.
 
Not sure why they put in so many close ups...all they do is prove whoever made these just stretched and squashed CGI humans to make these nightmare givers.
 
As bad as Old Man Mickey and Diaper Donald are, I don't think anything matches the sheer perfect storm of horror that is a muscular, malproportioned CGI Bugs Bunny with a frozen smile doing the same weird dance move over and over to "Silver Bells". My goodness that is terrifying.

EDIT: I just finished watching the Mickey one (it is 5 minutes after all) and wow. I still think Bugs is more perfectly terrifying in every way, but the Mickey one gets into some really surreal territory.
 
I was reading the blog's comments and one of them said that those things were done with a program called iClone, which is used by people who don't know how to animate. Therefore the ugliness of those abominations.
 
The only one I could make it through was the Bugs Bunny one, and that's because it was so short.

But they were all beyond terrible- cheap mo-cap and awkward, recycled movements. I don't think they would've been as offensive if the drawings of the characters weren't so horrible. They may be the worst recreations of classic cartoon characters I've ever seen.
 
I'm generally with the gang here who prefer hand-drawn Disney characters to CGI versions. But I have to add that the CGI Mickey Mouse design for Disney Channel's "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse" is quite good. It's cute, just retro enough to please me at any rate (I'm a big fan of Retro Mickey) and the CGI artists don't even try to render Mickey's ears in perspective - they just used the same perspective trick the traditional animators used. Result: the CGI Mickey looks like Mickey and not Mighty Mouse. :D
 
With the exception of some Pixar films, I personally don't care much for CGI. IMO, CGI requires no real talent other then knowing how to use computers.
 
I've elaborated on this in another thread, but I can't put hand-drawn animation over CGI or vice-versa, because I've seen good and bad examples of both. I've seen as many lackluster hand-drawn cartoons as CGI-rendered ones, so I really couldn't say that one animation style is innately superior or inferior to another. The key to a good cartoon to me isn't what style it's it's rendered in, but the quality of the story, writing and characters. CGI is just another way to tell a story, IMO.
 
Back
Top