CGI Movies!

N

nunu139

New member
While the crop of CGI movies is quite good, I really miss INK & PEN animation!

CGI can never replace the beauty of INK & Pen animation.

Any thoughts?

Buzz :D
 
Who ever said that CGI was meant to replace hand drawn animation? CGI is just another art form, like Claymation, Macromedia Flash or stop motion animation. Rendering a feature film or an animated series in CGI is an expensive and time consuming process. Drawings done by hand is much easier to reproduce. While CG may indeed be here to stay, traditional hand drawn animation isn't going anywhere.
 
I remember that Disney said that they will quit making cel animated movies and they will all be CGI. I myself prefer cel animation, but I have a feeling that it will all be CGI in the future.
 
Dinsey recently reopened their cel animation division. 2009's The Princess and the Frog will be hand-drawn. So I wouldn't count cel animation out just yet. As Blackstar mentioned, CGI is too expensive for everybody to just drop hand-drawing and switch to it. CG is just one way of presenting animation, but it's not the only way.
 
It's not being replaced.

I'm tired of hearing it. It's not replaced. And needless to say, Disney is going to be putting out another traditionally animated feature. While a large number of films coming out are done in CG, there are also 2d films and stop-motion animated films coming out. It's a matter of trend.
 
The Simpsons Movie just came out, Enchanted is partial 2D animation, Ralph Bakshi's The Last Days of Coney Island is supposed to come out in 2008, the Boondocks movie is coming, and though the future of Ghibli is in limbo one would hope John Lassetter is pushing for Panyo on the Cliff to get a wider release. Plus there's all the Marvel/DC/Starz TV movies which seem to have a large enough market.

I don't expect a 2D boom until about 2012, though I don't really know if I want a boom, given how mediocre many of the films from the current CG boom and the '90s animation boom have been. Just as long as a quality film or two is made in the medium each year, I can be satisfied.
 
I've also noticed that when animated movies switched to CGI, they don't have musical numbers anymore. I miss when the characters sing in their own imaginary animated worlds.
 
And thats exactly what I'm expecting. There are trends, and it's a matter of working through this trend. Movies are not a one-year deal, they take years to get off the ground and it's going to take time before we start seeing more 2d works.
 
The lack of musical numbers in animated films has nothing to with the animation. As Galantone already stated, no one broke into song in The Rescuers Down Under, Atlantis or Lilo & Stitch, and those films were all hand drawn. I can understand if some of you are tired of all animated movies being rendered in CGI, but trying to blame the decline quality of recent films on CG is reaching quite a bit, and trying to blame the decline of musical numbers on CG animation is just plain silly.

Like I said before, CGI is just another art form not meant to replace anything. Things go in cycles. Rendering films in CG is just the trend now. Hand drawn animation will not end in our lifetime.
 
there is no such thing as ink and paint anymore, everything is CGI now.

If you gonna complain about something, at least do it right. 3D VS 2D.
 
You're spewing bile, nothing more. If your statement were true, then how do you explain the success of The Simpsons Movie (a hand drawn movie based on a successful hand drawn animated series) opening at a strong number 1 at the box office? If you look at the tube, you'll notice that the number of computer generated shows can be counted one hand. Recent shows such as Kappa Mikey, SpongeBob Squarepants, Avatar and the like indicate that hand drawn animation is still very much alive and kicking.

Wrong again. CG and 3D aren't the same thing. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]"3D" is a term that is often mis-applied. Those who tend to not really understand CG animation refer to it as 3D, when it is nothing of the sort- 3D is a stereo process, and you must wear special glasses to see the results. CG animation is what everyone and their brother is doing right now (although Disney has recently re-opened it's hand drawn department and will be returning to hand-animation sometimes called 2D animation). [/FONT] The Looney Tunes short "Lumberjack Rabbit" was a hand drawn short presented in 3D. Bear in mind also, [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]that while stereoscopic 3D is a genuine binocular effect it is still dependent on 2D technology - i.e. it is only two flat images, one for each eye. This means that, despite the enhanced sense of depth, design aesthetics for stereoscopic films are still essentially the same as for 2D films: size and movement within a fixed rectangle. True 3D technology (as seen in Sci-Fi films) would be where you could move around the image and see it from different angles.[/FONT]

3D is a perspective. CG (which stands for Computer Generated) is an art form.
 
But some 'hand-drawn' animation is actually generated by computers... but it is not considered CGI.




That is pretty much how I feel about CGI.
 
Computer Generated Imagery = CGI.

Simpsons Movie is 2D CGI.

I wish it wasn't, I'd love to buy some Cels from it.

There is no ink and paint or Celluloid involved in animation these days, at most you might get some pencil and paper.

Hell, Even South Park is CGI (now fully animated in Maya).

And 3D is a term used since the beginning of CGI Animation, Would you prefer Flat Layered Animation VS Rendered 3D Model Animation?
 
Back
Top