badinfluencegirl1995
New member
I'm not entirely sure that it's a "trend" per se.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How Much Longer is the Trend of CG Going to Last? *please read OP*
- Thread starter mind reader
- Start date
costescu_andrei1975
New member
I can think of a certain animation where people get mad if it's called a trend or fad. CGI isn't going anywhere, it's a fair use of talent and effort.
(: yeaboii
New member
Well, here's the problem. I think Pixar is the true artisan of the medium. They think of the story first, then work forwards. And since Pixar films make Pixar bucks (including merchandising) a lot of studios want to be the next Pixar... but clearly aren't.
Dreamworks must a have a mole or something planted at Disney and Pixar, since most of the films they have done were variations on a theme Pixar explored. And I will say, some of there films are very good, but not up to Pixar's standards. Even though, I admit I liked the concept of Antz better than Bug's life. And there's no way you'd pay me to see The Wild, but I loved Madagascar.
I give props to the person that said they wanted to see the Shrek films. I admit, that character is oddly lovable, but I feel that if the rest of the saga will be the same sloping quality as the third one, it's best as a DTV release. The Puss feature actually sounds more exciting than a fourth Shrek.
I agree that Ice Age had a great look and concept. But I think the one flaw Blue Sky has is that they have great concepts, and great animation, but there's just something missing with the scripts and overall execution. They are good films, but something stops them from being great. And I feel Ice Age 2 was much more polished than the first.
What's going to happen is the over saturization of these films is going to "kill" CGI like it did with 2-D. Remember Dreamworks tried to get a foot hold with Road to El Dorado and Spirit of the Cimmerain (sp?)? They were not half as successful as some of their smaller CGI films are now. And Sinbad was a terrible mistake. You see, you hire beautiful people for live action. When you do a cartoon, you need people who sound like something.
Deep down, I am utterly disappointed the American Market thinks it's too weak for 2-D features to work, even foreign ones. Asterix and the Vikings and Lucky Luke (while clearly not established in the US that well), and some others from other parts of the world would be cheap to produce a dub of and release (though, I think Asterix had a dub with US actors). We're missing out. And for what? Penguins that Surf? Another "Fractured Fairytales" type film that isn't half as good as Shrek (or even the real Fractured Fairy Tales?"
Believe me, something's gonna go down, and only Pixar and Dreamworks will still be the main competition.
As for Disney's last 2-D works? Well... They kinda brought that on themselves. I mean, Home on the Range was out there. i liked the bit about the evil Yodeler and all... but it was like? What in Tarhooties was that? And I will say Brother Bear was more enjoyable than it had to be, and indeed did Native American Legend better than they did with Pochauntis. But Treasure Planet was just a terrible idea. It's like they wanted to make write off films just to give the animators work. They were caught between 2 problems. Wither make another forumlaic princess film the critics will rip apart for being a formulaic princess films, and coming up with a semioriginal concept and having it be ripped apart for being an original concept.
Dreamworks must a have a mole or something planted at Disney and Pixar, since most of the films they have done were variations on a theme Pixar explored. And I will say, some of there films are very good, but not up to Pixar's standards. Even though, I admit I liked the concept of Antz better than Bug's life. And there's no way you'd pay me to see The Wild, but I loved Madagascar.
I give props to the person that said they wanted to see the Shrek films. I admit, that character is oddly lovable, but I feel that if the rest of the saga will be the same sloping quality as the third one, it's best as a DTV release. The Puss feature actually sounds more exciting than a fourth Shrek.
I agree that Ice Age had a great look and concept. But I think the one flaw Blue Sky has is that they have great concepts, and great animation, but there's just something missing with the scripts and overall execution. They are good films, but something stops them from being great. And I feel Ice Age 2 was much more polished than the first.
What's going to happen is the over saturization of these films is going to "kill" CGI like it did with 2-D. Remember Dreamworks tried to get a foot hold with Road to El Dorado and Spirit of the Cimmerain (sp?)? They were not half as successful as some of their smaller CGI films are now. And Sinbad was a terrible mistake. You see, you hire beautiful people for live action. When you do a cartoon, you need people who sound like something.
Deep down, I am utterly disappointed the American Market thinks it's too weak for 2-D features to work, even foreign ones. Asterix and the Vikings and Lucky Luke (while clearly not established in the US that well), and some others from other parts of the world would be cheap to produce a dub of and release (though, I think Asterix had a dub with US actors). We're missing out. And for what? Penguins that Surf? Another "Fractured Fairytales" type film that isn't half as good as Shrek (or even the real Fractured Fairy Tales?"
Believe me, something's gonna go down, and only Pixar and Dreamworks will still be the main competition.
As for Disney's last 2-D works? Well... They kinda brought that on themselves. I mean, Home on the Range was out there. i liked the bit about the evil Yodeler and all... but it was like? What in Tarhooties was that? And I will say Brother Bear was more enjoyable than it had to be, and indeed did Native American Legend better than they did with Pochauntis. But Treasure Planet was just a terrible idea. It's like they wanted to make write off films just to give the animators work. They were caught between 2 problems. Wither make another forumlaic princess film the critics will rip apart for being a formulaic princess films, and coming up with a semioriginal concept and having it be ripped apart for being an original concept.
carverbrittanys
New member
It's getting a sequel. From what little I've seen of the movie, I don't even think there's something to work with for a sequal. The plot would be forced.
silkyeggsalad
New member
^^^First off I will say that I never heard of "Sinbad" until now.....guess that shows how well these movies were marketed.
Second of all I totally agree. With an exception of Lilo and Stich these films just seemed so half assed compared to traditional animated films, and by Disney standards they're an embarrassment.
I will admit that a 2D film will be harder to get an audiences attention then a 3D film, but that is no reason to half ass them and totally give up on them.
In all honesty though this is just hollywood being hollywood, which what I mean by is finding the easiest thing to churn money out of, and churn it out until you can't churn bills anymore.
Second of all I totally agree. With an exception of Lilo and Stich these films just seemed so half assed compared to traditional animated films, and by Disney standards they're an embarrassment.
I will admit that a 2D film will be harder to get an audiences attention then a 3D film, but that is no reason to half ass them and totally give up on them.
In all honesty though this is just hollywood being hollywood, which what I mean by is finding the easiest thing to churn money out of, and churn it out until you can't churn bills anymore.