How Much Longer is the Trend of CG Going to Last? *please read OP*

M

mind reader

New member
Now I'm not calling CG Animation a fad or anything like it. I think it's clearly obvious that it's established itself as another viable form of animation (which is good of course because the more variety the better). However something I've noticed is that nearly every film that is coming out until 2010 that isn't from Asia is CG. I think the only exception was Rob Zombie's picture which was in 2D.

I mean pretty much ever animated feature in theaters uses CG 3D models. It reminds me of a few years ago when pretty much every high profile show on TV was reality and not scripted.

It's no surprise really I mean the market was getting bored of traditional 2D. Pretty much every recent high production Disney movie but Atlantis, Tarzan, and Lilo and Stich flopped in the box-office. And Atlantis nearly didn't break even. So seeing the success of Pixar's work and Shrek it's a no brainier why most animation companies would switch to CG, that's where the money is and clearly what the market wants since it's so fresh and new at the moment. But as other medias have shown time and time again these things that grow extremely popular eventually die down and just establish themselves as another genre (in this case animation) of creating a project.

I'm not asking when CG will disappear completely from film (obviously it will not), I'm just asking how much longer until it stops overtaking the film industry almost entirely until we see a nice variety of CG and 2D films being made again?
 
^^^Yes I am aware of that. It seems that 2D has found a nice adult niche with Adult Swim, Afro Samurai, and similar things. I'm not surprise this is happening though, the market was obviously getting tired of 2D being done for 3/4th of a century almost; it's only natural for them to look in other things. Like I said before these films flopped Titan A.E. and Treasure Planet performed horrendously. Though being honest I think that had more to do with them sucking then them being in 2D. It was also probably market as well, "The Simpsons Movie" performed spectacularly in the worldwide box office despite being a "TV to Movie" film. I personally predict another 8-10 years until things get back to normal (as in CG isn't labeled THE way to go). Plus by then possibly technology could be used to push 2D graphics even more.
 
That was Disney's fault. They hardly marketed it. Same with Home on the Range.

My theory is that they wanted these films to flop so they could say: "SEE, people don't like traditional animation anymore!" and go on their little 4 year CGI fest laying off hundreds of animators (my dad was one of them) along the way at both the California and Florida studios.
 
CGI is the latest trend in film making, so producers will continue to grind CGI films out as long as they are popular. That's the American way: keep pumping whatever's hot down the publics' collective throats until the balloon bursts and everyone backs off.

In short, as long as people keep going to see CGI movies, Hollywood will continue to make CGI movies. When public interest (and more importantly, profits) start to fall off, then and only then will the CGI animated movie trend grind to a halt.
 
Thank you for proving my point. As long as people keep clamoring to see whatever CGI flick Hollywood decides to shuck out, then we're just going to continue getting CGI cheapquels year after year.
 
I personally can't wait to see another Ice Age movie. I love the look of the films.

I enjoy both types of animation, as long as the film is decently written and funny. And just because there is a lot of CG films coming out, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people working hard to produce them. It takes a lot of people to make them, and it's not as point-and-click easy as you make it sound.
 
I know that producing quality CGI isn't easy; I wasn't implying that at all. I never once used the term "point-and-click easy", nor did I ever imply that the CGI process was ever that simple; so please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm just noting that there's seems to be a lack in the quality in the writing and overall execution of these CG films as of late, most notably with these sequels. Top-notch graphics alone do not make a feature great; there must be quality writing and memorable characters and story as well. I personally don't enjoy shelling out money to see a beautiful looking film with a weak story and characters; it's like putting pretty gold wrapping paper around dog vomit. JMHO.
 
Who actually thinks it's easy!? I tried making a few second animation in CGI once and I gave up in days cause I couldn't even figure out how to make it work. :sweat:
 
Tarzan and Lilo and Stitch did well at the Box office .. L&S made 145 million and Tarzan 171 million.. granted, didn't outgross the CGI movies but I wouldn't call them flops..

and since we're talking sequels It looks like Hoodwinked 2 and Open Season 2 are on their way... also Madagascar 2..

oops, fprgpt the sequels to Arhur and the Invisibles..
 
Tons of people. You'd be surprised at how many believe that anything Computer Generated is actually giving an order and the software does everything. I've met some of them even in these forums.

It's a more common misconception with flash, but some do believe it's the case with CGI.
 
That is true companies like to be lazy. You see this everywhere.

Take the gaming market where companies shun Nintendo despite their high console sales yet most publishers shun their systems because you actually have to advertise to get noticed as well as make a quality game.

I am glad that "The Simpsons Movie" performed well, Matt Gronning made it solely in 2D as a testament that 2D films can still sell well and it outsold pretty much every animated film that year except Ratetioe (spelling).




I am aware it takes time too. I'm taking a Computer Animation class and it takes much longer to create something in 3D then 2D.



They performed better then that, remember World-Wide sales are what counts and America is getting less and less important in the movie industry (similar to Japan in the gaming industry during the late 90's).

Also I'm surprised of Hoodwinked 2, the first one was a total flop.



That is true. It seems that Pixar got less and less creative as well as Dreamworks, and their profits went down. This is similar to what happened with Traditional animation. I mean compare Treasure Planet and Home on the Range to The Lion King and Aladdin which is better?
 
Flash is way easier than 3D. In Flash, you don't have to redraw evryhing, so it's easier than ordinary hand-drawn animation too. And a once thought CGI was "command and it does the rest" also, beofre I download that free program.
 
I know it's the writing that makes a huge difference, but when you say stuff like 'whatever flick Hollywood decides to shuck out', it, to me, it makes it sound like a blanket comment on CG in general. Sorry if I insulted you.



I saw Home on the Range, and I was cracking up! It was very weird-- and funny in my book. I know it never got marketed terribly well, and didn't make a whole lot of money, but I didn't think it was terrible.



It's that misconception about CG that makes me hit my head on my keyboard.
 
Eh, you don't have to redraw EVERYTHING in CGI and Traditional 2D either. Do you have any idea how much is reused in 2D TV animation? You may not notice it, but there's a lot.

Flash is something more accesible and cheaper, which is why a lot of modern-day cartoonists start learning animation from it. This doesn't mean it's easy, because it certainly requires talent and lots of hard work to make a flash toon look good.
 
The best Flash looks like it's moving as fluidly as hand drawn. I've seen a couple shows that have that, but usually the movements are a dead giveaway.
 
Yes, yes it does. I can do an okay animation, but not it a way that would make it super good. My backgrounds are okay though. :sweat: But still, Flash is a good learning tool for starting animators, but it won't hurt to try others. I'm practicing hand-drawn animation and still figuring out my 3D program.
 
Imagine if the vast majority of painters didn't mix colors and painted right out of the tube. That's really what CGI toons end up doing, particularly with lower budgets- pushing out characters who don't differ much from Maya templates. And the competitive market has even resulted in feature lengths with that level of quality. That's the real reason Hoodwinked is getting a sequel- it's simply cheap enough that expectations aren't as high. (Ditto with the one year long Alvin production)
 
Back
Top