Animation

[squashandstretch]

I am currently going to school to study animation/illustration. Not surprisingly I am really into cartoons! I was just wondering what other people think about todays animation from movies to t.v. to video games. I personally think that animation is in a state of decline with a few hiccups of good stuff in between. Anyway I am interested in what other people think that aren't me, yeah I'm going with that wording.

[merlinjones]

Other than the excellent upcoming Pixar releases (Ratatouille, WALL E, etc.), it's pretty depressing out there on the animated feature front - - though I have hopes for Disney's return to hand drawn animation with The Frog Princess.

I hope one day we will see films like Sleeping Beauty again.

Well, I can hope...

[Lost Boy]

What TV limited animation has done to cartoons is a crime. And people buy into it "because it's funny". I got news for you folks, it ain't funny it's a tragedy what has happened to animation over that last few years. They all look like they were made by and for 3-year olds. I don't watch animation for funny. I watch for the art. And what they have on TV and most movies today is niether funny nor art.

[squashandstretch]

What TV limited animation has done to cartoons is a crime. And people buy into it "because it's funny". I got news for you folks, it ain't funny it's a tragedy what has happened to animation over that last few years. They all look like they were made by and for 3-year olds. I don't watch animation for funny. I watch for the art. And what they have on TV and most movies today is niether funny nor art.

Amen.

[Disney Wrassler]

Here is what I think of Animation these days:

1) I think Pixar does the best 3D animated films because they are VERY detailed with their work and have unique stories associated with their films. I was impressed with Cars because Pixar put so much detail into it, that you can see the glitter in the car paint. That shows me that they really care about attention to detail. Plus I give the artists credit, because it must have been really hard to animate the vehicles.

2) I hate it when people act like 3D artists are not talented. The truth of the matter is that they are. They have to take the same exact courses as 2D artists, etc. The only difference in my opinion is that 3D artists draw with the mouse and 2D artists draw with pencils. Being a 3D/2D artist is definatly not a simple job that just anyone can do. These artists are highly skilled.

3) I do think it will be interesting seeing the Frog Princess though .

[Lost Boy]

Well, so far nobody on this thread has even mentioned CGI Animation. I have nothing against Pixar, they do fabulous work and are the best in the CGI business. I also watch Jimmy Neutron because it is both funny and, for TV anyway, is rather well done CGI wise. I also loved Over The Hedge, Happy Feet and Shrek as they were both funny and well done CGI.

What I am referring to is the lousy, done on the cheap, limited 2-D animation done for TV. It started with stuff like the Simpsons and since people by this time didn't care two hoots for TV Animation (and I don't think that most of them even know about traditional hand drawn animation) they watched it in droves and it became very successful. That doesn't mean it's good. It isn't. I watched it a couple times to give it a chance, but I can't stand it. Nothing in that show is what I consider funny or well done animation.

Most of the other stuff they serve up on TV, including the Disney Channel, offer nothing but crud and the kids watch it because they don't know any better.

I agree with you that the CGI artists are very talented. But there is something about hand drawn, hand inked and hand painted cell work that has more warmth and "acting" in 10 seconds of real animation that any CGI 10 seconds can match. It was done by a human hand drawing on paper and that's the whole point here. All, and I do mean ALL, of the 2-D animation done today is 10% hand work, then no fill in or in-between pages are done to the degree that real animation requires, and then a Xerox Copier makes the Cells, so the Hand Inking that used to be done over each page of pencil work is now done by a machine. As is the coloring which used to be hand painted, cell by cell, by very talented people. It's all done by computer or some other means other than a human hand.

101 Dalmatians is the movie that ruined hand drawn animation. It was the first animated movie to have the inked cells produced by a copier (Many copiers actually) and for that reason alone I never saw it until a few years ago. I will say the movie has a good story and the color work was done well. But that "warmth" if you will, of the human hand in the final product is just not there.

I wish that the expense of making traditional hand drawn animation is not so high now that it makes this method of producing Animated Features impossible. Even these new animated 2-D movies that Disney is showing off will not be done the old fashioned way. There will be hand drawn pencil work, but everything after that will be done by copiers and computers. And the way the characters are actually drawn in the pictures that I have seen so far are the usually sketchy, angular figures that seem to be so popular these days. They all look like The Emperor's New Groove and that was one horrible piece of, well I can't use that word here. But you get the point.

Disney produced some excellent Hand Drawn Animation (with assists from the copiers and computers because it is a financial necessity these days) when they did "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Lion King". Even "Pocahontas" was beautiful in it's story, music and art, but still not as detailed as either of the three I mentioned. The Lion King was the last great masterpiece for The Walt Disney Studios. Everything after that one movie has been all down hill. And don't even mention the name of that horrible cow movie in the same sentence with any of the Classic Animated Disney Films, or the three above. That is sacrilege.

Classic Animation to me are: Snow White; Pinocchio; Fantasia; Bambi and all the feature length films up to, but not including 101 Dalmatians. Peter Pan was the last of the really good hand drawn films.

These are my views and feelings. I cannot be swayed.

[thejoshualee]

I'm not critical of animation, there is some I don't like, but I see the animation scene right now as having a lot of choices with a shortage of stories.

What I'm interested in seeing now is the future of the flash animation that a lot of cartoons on tv are in.

[jetkitten]

All I have to say about cartoons is that I miss cell animation. Of course I never was a fan of the Xerox process either. CG can be very lovely but there still seems to be a fine line between a watchable one and a horrible Oh my it's so computerized look like the Barbie movies.

[flynnibus]

What I am referring to is the lousy, done on the cheap, limited 2-D animation done for TV. It started with stuff like the Simpsons and since people by this time didn't care two hoots for TV Animation

You do know that Simpsons started as animated shorts don't you? They were basically cheapo shorts done and shown on the Tracey Ulman show. Once they got their own show, they had an established 'style' that they continued. And the quality of the animation has increase monumentally over the life of the series. What you see now is very very different from the early shows.

they watched it in droves and it became very successful. That doesn't mean it's good. It isn't.

That is because they don't watch it for the animation. They aren't trying to be art critics. They watch it because they enjoy the stories and characters. Animation is just the medium.. not the focus of the show.

I watched it a couple times to give it a chance, but I can't stand it. Nothing in that show is what I consider funny or well done animation.

I doubt any of them would tell you their animation is anything but 'enough' to do the job. They aren't focusing on that and nor should they be. It's not what the show is about.

I agree with you that the CGI artists are very talented. But there is something about hand drawn, hand inked and hand painted cell work that has more warmth and "acting" in 10 seconds of real animation that any CGI 10 seconds can match.

Ok.. here we go.. the old analog vs digital.. vinyl vs CD arguments. Stop being so emotional about it and focus on the results.

It was done by a human hand drawing on paper and that's the whole point here. All, and I do mean ALL, of the 2-D animation done today is 10% hand work, then no fill in or in-between pages are done to the degree that real animation requires, and then a Xerox Copier makes the Cells, so the Hand Inking that used to be done over each page of pencil work is now done by a machine. As is the coloring which used to be hand painted, cell by cell, by very talented people. It's all done by computer or some other means other than a human hand.

Even back in the early days of Disney.. drawings were all farmed out to junior artists to fill in all the inbetween animation.. and inking and coloring was all farmed out to teams of people just coloring between the lines. Cell painting isn't some wild fancy art.. it's paint between the lines! And you don't even need details.. because - the paints are flat.. - the black ink lines hide all imperfect lines.

Background artists.. totally different game. But inbetween frames, drawing transfer, cell painting, etc have all always been 'mass produced' elements. Any ties to previous methods are purely emotional, not practical reasons.

101 Dalmatians is the movie that ruined hand drawn animation. It was the first animated movie to have the inked cells produced by a copier (Many copiers actually) and for that reason alone I never saw it until a few years ago.

Why are you so focused on the mechanics rather then just the movie itself? That's like saying 'I refuse to Indiana Jones because it was shot using Panasonic Lens rather then RCA!'. What do you go see a movie for? The film credits or the movie?

I will say the movie has a good story and the color work was done well. But that "warmth" if you will, of the human hand in the final product is just not there.

The color pallete of 101 isn't very warm. Its a very 'cool', grey/blue film... as were many of the animation films during that time period. They were not trying to make vivid, bright films.

Disney produced some excellent Hand Drawn Animation (with assists from the copiers and computers because it is a financial necessity these days) when they did "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Lion King". Even "Pocahontas" was beautiful in it's story, music and art, but still not as detailed as either of the three I mentioned. The Lion King was the last great masterpiece for The Walt Disney Studios

Ironically all films inked and colored using computers.. a process you just slammed a paragraph before..

[squashandstretch]

First off I would like to clear up the reason that Pixar is doing such a good job and looks "detailed" is because they hire artists. Actual working artists that are HIGHLY skilled in drawing, painting, and design. The computer is just another tool. If they weren't artists first the computer would mean nothing.

Second, TV animation is limited because of money and time reasons. They can also get away with slinging crap because the standards have slipped and it is just about getting the product out. I love Simpsons and Futurama but the animation isn't the best but it is servicable because of story. Story really helps a lot with animation.

Third, the reason there is so much CGI is because of Pixar. Pixar movies hit big so all studios think that CGI is the answer to their ails. But CGI is a medium not the end all be all of animation. I went to go see Curious George in theaters for the sole reason that it was traditional. Hollywood does what the people tell them to do. Since pretty much anything animated is almost a surefire hit nowadays the studios will put out anything.

Traditional will come back in grand form sooner than later. CGI will only be shiny for so long. Of course that's just my opinion I could be wrong.