Why debate between Traditional Animation and C.G. animation?

[Disney Wrassler]

Okay I was just reading the Chicken Little debate threads and so many people do not like the fact that Disney is now entering into the new animation world of C.G.I. Why do some protest this? I mean Disney has to keep with the times to survive you know. Is it because they feel that since Walt Disney is not alive right now they think he might get offended about this advance if he were alive? I mean I am pretty sure he would admire it more likely. Walt infact was one of the leading innovators when it came to advancing animation technology and sooooo many people protested him but even with all those protests look at what he created! He created the first animated motion picture "Steamboat Willie". Then their was the full length color feature animated film "Snow White", and that was protested by so many people for those of you who do not know. But look at what happened, even though people thought it would be a flop because it was the first film to be that long, it became the most famous Walt Disney movie of all time and now Disney fans consider it to be some-what sacred. Am I right? Walt also did his Disneyland show on television, a device that hollywood feared would cause more people to stay home than go to the movies. But now look at what happened from that, Hollywood has now capitalized on television by showing films, airing commercials, etc (something they would probably not have happened if Walt was not the brave soul to adventure into that new and unchartered territory). Then Walt was one of the leading pioneers that brought color to television, he invented a lot of state of the art technology for his short and feature length films. Most people embraced his technological advancements later on in his career. Walt was never a man who wanted to be behind on technology. He always wanted to be the leader. I am pretty sure that if Walt were alive today, he probably would have the most advanced 3d animation technology that there can be. So why are people complaining about the Disney company improving their technology and making more CG animated films? If Disney is to remain a competitve business these days, they have to keep their technology advanced or else they will go bankrupt. Are people protesting just because the do not Like Eisner or Iger? The way I see it is that in about 10-20 years from now Traditional animation will rarely be used anymore. I say good job to Disney for getting back in the game!

[iluvstitch]

I'm all for progress, It's just that I'm nostolgic about 2d. It feels more like a perfected artform when you're watching a 2d movie... with 3d, it just feels more computer generated and impersonal... I donno... it's just how I feel about it...

[Disney Wrassler]

I do admit I love 2D animated features, but I think that they way the animation industry is going these days, Disney has to start going 3d even more than ever. That is why I suggest Disney fans to start collecting 2D animated Disney classics and keeping them in their wrappers because they probably will be collectables so day. Anyway, back to the debate....

['Strue]

I'm glad Disney's doing 3D.

It's getting rid of 2D that I hate.

Buncha twerps.

[Disney Wrassler]

Originally Posted by 'Strue

I'm glad Disney's doing 3D.

It's getting rid of 2D that I hate.

Buncha twerps.

Please don't call anyone a twerp
Thanks. I mean I also love the 2D animated shorts and films, but I believe Disney HAS to go 3D to still compete in the field.

[TheDisneyInquisitor]

I'm all for disney going CG. I know that there are going to be a lot of people who are against it (just as people didn't like non-silent movies & color movies), but I know it's all for the better.

[Pacha]

My problem isn't with 3D, it's with Disney management. Here's why...
Starting in the late 90's, Disney lost money on almost all of their animated feature films. Yet Pixar and Dreamworks sat there and cranked out all these successful, highly praised, money making films. Disney management decided the reason was that people wanted 3D instead of 2D, so they switched to 3D. I think that decision that was a short sighted one that didn't address the real issues - poor marketing, poor writing, lame stories etc. Sort of like a symphony firing all their musicians and switching to electronic music because Mannheim Steamroller sold out all their shows over the last 10 years and they didn't.


Personally, I don't have a problem with 3D. All I want is for Disney to make good movies. I don't really care what the medium is. My problem is with the way they mishandeled their business issues.

[FrumiousBoojum]

Well... I think you may be misjudging Walt a bit.

For one thing, Walt was actually rather hesitant to get into TV at first. Television was initially more of a compromise to get Disneyland built in the beginning. It wasn't until *after* he started the Disneyland show that he really realised how much it could be used as a tool to further the company.

For another thing, I'm not so sure he would use CGI to the extent that it's being used today. He didn't follow the trends -- he was more concerned with keeping the Disney look. All experimental animations were kept to an extreme minimum. He hated the xerox process, but let it go by.

CGI would never be used without conformity to the rest of the Disney canon. Right now, Chicken Little doesn't really have many characteristics of a Disney character. That's what Walt wouldn't have done most of all about CGI animation.

[Disney Wrassler]

Originally Posted by FrumiousBoojum

Well... I think you may be misjudging Walt a bit.

For one thing, Walt was actually rather hesitant to get into TV at first. Television was initially more of a compromise to get Disneyland built in the beginning. It wasn't until *after* he started the Disneyland show that he really realised how much it could be used as a tool to further the company.

That is true...He didn't want to go into that area but I never said that he wanted to go into the television market (because it was a very small market at the time). All I basically said was that he was the brave soul who went into unchartered territory and if it was not for him, Hollywood would probably not have been capitalizing an television as much as they do these days. I knew walt saw a risk for going into making television specials, 1 reason being that television was not all that importatnt back then because people did not have any televisions and went to the theatres for their entertainment. So I bet Walt was extremely apprehensive about going into the television market. Heck he even said once before that he HATED hosting the Disneyland shows.

[ToyGuy]

I have to agree with Wrassler and Pasha on this. In the 30's and 40's, Disney pushed the limits of the medium with the use of the multi-plane camera. It was as hi-tech in it's day as anything done on computers now-a-days. It produced stunning visual effects that required a lot of money and years of work to perfect. Had CG been available to Disney in those days, you'd bet your life he'd take advantage of it... But Walt and his animators knew that breakthroughs in technology are not worth squat without strong stories. It's the stories that make moving pictures worth watching. If the story fails, all of the most beautiful pictures in the world won't save it.

[TheDisneyInquisitor]

Just a note, Chicken Little is CG not 3D (well, that was a bad example because CL is also in 3D.....but movies like Toy Story and Nemo are CG, not 3D).

Originally Posted by FrumiousBoojum

All experimental animations were kept to an extreme minimum.

What about Fantasia? Or the change from no sound-sound? Or the change from b&w to color. As primitive as that sounds today, it is the exact same thing as the change from traditional to CG.

[FrumiousBoojum]

Originally Posted by askmike1

Just a note, Chicken Little is CG not 3D (well, that was a bad example because CL is also in 3D.....but movies like Toy Story and Nemo are CG, not 3D).

Glad to see somebody else calling it this way... all movies are 2-D unless they have a stereo print made.

Originally Posted by askmike1

What about Fantasia? Or the change from no sound-sound? Or the change from b&w to color. As primitive as that sounds today, it is the exact same thing as the change from traditional to CG.

I'm speaking more along the lines of character/overall movie design. Disney stood out from the crowd -- a Disney short couldn't be mistaken as a WB short.

The only exceptions after the style became concrete were stuff such as the stop-motion of Noah's Ark, Adventures in Music, Windwagon Smith, Pigs are Pigs, etc.

The characters of Chicken Little just don't fit the Disney look with the beedy eyes, top-heavy proportions, etc.

[Disney Wrassler]

D'oh! I better have Morrigoon change the title to why debate between 2d and CG animated films. Thanks Mike

[FrumiousBoojum]

Originally Posted by Disney Wrassler

D'oh! I better have Morrigoon change the title to why debate between 2d and CG animated films. Thanks Mike

Actually, it should be "Traditional animation vs. CG animation."

Even a CG film is grouped into 2-D films if it's not stereoscopic.

[Disney Wrassler]

Originally Posted by FrumiousBoojum

Actually, it should be "Traditional animation vs. CG animation."

Even a CG film is grouped into 2-D films if it's not stereoscopic.

Got it.
Thanks.