Whys all western animation CGI now?

[BumFodder]

More specifically the films, I cant remember the last time I saw one advertised that wasnt CGI.

Why is this? Its just really gimmicky and doesnt look as nice as high budget normal animation.

[SpaceWhale]

Because it's 3D.

[Lemonardo]

It's a huge fad. You don't need to pay big actors, it's relatively cheaper to produce, and it sells more.
The CGI industry is a neverending gold mine.

[BumFodder]

At 12/20/11 05:14 PM, SpaceWhale wrote: Because it's 3D.

what

[MegaMulp]

Do you mean computer drawn as opposed to traditional glass panes and cellophane sheets? It's because its so much quicker and cheaper to do on a computer of course, which can be changed and edited easily as well, as opposed to using camera film.

[The-Great-One]

The Princess and the Frog was 2D. So was the new Winnie the Pooh movie.

3D animation can be very beautiful the best I've seen being WALL-E. However there are just things you can do with 2D animation that can be just as beautiful and even more beautiful. I know "Toy Story" was ground breaking for its time, but look back at the first Toy Story, not really all that special in terms of animation, while "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was way back in 1937 and it holds up better than most other 2D and many other 3D animated movies in terms of animation.

[BumFodder]

At 12/20/11 05:15 PM, BobaDobo wrote: It's a huge fad. You don't need to pay big actors, it's relatively cheaper to produce, and it sells more.
The CGI industry is a neverending gold mine.

I dont see why people make such a fuss about it though, good looking CGI will never look as good as good looking traditional and it just looks kind of silly.

[Ryanson]

Not all of it is. There're plenty of television shows with 2D animation still.

[Freaki-boy92]

it's like fighting games- the mid-nineties saw the rise of the 3d fighter, with polygonal graphics. Tekken, Virtua fighter... even Street Fighter got in on it with the abysmal EX series. Not many games kept the 2d fighter's flame burning- guilty gear comes to mind. eventually, the games companies came to their senses and now there are more 2d fighters on the market than 3d.

hopefully western animation will come to its senses in a similar way.

[Jercurpac]

At 12/20/11 05:19 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 12/20/11 05:15 PM, BobaDobo wrote: It's a huge fad. You don't need to pay big actors, it's relatively cheaper to produce, and it sells more.
The CGI industry is a neverending gold mine.

I dont see why people make such a fuss about it though, good looking CGI will never look as good as good looking traditional and it just looks kind of silly.

I think it's more of an issue of what you grew up with. I grew up with traditional animation and when CGI exploded onto the scene it was generally crap. I watched something I love get replaced with a tacky imitation and that first impression is hard to break. Even though I'll always prefer traditional animation I have to admit that CGI has improved dramatically since its earliest inception and it' not just in terms of the raw technical power behind it. The artistry behind it has developed to. Old CGI that looked cold and heartless has more life and style to it. Animators are discovering how to create animations that play to the strengths of the format.

CGI might have become popular because it was a cheap way to replace a lot of the old traditional techniques, but I think it's really come into its own and it's just going to improve as time goes on. That being said when you get studios that aren't Pixar or Dreamworks cutting corners it's painfully obvious and it looks like crap. I feel like there's more leeway with traditional animation where it doesn't have to be the absolute highest quality to look passable.

Then again that might just be me speaking as someone who grew up with 2D animation and has more of a fondness for it.

[Auz]

Perhaps you should look into some Studio Ghibli films then. They still use traditional animation as opposed to Disney, Dreamworks and other Western animation companies.

I personally also prefer traditional animation as it seems a lot warmer and less empty, but like Jercurpac said, in recent years animation makers using CGI have definitely improved in giving animation more heart and style. Although it's mostly Pixar that really managed to succeed in this. When I see Ice Age or anything I still get the feeling I'm looking at empty shells sometimes.

[ChaRee]

Don't lump 3D movies into the generic shitfest of horrible "ANIMALS THAT ACT LIKE PEOPLE" animations that Dreamworks produce. There are some seriously beautiful, well told stories out there for 3D movies, and it's Pixar leading the way.

I do love a good 2D animation, but I don't reserve any secret impressions for a movie if it's in 3D.

[The-Great-One]

A few 3D animated movies that have truly blown my mind have been "WALL-E" of course, "Meet the Robinsons" although I preferred it more for its story rather than animation, and "The Polar Express" is some of the best 3D animation I've ever seen period I would put it up there with WALL-E.

[NeverHundred]

At 12/20/11 05:44 PM, Auz wrote: Perhaps you should look into some Studio Ghibli films then. They still use traditional animation as opposed to Disney, Dreamworks and other Western animation companies.

But where am I supposed to go if I don't want Japanese animation. I mean it's good and all, but even the high quality Japanese animation is still recognizably Japanese. Nothing wrong with that, but I wish there was more Western style animation.

Actually I don't care all too much, but hey... I still care a little.

[PsychoZoid]

At 12/20/11 05:24 PM, Ryanson wrote: Not all of it is. There're plenty of television shows with 2D animation still.

Most of them are produced in Adobe Flash, nowadays.

Not that that's a bad thing, I guess.

[orangebomb]

At 12/20/11 05:09 PM, BumFodder wrote: More specifically the films, I cant remember the last time I saw one advertised that wasnt CGI.

CGI is generally cheaper than traditional hand-drawn animations, which in turn cuts down on the costs of movies, allowing them to make more in the process. In the past, anything with CGI would range from mediocre to horrible, but with improvements in technology and techniques, most CGI movies and shows are not only acceptable, they're actually amazing from an eye candy standpoint.

Why is this? Its just really gimmicky and doesnt look as nice as high budget normal animation.

It's cheaper and much faster than regular hand drawn animation. Plus, I don't really think it's a gimmick at all, considering a lot of studios in the West and in Japan are going down this route, and some of their works are pretty damn good. Of course, you're always going to have the holdouts who stubbornly stick to traditional animation for their movies and cartoons, that's not to say that's a bad thing per se.

[Elfer]

Because few people are interested in creating or paying to view western-style non-CGI animation.

There's also been a lot of influence by Japanese-style animation in recent years, which has had a visible impact on western animation. My guess is that many western animators were fans of anime/manga in their earlier years due to the greater breadth of subject matter, and it gave them a greater appreciation for the style of drawing.

Also worth noting: For a number of years, a computer-animated feature with celebrity voices was seen as a sure-fire way to turn a profit in Hollywood, until this year when Mars Needs Moms was released, and was, to the surprise of studio execs and nobody else, a box office bomb. Movie execs are simply risk-averse, which is in many ways crippling to the American entertainment industry.

[Sense-Offender]

At 12/20/11 05:18 PM, The-Great-One wrote: The Princess and the Frog was 2D. So was the new Winnie the Pooh movie.

I was going to mention this. I saw it a month ago and it was actually really good. One of the best parts is the musical number the voodoo guy does near the beginning with all the trippy visuals.

[shrimpchris]

At 12/20/11 06:09 PM, Psych wrote:

At 12/20/11 05:24 PM, Ryanson wrote: Not all of it is. There're plenty of television shows with 2D animation still.

Most of them are produced in Adobe Flash, nowadays.

Not that that's a bad thing, I guess.

What? I only know of 1 TV show produced in flash.

[Klik]

"the customer is always right!"- Mr. Krabs.

[Sense-Offender]

At 12/21/11 12:28 AM, shrimpchris wrote: What? I only know of 1 TV show produced in flash.

I don't know of any specific examples other than Harvey Birdman, but I'm pretty sure lots of shows are made with Flash.

[Idocreating]

At 12/20/11 11:43 PM, Elfer wrote: Movie execs are simply risk-averse, which is in many ways crippling to the American entertainment industry.

Anyone in large creative businesses are risk-averse. Look at the big publishers in the videogames industry. EA and Activision do almost nothing but churn out sequels and even Nintendo has a habit of constantly rehashing it's franchises (Not that it doesn't try something new now and then).

In regards to the topic, I always assumed that it had something to do with the public's perception of the 2D hand-animated style went way down after the period in the 90's when Disney kept making brilliant animations, but by the late 90's they hadn't made anything all that special in a while and Pixar was raking it in with it's great storytelling in the 3D CGI format.

So people just figured that the 2D animated films were naff now and Pixar solidified the idea that 3D/CGI = Good. I'm probably way off though.

[shrimpchris]

At 12/21/11 12:51 AM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 12/21/11 12:28 AM, shrimpchris wrote: What? I only know of 1 TV show produced in flash.

I don't know of any specific examples other than Harvey Birdman, but I'm pretty sure lots of shows are made with Flash.

I didn't know Harvey Birdman was made in flash. Another example would be MLP FiM.

[escobargames]

Uh, Caroline is recently new, that was amazing stop motion/claymation.

[CyanSandwich]

Fear not. A Brackenwood feature film should be coming out within the next few years.

[Nemo103]

Cause directors are too greedy to hire actors

[Nentindo]

I remember seeing an advert for a new claymation film from Aardman last time I went to the cinema. And yes, I am getting a bit sick of CGI now. And 3D isn't really that amazing any more either.

[Lemonardo]

At 12/21/11 08:37 PM, Nemo103 wrote: Cause directors are too greedy to hire actors

You say it like it's a bad thing. If it's cheaper and it sells more, you'd do it, right? Don't tell me you wouldn't.

[HipnikDragomir]

At 12/20/11 05:24 PM, Ryanson wrote: Not all of it is. There're plenty of television shows with 2D animation still.

Yea, 90% of which being motion tweens. It looks really cheap and annoying.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 12/20/11 05:09 PM, BumFodder wrote: More specifically the films, I cant remember the last time I saw one advertised that wasn't CGI.

Why is this? Its just really gimmicky and doesn't look as nice as high budget normal animation.

I know.

I missed the days when Disney used to water down old fairy tales and adapt them into animated films. Sometimes they would rip off anime series as well.

Those are the days.

KIIIIIIIIIIIIIMBA!