Computer Graphic Cartoons: The Next Thing?

AndrewTaylor · Post by **AndrewTaylor** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:59 pm

The answer is obvious. The answer is Futurama. That was almost all 2D animation, but just occasionally was a very nicely done and usually seamless transition to 3D. It did get overused, but the combination of both is very good. Also the 3D suited the show's theme well, so as ever picking the right medium for the job is important.

Mimo · Post by **Mimo** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:20 pm

I find it really unattractive compared to 2d animation- it looks harsh and artificial.

Grayswandir · Post by **Grayswandir** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:12 pm

I like the 2D hand-animated stuff and I like SOME of the 3D animated stuff. I don't think it works well with an animated series (Take ReBoot for example) Because they're set to a fixed schedule they can't really put in all the detail that they could have, IMO, it just looks really forced and crappy. It works really well with movies and other long features, though.

However, have you seen some of that cell-shaded animation? It allows for a mix of 2D and 3D or just using 3D, but it can have the same style/look as a 2D piece of work. Mainly it allows for a high quality picture/textures to be used w/o having to remake them over and over again (I THINK thats right). Take "Last Exile" for example. a lot of that, even the characters were cell-shaded. They have started using it in some of the Japanese cartoons recently, I dunno if it'll ever get state-side but....

Mvmarcz · Post by **Mvmarcz** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:58 pm

I like teh old school 2d stuff:clings her finally arrivedcanadian movie and runs away:

Anywherebuthere · Post by **Anywherebuthere** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:20 pm

AndrewTaylor wrote:The answer is obvious. The answer is Futurama. That was almost all 2D animation, but just occasionally was a very nicely done and usually seamless transition to 3D. It did get overused, but the combination of both is very good. Also the 3D suited the show's theme well, so as ever picking the right medium for the job is important.

Actually, if I remember my Futurama doccumentarys correctly, just about everything except for the characters were Computer animated. All ships and a number of buildings were computer generated.

I think the style works very well for futurama, I think it looks horrible on Justice League where it sticks out like a sore thumb.

The one film that I think did an exceptional job of blending the two is The Iron Giant. (Well the Iron Giant did a LOT exceptionally well) I had to watch the making of special to actually realize that the giant wasn't hand drawn.

Anywherebuthere · Post by **Anywherebuthere** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:28 pm

gau dog wrote:Disney did shut down their 2D studios. Both in Florida and Burbank. The only 2D movie production studio Disney has left is in Australia making the "cheapquels". Dreamworks shut their 2D studio too. I'm don't have anything against CG as a medium, but when it's taking over traditional 2D animation, it's a sad thing.

I don't believe the reason why 2D was shut down in favor of 3D had anything to do with someone really pushing for 3D. My understanding of the situation was that Disney looked at their pocketbooks, said "HEY, our 2D films aren't doing SQUAT at the box office, our 3D productions are cleaning house." And put two and two together to get five.

This is why I consider Disney to be idiots.

Because anyone with one ounce of brain cells would go "Hey, we've put out absolute SHITE from our 2D departments, meanwhile those guys over at Pixar have pinched out hit after hit after hit after hit. Maybe we should actually...ya know...develop a story. Maybe do something that doesn't reak of week old feces, and people will show up."

Nope, their solution is "HEY! Let's move everything into 3D!"

And yet, when Pixar announced that they were going solo, I remember hearing Brad Byrd saying that one of the things that they were seriously considering was getting an in house 2D animation studio to do the projects that Disney would never had touched.

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:53 pm

Nobody is mentioning Robots. Robots was frigging awesome.

Jackhass · Post by **Jackhass** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:14 am

No...I don't think so.

It won't take too long for it to dawn on people that movies like Toy Story and Finding Nemo did better than stuff like Tarzan and Brother Bear not because 3D is inherently better, but simply because Toy Story and Finding Nemo were much better movies.

Leko · Post by **Leko** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:45 am

The original Tarzan was a damn good movie. I mean, as opposed to the crap sequel they're making.

And anybody worried about the future of 2D cartooning just needs to watch the kids' channels on Saturday morning. Stuff like Xoalin Showdown, Atomic Betty, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends... sure there's some CGI in it, but the fashion among children's cartoons is for a very flat, linear style that often doesn't even include shading. Personally I like the effect in a lot of these--the animation is INCREDIBLY smooth. Of course, a lot of these shows also include a lot of hand to hand combat (Jackie Chan Adventures is back on WB, and The Batman, while it takes outrageous liberties with the mythos, is quite good regardless) which may be biasing my opinion. Heheheh.

Just out of curiosity, is there an article somewhere that contains an actual announcement from Disney about the closing of its 2D centers? I just find it hard to grasp the concept of a company founded by such a brilliant businessman doing something so incredibly stupid.

Mvmarcz · Post by **Mvmarcz** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:03 am

Leko wrote:The original Tarzan was a damn good movie. I mean, as opposed to the crap sequel they're making.

And anybody worried about the future of 2D cartooning just needs to watch the kids' channels on Saturday morning. Stuff like Xoalin Showdown, Atomic Betty, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends... sure there's some CGI in it, but the fashion among children's cartoons is for a very flat, linear style that often doesn't even include shading. Personally I like the effect in a lot of these--the animation is INCREDIBLY smooth. Of course, a lot of these shows also include a lot of hand to hand combat (Jackie Chan Adventures is back on WB, and The Batman, while it takes outrageous liberties with the mythos, is quite good regardless) which may be biasing my opinion. Heheheh.

Just out of curiosity, is there an article somewhere that contains an actual announcement from Disney about the closing of its 2D centers? I just find it hard to grasp the concept of a company founded by such a brilliant businessman doing something so incredibly stupid.

All that disney stuff started to happen a few years ago

MixedMyth · Post by **MixedMyth** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:56 am

CG is certainly a fad. I mean, I've seen plenty of examples in movies where they went with CG just because they could rather than considering whether or not they should. I'm talking about the kind of CG where there isn't much care taken, so it comes of fake and the movie would have been better off with a mix of CG and traditional methods or must abandon CG entirely.

Will CG replace traditional cartooning? I doubt it. There's a style to the more traditional stuff that's sort of ingrained. There have been attempts to merge 3D rendered stuff with 2D style cartoons...with varying results. It worked well in Zim, but I can think of several animes where it looked really aweful- Final Fantasy Unlimited, for one (bad anime, anyhow). I can see more 'meshes' liek these happening, but I definately don't think the traditional style will go completely out. There'll always be someone without the resources trying to do it their own way. Of course, calling it 'traditional' is a bit of a misnomer, since cartoons are done on the computer these days anyhow...just not necessarily 3 dimentionally.

Meh. Bad stuff comes, be it 2D or 3D. The same with good stuff- take Reboot, for example. The trick is to care about more than just the visual surface.

As to the stuff with Disney, that was mostly Eisner's doing. The man was a control freak, and closed those studios down because they were too far away and therefore 'out of his reach.' Or so I've been told, anyhow. It was an incredibly dumb decision.

Jackhass · Post by **Jackhass** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:49 am

Leko wrote:The original Tarzan was a damn good movie. I mean, as opposed to the crap sequel they're making.

Ehn, it was an okay movie...visually it was very nice, but it's story was pretty hollow formulaic stuff.

And anybody worried about the future of 2D cartooning just needs to watch the kids' channels on Saturday morning. Stuff like Xoalin Showdown, Atomic Betty, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends... sure there's some CGI in it, but the fashion among children's cartoons is for a very flat, linear style that often doesn't even include shading. Personally I like the effect in a lot of these--the animation is INCREDIBLY smooth. Of course, a lot of these shows also include a lot of hand to hand combat (Jackie Chan Adventures is back on WB, and The Batman, while it takes outrageous liberties with the mythos, is quite good regardless) which may be biasing my opinion. Heheheh.

Yeah, TV is now the refuge of 2D animation. Although a few of those cartoons you mentioned get their nice smooth animation from the fact that they aren't traditionally animated...they too use computers. Stuff like Atomic Betty are basically just very advanced Flash cartoons.

Just out of curiosity, is there an article somewhere that contains an actual announcement from Disney about the closing of its 2D centers? I just find it hard to grasp the concept of a company founded by such a brilliant businessman doing something so incredibly stupid.

Well...they haven't closed it down entirely. It's just that most of the traditionally animated stuff goes straight to video now...except Winnie the Pooh movies for some strange reason.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:07 am

Leko wrote: Just out of curiosity, is there an article somewhere that contains an actual announcement from Disney about the closing of its 2D centers? I just find it hard to grasp the concept of a company founded by such a brilliant businessman doing something so incredibly stupid.

I can't help but think that the studio was slowly decaying ever since Disney dies. Even though they produced some of the best stuff in years following his death.
No, wait, let me reconsider that. They started to decay after Wolfgang Reiterman was gone (which was several years later). He was Disney's head cooperative and director of most of earlier movies.

CG is certainly a fad. I mean, I've seen plenty of examples in movies where they went with CG just because they could rather than considering whether or not they should. I'm talking about the kind of CG where there isn't much care taken, so it comes of fake and the movie would have been better off with a mix of CG and traditional methods or must abandon CG entirely.

I hate how CG is rapidly replacing traditional special effects in movies. Don't they realise that making special effects is an art by itself? But no, it's easier to get a crapload of sterile computer animation...
I'm all for replacing things with computers where they can speed up or ease the things. But when the difference is obvious and not in favour of computers, HAET.

PieceOfSkunk · Post by **PieceOfSkunk** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:12 am

mcDuffies wrote: I hate how CG is rapidly replacing traditional special effects in movies. Don't they realise that making special effects is an art by itself? But no, it's easier to get a crapload of sterile computer animation...
I'm all for replacing things with computers where they can speed up or ease the things. But when the difference is obvious and not in favour of computers, HAET.

I fully agree. Don't get me wrong, I'm majoring in CG animation, so this kinda thing may be my bread and butter. But I think audiences are becoming a lot more jaded to CG, and its use is a lot less awe-inspiring than it may have been in "TRON" or "Jurassic Park."

It may be just me, but could you imagine what, say, "Jaws" or "Alien" would have been like if their respective creatures were done in CG? I couldn't fathom it. There's just something about a real, extant prop in a scene that CG can't duplicate. I see a lot of movies today and I consciously think, "That's CG there... there's some more CG there..." but I never watch the original "Star Wars" and say "That's a prop... that's also a prop..."

anywherebuthere wrote:I don't believe the reason why 2D was shut down in favor of 3D had anything to do with someone really pushing for 3D. My understanding of the situation was that Disney looked at their pocketbooks, said "HEY, our 2D films aren't doing SQUAT at the box office, our 3D productions are cleaning house." And put two and two together to get five.

This is why I consider Disney to be idiots.

Because anyone with one ounce of brain cells would go "Hey, we've put out absolute SHITE from our 2D departments, meanwhile those guys over at Pixar have pinched out hit after hit after hit after hit. Maybe we should actually...ya know...develop a story. Maybe do something that doesn't reak of week old feces, and people will show up."

Nope, their solution is "HEY! Let's move everything into 3D!"

And yet, when Pixar announced that they were going solo, I remember hearing Brad Byrd saying that one of the things that they were seriously considering was getting an in house 2D animation studio to do the projects that Disney would never had touched.

A bad movie is a bad movie. It could be 2D, 3D, 4D, but if you don't but any heart into it, if you eschew tradition without reason, if you completely ignore what made your successful films successful, you'll fail. If Disney starts making good movies again, I don't care how many dimensions it has. But if they crap all over a century of history and only give us another "Dinosaur," someone will need a kick in the face.

Jackhass · Post by **Jackhass** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:17 pm

"I hate how CG is rapidly replacing traditional special effects in movies."

Particularly gore effects...it's so ridculous when someone get stabbed or shot or something in a horror movie and computer generated blood comes out. What a waste of time and special effects dollars.

AsterAzul · Post by **AsterAzul** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:28 pm

Personally, nothing can ever compete with the puppets of the 90s.

Not for another decade until the really get CG down-pat, anyway.

I'm imagining CG movies, though... everyone will look all perfect and pretty. Yuck.
Although I suppose it's not too much different from how things are now.
I always like to draw people with some imperfections...

BrownEyedCat · Post by **BrownEyedCat** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:53 pm

*reads everything everyone else has said in this thread*

Hear, hear! *slams drink on the table for emphasis*

War · Post by **War** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:01 pm

AndrewTaylor wrote:The answer is obvious. The answer is Futurama. That was almost all 2D animation, but just occasionally was a very nicely done and usually seamless transition to 3D. It did get overused, but the combination of both is very good. Also the 3D suited the show's theme well, so as ever picking the right medium for the job is important.

You'd be surprised how much was 3D. A whole lot.

Anyone else a fan of the Venture Bros? That's a flash animation done professionally.

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:07 am

PeppermintAfterlife wrote:And I believe (The Incredibles) would've worked as a regualr animated feature as well because the content is there.

It was originally pitched as a traditionally animated movie, actually . . . would've been interesting to see.

AsterAzul wrote:Personally, nothing can ever compete with the puppets of the 90s.

Fibble on just the 90's. One of the few things that got done right in the latest Hitchhiker's Guide was the Vogons. CG's very well and all, but the Creature Shop shows that they most definitely still have it seriously going on.

PieceofSkunk wrote:But I think audiences are becoming a lot more jaded to CG, and its use is a lot less awe-inspiring than it may have been in "TRON" or "Jurassic Park."

Also, I don't think that a lot of people realize that the best CG is that which you don't even notice . . . the background stuff that you're only picking up subliminally and aren't supposed to be looking at directly at all. Unfortunately, some filmmakers aren't realizing this either . . . while the "entire CG background" thing can work in some instances, in others it just looks horribly fake fake fake.

AndrewTaylor · Post by **AndrewTaylor** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:16 pm

anywherebuthere wrote:
AndrewTaylor wrote:The answer is obvious. The answer is Futurama. That was almost all 2D animation, but just occasionally was a very nicely done and usually seamless transition to 3D. It did get overused, but the combination of both is very good. Also the 3D suited the show's theme well, so as ever picking the right medium for the job is important.
Actually, if I remember my Futurama doccumentarys correctly, just about everything except for the characters were Computer animated. All ships and a number of buildings were computer generated.

Well, blimey. I didn't know that. It makes sense, since a lot of backgrounds are used again and again, and they have 3D models anyway for the 3D bits. But I always thought Futurama's 3D much more convincingly "hand-drawn" than a lot of other 3D cel-shading anyway. Apparently I was right