HOME | DD
SimbaTheHuman — CGI isn't that bad
Published: 2011-03-28 15:03:32 +0000 UTC; Views: 6947; Favourites: 351; Downloads: 28
Redirect to original
Description
Edit; Over one hundred favs, thank you c:Writing proper description now~
I hear a lot of complaints about CGI animation, and I must say-- why the discrimination? CGI has just the amount of potential as any medium, animated or otherwise. Yet, I see the most complaints about this one.
"Why can't we go back to 2D?"
Well, 2D is nice, and it IS still done. Japanese animation is still for the most part 2D, cartoons are 2D, American animated films are 2D every now and then. Animation is developing, and yet people are complaining, which I think is silly.
Ratatouille belongs to PIXAR
Tangled belongs to DISNEY
How to train your dragon belongs to DREAMWORKS
Despicable me belongs to ILLUMINATION ENTERTAINMENT
Related content
Comments: 209
2D is old-fashioned. Stop living in your animation history books.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know something? I don't need to listen to you. 2D animation is a timeless art. That's just the talk of sleasy businessmen like the ones running Disney right now. If we ever do truly lose it as an art for movies, it will only be because of them. And people like you too. So if that's really what you want, then go on ahead and continue that attitude of yours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The people at Disney are doing A GREAT JOB on their current movies! And I DO want CGI to fully take over. It WILL. Get used to it. The equipment used to make 2D movies costs to much to keep up and running, as a result Disney and most other studios have got rid of it. Don't like that? Too bad. Go and watch The Lion King and shut up about your hate of CGI. You're just missing out on great movies - Bolt, Tangled, Wreck-it Ralph, How to Train Your Dragon, Rise of the Guardians, The Adventures of Tintin etc. Oh and speaking of Tintin, some studios have even gone the extra mile and started using motion-capture, with which they can make HYPER-REALISTIC characters, something people can NOT ACHIEVE with drawing by hand. 3D is realistic. 2D just looks fake. 3D is the animation of the future! Just stay in the past and keep watching and re-watching your silly Disney fairytales instead of clever movies like How to Train Your Dragon and Wreck-it Ralph, if that't what you want. No-one listens to people like you. They're too busy having fun watching the movies you hate so much, which are the best movies EVER. BAR NONE.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I legit LAUGHED at you when you said "2D is old fashioned", like some idiotic trend hopper and fully displaying your ignorance. 2D looks fake? That's the point of 2D animation, you colossal moron. It's not meant to look like real life, that's why we watch animated movies. And FYI, you also draw in 2D, moron. Who want's animated films that looks real? I don't go to watch a rip-off of real life, because I'm paying to watch an ANIMATED MOVIE. Id I wanted to look at a real-looming movie, I'll watch a live action one. And the fact that you think crap like Bolt, Wreck-It-Ralph, etc. is better than some of the FINEST 2D animated films like The Tale of Princess Kaguya, Song of the Sea, and even When Marnie was There invalidates anything you say on the subject of animation. You don't know shit (and yes, I've animated in 3D before too). If it wasn't for 2D, we wouldn't even have animation in general, but please enjoy your mainstream, generic animated car-fest while some of us admire a timeless art style that has been struggling to be kept up, and should be brought back. Seriously, sit through Song of the Sea or Kaguya and tell me that those are inferior to pieces of shit like Bolt and Big Hero 6 just because your dumbass wants to ignore what makes an excellent film.
Also, 2D isn't expensive to make, you uneducated idiot. You literally made that up. 3D animation is actually costs TWICE as much to produce and make; it's just a lot more efficient to make a quick buck on, since idiots who are easily distracted by flashing lights and pretty effects pay faster for it. You can't even do your research.
I won't even dive into the rest of your laughable comment (laughable at best) because your ignorance is on full display.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Disney 3D animation is BETTER than their 2D animation in my opinion, and Disney themselves actually do it A LOT better than Pixar. Just look at Bolt, Tangled, Wreck-it Ralph and maybe even Frozen (though I haven't seen that yet). You need to get out of the past. Disney will probably NEVER do 2D animation again. The company said YEARS AGO that they don't even have the technology used to make 2D animation anymore, because it's "outdated". SO GET USED TO IT.
I can't stand people like you who hate 3D animation.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
Obviously you didn't see Princess and the Frog or Winnie the Pooh, because otherwise you would already know that not having the "technology" to make 2D movies is a complete lie. The only thing outdated at Disney was their CAPS system for coloring those movies, but the actual art of 2D has never been technological the way all these CGI movies are. It's always been the art of bringing characters to life through a pencil and some paper.
And you know, maybe I can't stand people like you either, who always want to defend CGI and talk as if older art forms are trivial and of no importance. So screw you. You're not even worth my time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I watched a bit of The Princess and the Frog, but I couldn't finish watching it because it was too boring. And Winnie the Pooh? Never watched it, although I did watch the older ones.
STOP LIVING IN THE PAST. Times change you know, and with the changing times comes new technology for BETTER animation. Bolt, Tangled, How to Train your Dragon, Rise of the Guardians, and WRECK-IT RALPH are all AMAZING movies, and they're 3D.
Besides, 2D will never go out of fashion. Japanese companies still make 2D anime movies, don't they? And most cartoon TV shows are 2D, so why are you complaining?
Troll. YOU'RE not worth MY time either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oof
yes i know i'm 5 years late
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know, I was so cringy back when I posted this comment 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pencil and paper? How old-fashioned! That is why it sucks so much. And no, I haven't seen those movies. The Princess and the Frog I had to stop watching halfway through because of how god-awful it was. And Winnie the Pooh? How childish. Obviously never watched it.
PS. Don't talk to my sister like that! It's rude! I won't have it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think we should be more worried about good story and characters rather than just making CGI tech demos. Something that will never be outdated.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You are the type of idiot full of shit I was talking about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, so it's idiotic to say that Disney makes CGI films to replace having to do hand-drawn animation and that the reason they replace it is because they believe that people don't want it anymore or care about it? Is it idiotic then to care what happens to 2D films because of them and not be pleased by how much they shun it, reject it, and undermine it's value as an art form (especially when changing movies like Frozen to CGI)?
With so many people defending CGI by saying that "it isn't that bad" or "it's just as good as 2D", there needs to be more people putting up stamps about why 2D animation isn't that bad or is just as good, because that's the truth. And maybe I think it's also the truth that CGI is extremely overrated and that studios continue to discredit 2D animation every year.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are obviously stupid. Disney can expand their filmmaking to anywhere they want. Plus they still do 2D.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They've said that they don't have any 2D films on their agenda now, so no they're not. CGI is obviously being their agenda nowadays.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And this is bad because...?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because it's taking the place of 2D animation and it discourages them further away from it with every new CGI film that they decide to make. And if this is the same for every other studio because nobody takes responsibility for 2D animation anymore, then chances are that 2D animated films will just die when they don't even deserve to die.
And when Disney changes a movie like Frozen to CGI after claiming to us that it was going to be one of their next 2D films, I can't help but think of that as an insult to the people out there like myself who actually miss 2D animation, because they're changing it at their expense. And it's an insult to the medium as well, cause they give off this attitude that 2D's not good enough for them, when people should know that 2D animation can be just as good as any overrated CGI film a studio like Disney can make.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry I'm not following your logic here; "CGI might replace 2D eventually, therefore it is an inferior animation format."
Basically you're hating CGI not because of any fault of its own, but because it's not something else. That's like hating the more common brunettes because you happen to like blondes better. I love 2D animated movies as much as the next guy, but the animation style does not make or break a movie. And just because CGI is becoming more abundant than 2D doesn't make it better or worse--those two factors are completely unrelated.
Another thing I find interesting is that you claim that all CGI movies are bad--when you admitted in a previous comment that you haven't seen a single Disney CGI movie. So how can you tell? You're just making assumptions--and incorrect ones at that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't try to claim the CGI is an inferior medium, but I do think that it's being a danger to other mediums. If it's causing studios to just throw out other good and valid forms of making animated films, no matter how old, then I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. You don't just replace 2D animation. It's one thing for two mediums to co-exist, but CGI movies are not as superior as these studios think they are that they can just give them the right to all turn their backs on 2D animation. When it's an issue like that, I find that it's one of those cases where the animation being used is going to make a difference, because there's too much of one thing while other mediums like 2D just suffer for that. It's like a life-or-death scenario where the future on 2D animated films lies on whether or not people are just plain going to make them at all. You talk as if the potential threat of losing one art form over another is no big deal.
And I never claimed that I hate all CGI movies. I still have a bit of a soft spot for Pixar films (and I can get by with just one computer animation studio in the world), but I've only hated all the CGI stuff that comes straight out of Disney animation themselves and how they always seem to be throwing out their precious 2D animation for these kind of movies. I just spend more time watching 2D animation now just cause of how sick I've gotten of seeing so much CGI these days, and I could care less about what all the competition like DreamWorks is making anymore cause they're really part of the whole problem for why there's too much CGI.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I get what you're saying, but your reasoning is still pretty shallow--yes, it would be rather sad if 2D went extinct, but this doesn't mean that the new form is bad--it's just new. The fact of the matter is that times are changing, and art changes with the times. It's a fact of life.
In the end, the format of the animation is only one small part of the whole thing and doesn't matter nearly as much as the real important part if a movie: a good story. Just because Disney is making a switch to CGI does not mean that it has lost the ability to tell a good tale, and Wreck-it Ralph is a good example of that. If we can all just get over the fact that art culture changes--just as it has been changing forever and ever throughout the history of mankind--then we can stop judging films too early and judge them for what they are instead of what they aren't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CGI was new back when Toy Story was first released (in fact, part of the reason I find it easier to appreciate CGI films from back in the 90's was because there was only a handful of them). Now it's just gotten extremely old in my opinion.
And I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying the whole "story is more important" thing. Not in this case. It's the same defense that everyone tries to make, and it's why animation related issues such as this always go unresolved. If anything's going to help kill off 2D animation, it's excuses like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My bad. Newer. Interesting how you complain about it getting old while you argue that the older form of animation should come back.
The story is more important. There were some 2D films that were total flops, such as the Black Cauldron. Was it because of the animation format? No, it was because of the story. There are some CGI movies that are excellent--was it because of the animation format? No, it's because of the story. Again, the quality of a film only has so much to do with its format.
But hey, enough of my evidence. You're the all-knowing animation guru here; why don't you grace me with a few example of films where the animation format is more important than the story?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For the record, I actually like The Black Cauldron.
My point was, I think animation becomes a more important issue when the fate of the medium is involved. People can keep writing stories for movies willie-nillie while simultaneously killing off 2D animated films in the process because they refuse to do anything other than CGI. It's got nothing to do with reception. To say that older forms of art are so trivial that it doesn't matter where they go as long as the story is good really undermines their value. Almost any CGI movie you see today could be done traditionally, with the same story, and it shouldn't make any difference whatsoever. 2D animation is not something that should even have to "come back". It's not something that should just be "phased out". It's something that should just be there. These kind of movies have just as much right to exist and be made as any CGI one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree that it would be a shame to see 2D disappear. But if things change, then things change. Whining about it will only make things worse for you and you won't be able to enjoy an animated film again.
But, you know what I'm realizing here...all you're concerned with here is your own personal nostalgia. You're not giving me any reason why 2D is so effing special; it just happens to be the thing you grew up with. And therefore anything that tries to replace it is bad.
You know something, if everyone was like you then the world wouldn't go anywhere. Our grandparents grew up with the radio, but do you see a bunch of old people boycotting television because they want a return to their nostalgic past?
No, because they are not that selfish.
Throughout the history of mankind, there have been rises and falls of millions of art styles, thousands of mediums in millions of forms. And all those eventually went out of style.
Appreciators of art should embrace the past as well as the present and the future.
Is anybody saying that Renaissance paintings, stop-motion animation, or any of that old stuff is bad?
No. We appreciate the old stuff.
Are we boycotting all new forms of art because everybody should go back to old styles because "it's tradition?" No, of course not.
So tell me: out of every art form that has passed through the history of art, why is 2D animation the only one that should "just be there" forever and never die? Why?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because it made animation what it is today, and just about all cartoons and animated film originated from the art of hand-drawn. In fact for the longest time that practically was the definition of animation. When people saw cartoons, they saw hand-drawn. Nobody ever complained that there was too much of it the same way people do about newcomers like CGI that try to take it's place and can't let both exist freely in life. It should be about equality, not superiority. The problem with CGI is that all it tries to do is show superiority. People who appreciate and embrace the past don't throw it away like it's worthless.
BTW, TV and radios are already two things that happily co-exist with people, and people get enjoyment out of both. Different forms of art should be the same.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, like I said, times are changing. It's not like anybody just want 2D to die out or that nobody likes it anymore; but the medium is evolving. I don't see why that's so hard to accept.
But anyway, you're just the one who will end up upset in the end.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think what gives CGI such a bad name is all the films that DON'T tell a good story. So many companies get caught up in the CGI and just work to make it look good, rather than focusing on the story of it. Granted, there are some 2D films that have done the same...
Personally, I just like 2D better because of the skill it requires (and I love the classic look and feel). Animation of any kind, 2D or 3D requires skill, but in 2D animation, it almost requires more. 3D is a lot of the computer's work, while with 2D, you actually have to draw frame by frame.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You really, really couldn't be more wrong. People love to say that a lot of CGI films have bad stories because companies are focusing more on the graphics, but there were plenty of movies, 2D and live action, with bad stories long before CGI ever came around (Black Cauldron, Rock A Doodle, Troll in Central Park, etc.) and there were plenty after (Sinbad, Home on the Range, Pocahontas, Quest for Camelot, etc.).
And as a student of the CGI medium, I can't help but be insulted every time I hear someone say that it takes less skill. That is completely ridiculous. It takes a lot of skill, time, and patience. It can take a computer animator a week just to turn out a few seconds of animation. The computer does not do all the work for you. It's a tool, like a paintbrush or a hammer is a tool. Why do you think 3D animated movies take up to 5 years to make?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Leave Pocahontas out of that! That film's story is actually one of the good ones!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, it's definitely not as bad as the others I listed, I'll give ya that 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I apologize if my comment came out as insulting or seeming to be saying that those who work on 3D animated films are less talented or skillful than 2D animators. That was not my intention.
As you can see near the end of the first half of my comment, I did point out that many 2D films have also fallen into the same trap of bad storytelling, it isn't just in 3D animation.
Honestly, I have not had much hands on experience with 3D animation as I don't have access to resources or programs necessary for the art. I'm merely going off of what I've seen and research I've done. So, I could be very wrong in my statements and I apologize if I have made premature assumptions.
I have nothing against 3D animation or 3D animators! As long as the film has a compelling story and/or nicely done design, I am all for it, not matter the medium. I am just sad to see the classic 2D style slowly disappearing from the film industry. To me, there is just something magical about 2D animation that can't be done with CGI. That being said, both 2D and 3D animation come with their ups and downs. It all comes down to personal opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for apologizing. Look, it's totally fine if you prefer one medium over the other. I personally prefer 3D (obviously). And it's fine if you think one medium has something special that the other doesn't. Again, I feel that way about 3D. But to make statements about how 3D takes less talent based on just reading and hearing about it with no hands on experience is like those people who are completely un-artistic who think drawing is so easy and doesn't take that much work. Or those people who just think there's a button on the screen that says "ANIMATE" and the computer just does all the animation for you. I don't think that people realize that 3D is more like working with clay and sculpture than pencil and paper, which take the same amount of talent. It's just that the skills you need for 3D are a little different.
I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just tired of hearing that 3D is so easy and takes less skill over and over again. Thanks again for apologizing; I really do appreciate it 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I completely understand
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Totally agree; for me it's obviously the opposite
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the suggestion! I'll have to check it out
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And what a bleak future it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well that's like... your opinion man.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was this way. I'll admit it: I STILL have traces of animationism against CGI.
I don't think it was the style so much as it was the movies themselves that started it off: I have NEVER been a PIXAR fan. I hated Shrek. I didn't like Monsters Inc. I wasn't a fan of Toy Story(Please don't kill me) or A Bug's Life, or most of the stuff. I only really enjoyed Brave(to an extent - mostly the animation) and Up. Wall-E is the best thing they've done.
But... It was really Shrek and Monsters that killed me. I hated CGI ever since.
I regret to admit it, but... WhenthecommertialsforHtTyDcameoutIthoughtitlookedreallystupid. I said it - in a terribly indistinct way, but I said it. Guess what? How to Train your Dragon is my favorite movie. Ever. Maybe it's because of John Powell. Maybe it's the story-telling. Maybe it's the fact that Hiccup is pretty much me, only male. Maybe it's just because that movie is really freaking awesome. I'll go with the last one. My second favorite movie is made by the same people: Rise of the Guardians. (Sorry, Jack. Hiccup beat you out, big time.)
...I was really, really wrong to thing that HtTyD would be stupid because it was CGI. I never would have seen it if my mother hadn't rented it. In fact, just last night, I wanted to watch HtTyD again, so I put it on, and turned off the lights. And when it ended, I just let it play again... because I didn't wanna go back to the real world.
CGI has more potential than Traditional animation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
PHHT.
I love this kind of movies it puts me in a new world~
It fuels my
Imagination
WiR DM HtTYD <3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I will defend CGI till the day I die. The thing that annoys me the most is that most of the complaints aren't that the CGI animation is ugly, or that the movements are bad or anything, it's just that "it's not hand drawn". Those are the same people who call every 3d animated film a lazy production, without even having the slightest experience within the medium. As a student in animation myself, I can say that 3d animation is hardly something you want to get into if you are lazy. In most, if not every CGI studio, the animators usually sleep there, because if not, they will not manage the deadline, because it's so much work to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not the fact that I hate CG(One of my favorite shows is Transformer Prime,a CG show) It's the fact that I hate POORLY DONE CG.(Food Fight,I'm looking at you!)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Fully agree with you. Although, I miss classic animation in theaters, when people are saying: "Oh, the cartoons nowdays are shitty because everything is in CGI!", I feel anger. I love many CGI animated movies, especially Dreamworks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People can be ridiculous sometimes. Many of them, I think, simply have their nostalgia goggles on too tight.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I actually like CGI - in my opinion it is just as artistically and creatively demanding as 2D animation. It also allows the animators to showcase their vision - you know, get the lighting just right, create depth, use 3D to enhance the experience. Demanding that studios return to traditional art and abandon all CGI is like giving them a custom-built-for-animation-supercomputer but telling them not to touch it :/ It's progress, like anything else, and progress is generally a good thing!
That said, I will gladly sit down and watch a 2D film and appreciate the artistry and design of it, often just as good as CGI but in a different way, like a painting compared to a sculpture. Like someone already said, it's about the story. If the story sucks, the film will suck, regardless of how many dimensions it's in. Simple as pie
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
| Next =>