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
Tangled would have looked stupid hand-drawn. The hair wouldn't have worked at all.
The animation in it SHOULD be beautiful, since it's one of the top three most expensive movies ever made.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly!
Wow..top 3? I had no idea..that's crazy! But it seems to be getting it's money's worth
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it costs, if memory serves, 300 million
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wait, 250 million, it's still a lot xd
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They had to get special tools for animating the hair
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, yes, yes. People are always saying "this movie would have been better if it was hand-drawn!" Well, how, exactly? And they say things like "Disney should stick to hand-drawn only!" Well, again, why? Why on earth would any animaiton studio willingly limit itself to one medium? It definitely bugs me when people say that about 'Tangled'. It's like instead of 100000 individual strands of hair, they would have preferred a shapeless yellow blob. The reason Walt never made a 'Rapunzel' film himself is because hand-drawn wasn't the right medium.
I love all animation mediums, but I've been feeling a preference to CGI over hand-drawn lately just because the latter's supporters can be so damn snobby about it. Being hand-drawn doesn't automatically mean something is brilliant; there's a lot of crappy hand-drawn animation, a lot of beautiful CGI, and vice-versa. Neither is better than the other.
Did people complain about CAPS? The Xerox process? Cartoons in colour? Do people whine about stop-motion and puppetry, just because it's not hand-drawn? I doubt it. CGI is just a new method, and a new medium. What's the big deal?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tangled would have failed miserably if it were hand-drawn, the hair just wouldn't have worked. Also, in How to train your dragon, the flying sequences wouldn't be as exhilarating. They would have been... meh?
Exactly. I mean, Home on the range was a hand-drawn Disney flick, and it was crap. Meanwhile, Bolt was great!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I absolutly Love CGI animation, it's takes talent and an eye for animation and art to produce the story telling.
BUT, It -is- a shame that 2d animation is slowly fadeing from the movie theaters. It's my prefrence and It's what inspired me to become an artist in the first place.
I love both. Great Stamp! I'm useing it.
People need to be open minded when it comes to art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not saying that it's not a shame to see 2D fading. I do love 2D, as much if not more than CGI, I just made this stamp to say CGI isn't as bad as people say it is. Also, CGI may be fading from American animation but not in other parts of the world. I love animation in general, and if other people do, I don't think that they would restrict themselves to just American animation.
Thanks for using c:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yea, I totally agree with people complaining about CGI.
I was in a conversation with a close friend who is a HUGE animation nerd like I was, I was fustrated beause he wouldn't give Tangled a chance because he liked the Princess and the frog better.
(But I finally convinced him to watch it with me soon. C: )
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm glad he's finally watching Tangled. It's such a sweet movie. I love the last twenty or so minutes < 3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree. Most people say that there aren't any good CGI films, but I disagree with that statement. There are actually a lot of good CGI films out there, and they can tell very funny, heartwarming, sad, and exciting stories just like 2D. My favorite CGI films are:
All of the Toy Story films
The Incredibles
Ratatouille
Up
How to Train Your Dragon
Megamind
Kung-Fu Panda
Despicable Me
Monster House (we need more creepy/dark CGI films like this)
9
Ice Age 1 (the best of the series. The 2nd one sucked, and the 3rd one was only good because of the weasel voiced by Simon Pegg)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My favorites are HTTYD, Ratatouille and UP < 3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree completely. Also, no-one can deny that there is just as much crap 2D shows as there are 3D!
I think people think that there is less effort put into 3D then 2D... these people obviously have never tried to make a 3D model, hah. Different skill-set altogether.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know a couple animators and they work VERY hard, so I agree ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
3D movies make me nauseous. Literally, not figuratively. This is my reasoning for not liking them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
While I agree that 3D movies CAN be enjoyable . . . 2D animation all day. More fluid motion, and brighter colors.
Watch the opening to the Lion King. Nothing beats it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
-Looks at my own tag- Because I HAVEN'T seen the lion king? xD
-Shrug- I love animation in general
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Didn't even see that, lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agreed so very completely. I personally prefer CGI anyhow.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, but it's ugly.
I know like... 2 CGI movies that I've actually liked the style for. The rest make my eyes bleed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How many CGI animated films have you seen? I mean, most don't really do anything that warrants making your eyes bleed, I think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Almost all that come out.
I miss Disney's old 2D style, it was beautiful and magestic. CGI styles are like for 2-year-olds who don't know better. If they're going to put SO MUCH DAMN WORK into it, you'd think they'd make it look decent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
CGI is actually my preference. It makes you feel more like you're part of the world the movie takes place in because everything is portrayed as 3-dimensional and has more depth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know what you mean. The backgrounds tend to be more detailed and realistic and such ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah and they're not all flat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I actually like CGI better. Of course, that's probably just because it's what I grew up with for the most part, but that just goes to show that it's all relative to your time period. Besides, I've never heard anyone complain about CGI (though I've heard them complain about 3D). That's probably just because I'm not looking in the right places, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I grew up more around 2D, but I love animation in general. I've heard WAY too many people complain that it's not as good as 2D and whatnot, which is silly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I adore CGI animation when done well. ADORE IT.
I prefer 2D, but that doesn't mean that CGI can't be as beautifully executed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That goes for anything, really. x3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, CGI-- the way most newer American animated movies are animated. With computer graphics. For example, Finding Nemo and Shrek.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well nothing is wrong with that
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Glad you think so X3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Computer Generated Imagery.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CGI doesn't bother me. What does bother me, however, is that moviemakers, with only a few exceptions, seem to have forgotten how to do anything else. I like Shrek and Toy Story as much as the next guy, but it seems like nowadays, moviemakers feel like they have to animate in 3D graphics.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I think it's just animation advancing. Making things looks better and better. There's always a few rough patches, but all in all, I think we're making headway in this regard.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not denying that it's a great advance in animation, because it certainly is. You watch Toy Story, then something newer like Wall-E, and you can definitely see a much greater level of depth - it looks more and more realistic with each turn of the wheel. But if it reaches complete realism, then what's the point of animation?
And it seems a shame to abandon the old ways when new technology becomes available. We still use telephones, for example, even though cellular phones and iPads are the norm now. Orchestra music is still written and enjoyed, even though the more popular forms of music are things like rock or rap. Many artists still prefer the film and darkroom to the SD card and Photoshop, even though the latter are much more convenient and mainstream. The newer techniques become popular, and rightly so, but they don't completely replace and do away with the old forms. Movies are an art form, just like music or photography. I don't see why they should be any different in that regard.
But, then, the point of your stamp is that CGI isn't that bad, a point with which I agree anyway 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think we'll ever reach that, and I don't want to, but this way is more efficient and lets face it, cheeper. And we need that.
And there are still 2d animated films. Just last year there were several released! First ones that come to mind are "My dog tulip" and "Secret of Kells"
2d animation WILL continue to pop up, I have no doubt of that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
These are my feelings exactly. If there were more 2D animated movies as well, there wouldn't be nearly as many complaints about 3D. 2D is becoming a lost art, and it's a HUGE shame.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I actually love this < 3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha, glad to hear it
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>