Lamel
Banned
I think you know.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Hand drawn animation is inherently superior" is the most bs claim I've ever seen.
- Thread starter Boss Doggie
- Start date
I firmly believe we will reach a point where Legends of the Guardians will also look "dated", this is one of the pitfalls of the arms race of graphical fidelity.
On the other hand, Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island looks as good today as the day it launched.
Fidelity is... not a "style" is the key point here I think. Fidelity can always be improved, with diminishing returns, sure, but it's actually only "finished" once we reach the point where we can perfectly simulate real life. On the other hand, pixels are a style. Cel is a style. And whiles styles pass in and out of fashion, they are pretty timeless.
Minecraft, for whats worth, I believe is timeless. I think Minecraft is ugly as balls, but it is a coherent aesthetic that will not undergo change no matter how powerful computers become. I.e., it cannot be quantitatively "improved".
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
The films being released today are pretty timeless tho.
If anything it's a great example of how hand drawn animation can look amazing with minimal animation.
The scene when the bikers ride into the tunnel, the CD jukebox in the bar and the doctors pattern indicator.
Anyway, the whole "Traditional is better" argument comes from a place of ignorance regarding how both styles of animation are produced.
People do massively underestimate how much effort and talent go into producing good cg animation.
Not just that there's also the hospital scene with the lego brick wall.
But are they the norm?
If anything its DB fans clinging to one of the few good looking scenes in super. Even if it ain't all that great.
Toei fucking sucks.
Oh yea the quality has definitely improved, but when Toy Story came out I thought it looked amazing. I hope that Moana ages well, but I have no idea how 3D will look in 20 years, whereas 2D animation has a ton of history behind it to look back on. Time will tell.
SigmasonicX
Member
Not really relevant to the topic at hand, but I suppose it is true that I can't think of any CGI animation that hides a low budget with stylistic choices like that well.
I suppose Trollhunters is a pretty good looking CGI show with some nice designs, but the way it cheaps out can be pretty obvious, with its empty streets.
This the thing for me, it looks bonkers now but future CG is gonna get even more insane and in comparison make modern animated films look dated.
Like you can't show me a gif from shrek or monsters inc today and expect me to be impressed because it's gonna look old AF.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
Great CG is great.
Great 2D is great.
I do tend to be more impressed with 2D though, as CG in my head doesn't require as much "focus".
What I mean, is that with CG everything is done with a computer, which means that you have more tools to redo things in case something goes wrong.
This is a moot point though, since 2D is made with computers today as well.
I am becoming more and more breathtaken with CG though, so I'm far from a purist or elitist.
Great 2D is great.
I do tend to be more impressed with 2D though, as CG in my head doesn't require as much "focus".
What I mean, is that with CG everything is done with a computer, which means that you have more tools to redo things in case something goes wrong.
This is a moot point though, since 2D is made with computers today as well.
I am becoming more and more breathtaken with CG though, so I'm far from a purist or elitist.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
SigmasonicX
Member
One thing to consider is that I'm sure people looked back at the early days of animation with some derision during the 40's. I imagine we'll be able to better appreciate the animation in Monsters Inc. with greater distance.
It's quite the opposite I feel. A lot of people wax nostalgic about the older ages of animation. I think you'd have to go older than that to find something 2D animation snobs will sneer at.
Cuphead's success is primarily driven by how much people liked the "noodle animation" of days of yore. And these aren't even animation snobs, but typical laymen.
No. They look amazing and the art direction is fantastic but as long as we're still improving 3d tech(fabric,lighting,skin,hair,water,etc) in ten years they are going to look dated. Even recent films like Monsters U, Big Hero 6 and Inside Out are starting to show their age. Which is a shame because one of the greatest films ever, The Incredibles, gets worse looking every year despite its sublime art direction.
Gai Murakumo
Member
The hypest part of Dragon Ball Z and it was so early into the show too.yes... average.
exmachina64
Banned
I assume you think Steamboat Willie also looks dated.
Something that I'm impressed by is a lot of OLDER cartoons are actually amazingly fluid.
Fleischer Superman cartoons still hold up to this day.
Shadowhelper
Banned
It's a matter of preference, but I do think 2d animation is inherently superior.
Especially when the budgets are lower.
The 3D clone Wars show looked like ass. While the 2D one is fucking amazing.
I actually do dislike 3D animation in relation to 2D. It's an odd thing 3d animation when it comes to cartoon. Like everything is getting more detailed and realistic looking in those Pixar ones. More lifelike. Its kinda creepy at times. More details! More life like! It should be more about imagination and creativity and great art directions. 3D animation kinda limits you. Limits how things move. Limits the imagination.
Even in games. Far too much 3d shit and not enough sprite games. Despise a lot of 2.5D.
Especially when the budgets are lower.
The 3D clone Wars show looked like ass. While the 2D one is fucking amazing.
I actually do dislike 3D animation in relation to 2D. It's an odd thing 3d animation when it comes to cartoon. Like everything is getting more detailed and realistic looking in those Pixar ones. More lifelike. Its kinda creepy at times. More details! More life like! It should be more about imagination and creativity and great art directions. 3D animation kinda limits you. Limits how things move. Limits the imagination.
Even in games. Far too much 3d shit and not enough sprite games. Despise a lot of 2.5D.
I don't really know how we can say that considering they're still present to us. They appear timeless because they appeal to our present sensibilities as products of our time. And style only comes into focus in hindsight.
Polioliolio
Member
When I make similar arguments, I'm talking about how much more character there is in pencil lines or pen ink lines than budget CG lines you see in modern cheap ass animes.
Weird that you chose a George Jetson pic that appears to have been vector.
Weird that you chose a George Jetson pic that appears to have been vector.
Stiler
Member
There's always going to be good and bad examples of any medium of animation, it depends a lot on the budget and people making it.
I mean a hand-drawn Disney movie vs a cheaply produced tv-episode of He-Man?
Also as far as actual movement goes, rotoscoping animation using actual real people and tracing over that gave animations a lot more fluidity then traditional hand-drawn animation.
On the flip side, good hand-drawn animation can look great as well, especially if the budget allows for good detail and time to animate it well.
I mean take Don Bluth's movies for example, to me there are some of the best when it comes to hand drawn animation.
CGI wise, compare say, the Puss in Boots netflix series vs the movie. The movie has faaaaaaaaaaaar superior animation and detail over the netflix series (even though the series came four years after the movie).
What I find sad about the whole thing? That cgi is killing traditional animation outside of Japan.
I like both and I think there's room for both. I'd love to see new hand drawn animated movies like what Don Bluth made, sadly it's a dying art form here and even Disney has moved to CGI animation for the most part for all of its movies (even the new "live action" movies are a ton of CGI animation).
I mean a hand-drawn Disney movie vs a cheaply produced tv-episode of He-Man?
Also as far as actual movement goes, rotoscoping animation using actual real people and tracing over that gave animations a lot more fluidity then traditional hand-drawn animation.
On the flip side, good hand-drawn animation can look great as well, especially if the budget allows for good detail and time to animate it well.
I mean take Don Bluth's movies for example, to me there are some of the best when it comes to hand drawn animation.
CGI wise, compare say, the Puss in Boots netflix series vs the movie. The movie has faaaaaaaaaaaar superior animation and detail over the netflix series (even though the series came four years after the movie).
What I find sad about the whole thing? That cgi is killing traditional animation outside of Japan.
I like both and I think there's room for both. I'd love to see new hand drawn animated movies like what Don Bluth made, sadly it's a dying art form here and even Disney has moved to CGI animation for the most part for all of its movies (even the new "live action" movies are a ton of CGI animation).
Apropos of nothing, I really hate animation discussions that revolve around Dragonball or Naruto because they tend to conflate the process of animation with art direction and framing.
On the other hand, this is technically impressive, but its art direction is very unpopular:
This... is technically unimpressive. But its direction is spectacular for the emotional beats it wants to hit.
On the other hand, this is technically impressive, but its art direction is very unpopular:
The Mob vs Koyama fight from Mob Psycho 100 is probably the most well animated thing I have ever seen.
It's probably mixture of Hand and CG animation
I don't know it looks fucking great
It's probably mixture of Hand and CG animation
I don't know it looks fucking great
nah, you assume wrong.
SigmasonicX
Member
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
I disagree that those three films are showing their age, especially owning the last two on Bluray. Like Moana and Cocoa look leagues better but you need to actively look for flaws in those films.
Warm Machine
Member
yes... average.
Thats more good design than it is animation. The animation itself is terrible but the shot and the style is great.
This is a matter of taste I feel. I don't think Toy Story 1 will ever reach Steamboat Willy status but who knows. People think fondly of ReBoot and Beast Wars.
I don't think there's CG in that, I think it just looks that good because Yutaka Nakamura, one of the best animators in the industry, did that part. Just look at everything he's done, it's incredible.
MrCunningham
Member
You can find examples of bad animation in both CG and traditionally drawn. Many of those old Hanna-Barrera, Lou Scheimer/ Filmation and other limited animation studios were working on budgets for an entire season that could be comparable to one 7-minute long cinematic MGM Tom and Jerry cinematic short from the 1940's and produced under much shorter time frames. Hanna and Barrera were actually criticized by other studios in the 1950's for using a simplistic animation style. But it was necessary in order to produce 25+ 24 minute long episodes. Many of the limited animation techniques that were developed by Hanna-Barrera ended up being adopted by early Japanese anime.
But in the 1980's western TV animation went from producing everything in-house to outsourcing most of it to Japan, then switched over to Korean animation and other Asian countries. But yeah, because of the outsourcing, there were many errors in early 80's and 90's cartoons.
But in the 1980's western TV animation went from producing everything in-house to outsourcing most of it to Japan, then switched over to Korean animation and other Asian countries. But yeah, because of the outsourcing, there were many errors in early 80's and 90's cartoons.
exmachina64
Banned
Its killing traditional animation inside of Japan also.
There's no CG there, I'm also certain, unless you count the "psychic aura" effects as CG (which technically it is)
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
Rotoscoping/ filmed reference?Something that I'm impressed by is a lot of OLDER cartoons are actually amazingly fluid.
Fleischer Superman cartoons still hold up to this day.
Toy Story was impressive but I don't think it was ever considered beautiful in terms of visuals.
Agree. It is like the Goku vs Freeza bit above. It is three shots of a still Goku, surrounded by Kamehameha lighting effect with looped rocks.
It looks really good, but it is not "great" animation. But it is top tier in a weekly show.
Polioliolio
Member
CG dated is something else entirely to hand drawn dated and you know that.
Similarly, most people have trouble stomaching N64 games because of how damn ugly they typically are. Mario 64 is bloody brilliant, but Super Mario World has aged better certainly in looks.
We've still got a long way to go for CG even in films. I watched Beauty and the Beast last night. It was alright, but the CG was as empty, weightless, and hollow as it usually is. (And though they emphasized other colors, thank god, the default color filter was orange and teal, and I am so sick of that shit.)
Meanwhile, Swiss Army Man which has no CG.. You can feel every jolt, every collision, every blast of a fart. Practical effects are generally superior like this, because they exist closer to us in reality than digital imitation.
I'm not saying all CG is bad, some is amazing, but I would say it takes masterful skill to pull it off well.
To me this one is poorly executed but has a great art direction behind it.
SigmasonicX
Member
Worth noting that the 3D series improved a lot as it went on, and was quite impressive by the end.
We're also seeing more stylization in recent CGI movies to better imitate 2D animation. See movies like Storks, The Peanuts Movie, and even cheaper fares like Captain Underpants.
Yes, they have their own cgi studio that for the most part been using it on the Precure series ending animation. Though, these past few years they have been moving it to the fights and to other series,DBZ, to the dismay of some.
Examples:
https://youtu.be/LLlDOqBZ_fY
https://youtu.be/3i-sUSQoRjs
https://youtu.be/WxXMxHYaRDI
Yea but its lasting impact has certainly diminished in terms of overall aesthetic and visual quality. I'm not saying that only 2D should exist, but that 3D is constantly improving, and something that looks amazing now may not be AS amazing in 20 years. Whereas, 2D looks incredible, even 50 years later.
A combo, but still an amazing scene: https://youtu.be/avShZS2GJMc
Yes, but nearly all classic animation with that level of fluidity used both of those techniques, including Disney. Sleeping Beauty was basically shot in live action with no sets and then animated from that.
Nah. The weird pseudo photo realistic hair effects they use in these movies is still hitting uncanny valley territory. Each time they improve their skin/hair tech the old movies show their age more. Its the risk studio's run when each film is a showpiece for their latest rendering software.
The_eJoker
Member
yes... average.
Probably my favourite moment in whole show.
See, this is something I don't get.
If something is animated well, whether it is fluid motion or well design minimalist "tricks, its date of creation should not matter. Good work is good work, period.
Who cares if something looks "leagues better". What make things classic is substance, not bling.
I personal think this is why a lot of 3d movies get a bad rap. It is not the lack of talent producing them. It is studios and audiences choosing bling over substance.
As tech like subsurface scattering improves, older Pixar films will look more and more "plasticky". The Incredibles is a really notable example of this. Looked great when it came out, now it looks like unlighted work-in-progress at parts.
