So don't stick your tongue out at me when you are so wrong! (I'm teasing).
Can I use this one then?
Sorry, I just have to respectfully disagree. Just because something already existed (and in some cases in another form, mind you) doesn't mean that it should be considered with less creativity than something animated.
After all, a tree is a tree until someone cuts it down and turns it into wooden planks to build a house, or paper to write upon, or sawdust to do god knows what with.
The main thing is that an idea is formed in someone's head, and how that idea is illustrated, how it comes to be, is such a beautiful thing. Whether someone constructs that idea out of pre-existing wood, or draws an entire world of it on paper and cels that go by at 24 fps, it's the same concept and I still believe it can be looked upon equally.
Nope, painting the set isn't the same as using the paint to make that whole set.
I can pick up a random rock, get some paint, and make a design on that rock that never existed before. And that design will stay on that rock until water washes it away or time fades it away. But knowing that once upon a time, that rock had my design on it, and perhaps that designed rock was captured on a piece of celluloid...that's just as real to me and just as much imaginative to someone else as if I had done it all in 2D animation, in CGI, or if I had picked up another rock and made the same design.
And hand-drawn is definatley better than CGI in many ways
I'm with enigmawing and will have to respectfully agree to disagree.
Basically, you can say that live-action and animated films do similar things, but animated films do some of those things, mainly the artististic and creative things, better.
Of course, it's all a matter of opinion, as I have yet to find an animated film that has captured and equaled the artistic-ness and creativity found in a knock-out live-action film called The Ten Commandments
. But then again, I'm biased.
I think maybe we could rephrase what scaps said earlier into "they are films first, still paintings second". It's all art.
Eh, I like my version better. Mainly because it's mine.
The computer is just another tool controlled by the artist.
Whenever I read a 2D vs. CGI discussion and this point is brought up, it always reminds me of a line from Star Trek: Insurrection
"Our technological abilities aren't apparent because we've chosen not to employ them in our daily lives. We believe when you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man."
Which is ironic because most of the arguments for 2D says that because there is that human touch, that it is a better form, as opposed to CGI, which is...well, to some not a human touch, but just a click of the mouse. I don't side in the 2D/CGI debates because both are unique forms of expression and who am I to say that one is better than the other when the best I can do is a stick figure and finger paints (the ultimate form of artistic expression, in my harkening-back-to-kindergarten-days opinion).
I make a similar comparison when people argue that traditional art is "better" than digital (I've worked with both).
One of the most beautiful pictures I've ever seen in my entire life (so much so that I impulsively bought it and it now hangs proudly above my bed) is a hybrid of traditional art and digital art. It's by Alan Foxx
, and the only reason I came upon it is because he frequently appears at Hoy Poloi at Downtown Disney West Side, and his work there is always available.
Traditional and digital art combined is such a beautiful thing. I only wish more people were aware/appreciative of it.