DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:11 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: 2D vs. CGI
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:43 pm 
Offline
Gold Classic Collection
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:33 pm
Posts: 483
Location: Kansas
While CGI is more life-like, I really do prefer the fantasy and more natural look of 2D. I mean what would Bambi be like in CGI :roll: . Whats everyone's opinion?

_________________
"There is another who is over us all, over us and over man"

-Bambi (Novel)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2D vs. CGI
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:05 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 6:57 pm
Posts: 10037
Location: Dinosaur World
bambifan56 wrote:
Whats everyone's opinion?


My opinion is one that I think many hold, which is that neither medium is better. Both have their strengths, but in the end, it's whatever medium best serves a story that is the better one and that is something that should be determined on a film-by-film basis. I think a lot of people (here and elsewhere) may equate CGI with the pop-culture-reference-laden comedy and 2-D with the timeless tales Disney is known for (be they Walt era or the more commonly-celebrated Eisner-era renaissance works). And that may cloud judgment. But to be fair, each medium has capabilities to encompass far more than that. With a little bit of thought, one can come up with a whole bunch of examples for 2-D. And I'm sure that will become easier to do as CGI ages and studios expand their horizons.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:05 am 
Offline
Gold Classic Collection
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:49 am
Posts: 363
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
I think it's all about what you're trying to achieve. If you're trying to create an impossible fantasy world with the feeling of live action, then CGI is the way to go, both in fully animated and in partial-live-action films (think Chronicles of Narnia). For an "impressionist" take on something, hand-drawn would be more appropriate. In that case, the skill is in making a flat drawing appear as close to reality as possible, without actually directly reproducing reality, if that makes any sense.

The thing that some movie producers can't seem to understand is that the two media are not mutually exclusive of one another. Both have their merits no matter how much technology advances.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:12 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:24 pm
Posts: 2099
Location: Gusteau's Restaurant
I have a short story back when I was five I watched my first CGI movie...Toy Story. I didn't like the cartoon at all. All I wanted to do was go home to my cousin's house and watch The Lion King again. It goes to show how much kids DO love 2D animation, and some prefer it over CGI!

Now sure I may be wanting to work at Pixar, but I have to admit, 2D seems to has more soul and style to it. CGI is TOO life like, but when it's not so life like, it's scary. (ie: humans in Polar Express) There are advantages of a CGI movie where making the object 3D will be much more dramatic and will have more emphasis than it being drawn 2D.

All in all, I think 2D is the way to go on films, but some films are just destined to be CG.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2D vs. CGI
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:27 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:50 pm
Posts: 2483
Location: Norway
Luke wrote:
My opinion is one that I think many hold, which is that neither medium is better. Both have their strengths, but in the end, it's whatever medium best serves a story that is the better one and that is something that should be determined on a film-by-film basis.


Well put. The two are in my opinion quite different "animals" and it doesn't always make much sense to compare them. Therefore I found it strange, to say the least, that Disney threw out their equipment for traditional animation...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2D vs. CGI
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:42 pm 
Offline
Anniversary Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:49 am
Posts: 1184
Location: Too Far Away from Disney
Lars Vermundsberget wrote:
that Disney threw out their equipment for traditional animation...


I never understood that decision! Both forms can be appreciated. Traditional animation is an art form, IMO, and 3D is more of a new-tech fad that isn't going away.
I wish Disney would produce films in both formats.

_________________
Disneyland Trips: 1983, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, Aug 2018
Walt Disney World Trips: 1999, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2016, ~Dec 2018~, ~Apr 2019~
Favorite Disney Movies: Peter Pan, 101 Dalmatians, Tangled, The Princess and the Frog, Enchanted, FROZEN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:57 pm 
Offline
Diamond Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:09 pm
Posts: 4092
Location: Mexico!
well...it`s hard to decide.

I know that I have said this again and again eevry time we discuss this, but it depends not of the art but of the artist itself and what is the thing he want to transmit

Certanly many childrens are atracted to 2D more often than to 3D. But you have to admit that the 3D can realy create very impressive stuff(Gollum,Aslan,Final Fantasy VII)

As I have stated before, I love anime and I have seen 3D and 2D anime and dude, that`s something! USA have also very nice works(prove of it, The Lion King, The Little MErmaid, The Prince of Egypt--that yes, it have some 3D but I really loved that movie-- or even Spirit),but I think that sometimes they can`t squeeze all the juice of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2D vs. CGI
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:44 pm 
Offline
Ultimate Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 12532
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
bambifan56 wrote:
I mean what would Bambi be like in CGI :roll: .

Less of a cartoon, I'm sure. Don't get me wrong, the animation in Bambi is breathtaking. But if they were to do that movie today, you'd wonder if they trained animals or if it's damn good CGI.

bambifan56 wrote:
Whats everyone's opinion?

I'd agree with Luke on that it depends on the story and the style that better suits the story. For example, if A Bug's Life had been done in 2D, you'd have much less bugs, more bland and cartoonish backgrounds, and probably not so much camera movement. It'd probably also be done in a 1.66:1 AR as opposed to its 2.35:1 AR. But then, if you wanted to CGI-ify something like The Black Cauldron, you'd have a much darker, sinister, and perhaps much better picture (at least visually). It would benefit from what CGI can offer as opposed to 2D (Imagine those deathless warriors skulking around the way those orcs do in LOTR...)

Escapay

_________________
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion? :p

WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:19 pm 
Offline
Gold Classic Collection
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:49 am
Posts: 363
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Some very interesting things have been done with traditional animation assisted by CGI, in which the hand-drawn material is enhanced by, rather than replaced by, computer-rendered graphics. Some examples include Xian-Yu's army in Mulan, the Nightwalker in Princess Mononoke, and the Cave of Wonders in Aladdin (which looks ANCIENT by today's standards, but was considered pretty damn cool in 1992). I'm not sure why Disney at least chose not to pursue this sort of compromise any more than they did, but perhaps the lackluster runs of Atlantis and Treasure Planet jaded them to 2-D CGI. A shame, really.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:35 pm 
Offline
Gold Classic Collection
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:08 am
Posts: 418
Location: Florida, USA
Karushifa wrote:
Some very interesting things have been done with traditional animation assisted by CGI, in which the hand-drawn material is enhanced by, rather than replaced by, computer-rendered graphics. Some examples include Xian-Yu's army in Mulan, the Nightwalker in Princess Mononoke, and the Cave of Wonders in Aladdin (which looks ANCIENT by today's standards, but was considered pretty damn cool in 1992). I'm not sure why Disney at least chose not to pursue this sort of compromise any more than they did, but perhaps the lackluster runs of Atlantis and Treasure Planet jaded them to 2-D CGI. A shame, really.


I'm surprised that you didn't mentioned about "The Great Mouse Detective". The inside of the clock tower is basically CGI and and half of it was 2D animation. :o

As for me, I loved 2D and CGI animation. Its not because of the quality, but I'm certaintly involved by watching these types of animation with a good plot and characterization. :roll:

_________________
My DeviantArt Page :)
My DVD Collection :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:47 pm 
Offline
Gold Classic Collection
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:49 am
Posts: 363
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
RyougaLolakie wrote:
I'm surprised that you didn't mentioned about "The Great Mouse Detective". The inside of the clock tower is basically CGI and and half of it was 2D animation. :o

Fear not, I remember that :)

That was, as I recall, the very first time that CGI graphics were inserted into a hand-drawn film. The Rescuers Down Under had some CGI as well (the NYC skyline, U.N. building, and possibly some sequences of McLeach's land rover)...if you watch the credits all the way to the end, a little company called Pixar is mentioned...

RDU (mouse movie, not Raleigh-Durham Airport ;) ) was also the first to feature fully digital coloring. Beauty and the Beast had some CGI help in the ballroom scene. It's just that I remember people being "wowed" by the cave chase scene, the tiger's head, etc. in Aladdin, and how awesome they looked. At the time, I think a lot of people were just blown away by it, and the incorporation of CGI imagery into hand-drawn animation got smoother and smoother from there on. The raiders in Mulan, for example, blend in rather than sticking out from the hand-drawn characters, and really added to the "epic" feeling of the invasion scene.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2D vs. CGI
PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:27 am 
Offline
Gold Classic Collection
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:33 pm
Posts: 483
Location: Kansas
escapay wrote:
Less of a cartoon, I'm sure. Don't get me wrong, the animation in Bambi is breathtaking. But if they were to do that movie today, you'd wonder if they trained animals or if it's damn good CGI.


But you would lose all of the feeling you got from the watercolors and the lay of the forrest, I really feel Bambi would be a terrible CGI film, because I doubt CGI could have the same "emotional" feel that the 2d drawing did. This is all just my opinion though, and I am a huge fan of old-fasioned things. :D

_________________
"There is another who is over us all, over us and over man"

-Bambi (Novel)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:58 am 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 848
Location: Chandler, AZ
For the story of Bambi, I would agree that 2D, hand-drawn animation is still the best approach. On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining Toy Story or Monsters, Inc. being done in that style. Like Luke and others have said above, the animation techniques need to fit the needs of the particular story being told. Each style is no more or less valid than another style.

_________________
"Mustard? Don't let's be silly!"
--Mad Hatter, Alice in Wonderland

My DVDs


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:09 am 
Offline
Special Edition

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:10 pm
Posts: 831
Everything that can be achieved in CGI will look 10 times better in 2-D. CGI should only be used in live action movies, where there is no other way to achieve what you want (the skeletons in Pirates of the Carribean for example). CGI is useless and UGLY.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:21 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:50 pm
Posts: 2483
Location: Norway
BrandonH wrote:
For the story of Bambi, I would agree that 2D, hand-drawn animation is still the best approach. On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining Toy Story or Monsters, Inc. being done in that style. Like Luke and others have said above, the animation techniques need to fit the needs of the particular story being told. Each style is no more or less valid than another style.


The "Toy Story style" is perfect for "Toy Story".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:48 pm 
Offline
Signature Collection

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:30 pm
Posts: 5248
Location: Ohio, United States of America
I, in my opinion, really prefer 2D animation, not that I don't like 3D, or anything. I think that it is probably 2D because I've seen more of it. Most movies that I have seen, other than live-action movies, are 2D. I really do like 3D however, the movies that I have seen from Pixar and DreamWorks, and Chicken Little, were excellent and brought a lot of interest into 3D animation. I just prefer 2D.

_________________
The Divulgations of One Desmond Leica: http://desmondleica.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:10 pm 
Offline
Gold Classic Collection
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:53 pm
Posts: 106
I agree with luke it depends on many circumstances, but neither one is better, is like if you compare 2d animation with live action films. But I prefer 2d animation, because i think handmade work has more value (personal oppinion), you need more artistic skills, like when painting, instead of cgi, where the computer "paints" your model, textures have to be made, but at the end color is computer generated. On past 2d animation, they were hand painted. :)

_________________
Can't Wait to buy Peter Pan!!!!
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:55 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:23 am
Posts: 37
Location: Chicago, Illinois
My whole thoughts on the situation is, I love CG animated movies, but I don't understand the point of trying to make them look SO realistic. Finding Nemo looks incredible, but what's the point? Why don't they just shoot it live action then? That's the difference for me when it comes to CG vs. 2-D. I'm a big fan of 2-D because that's what made the different between seeing a live action. I was so happy to see Curious George be such a hit because it was an overall 2-D movie and was still a big hit.

Especially now that the CG animated movies have become so trendy, they're just aren't special anymore. Now I'm not all against them, they're incredible in some cases, but eh, I'll always lean towards 2-D. It's what I grew up on! 8)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:13 pm 
Offline
Gold Classic Collection
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:49 am
Posts: 363
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
nickbabs wrote:
My whole thoughts on the situation is, I love CG animated movies, but I don't understand the point of trying to make them look SO realistic. Finding Nemo looks incredible, but what's the point? Why don't they just shoot it live action then? That's the difference for me when it comes to CG vs. 2-D. I'm a big fan of 2-D because that's what made the different between seeing a live action..8)

I think it would have been tough to find some well-trained fish :wink:

For Finding Nemo, at least, part of the reason it was made in 3-D is precisely BECAUSE you can't shoot a whole movie with fish as the main characters in live action, especially if you want to give them distinct personalities and encounter potential foes such as sharks, jellyfish, pelicans, dentists, etc. I liked the realistic approach that the animators took with the sea creatures, as opposed to the cartoony method that the characters in A Bug's Life were rendered (purple ants with only four limbs...okaaaay...).

The Incredibles perhaps could have been shot in live-action, but even if it were, there would probably still have been heavy assistance from CGI, such as with the Fantastic Four movie. But with that movie, at least the artists chose not to make the characters look TOO realistic, since that approach has not been received too well (for example, the "hollow" eyes of the characters in The Polar Express and the people in Kaena:The Prophecy who are rendered so "well" that you can see their individual teeth...very weird).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:41 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:15 pm
Posts: 2528
That's like asking which parent do you love the most?

They're both good techniques, if done properly and they lay into the story well. I doubt they if they ever make another Bambi film that it will be in CGI because we all grew up watching Bambi in 2D. I would think it would be quite disrespector for that caliber of a movie to go from 2D to CGI because of it's 2D roots. To what everyone else said... ditto!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group