Believe or not:Disney

Seen some cool animation lately? Share it with the rest of us.

Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger

User avatar
Manu
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:11 pm
Contact:

Believe or not:Disney

Post by Manu »

I can't believe I'm posting a link to a Disney project, but this looks rather interesting, stills only though, to see the animation you'll have to buy the "Home on the Range" DVD:

http://www.animated-news.com/archives/00002259.html

Will animation go full circle? After the whole onslaught of 3D, will we see a revival of very flat 2D in the future? I certainly hope so.
User avatar
tknaps
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 2:31 pm
Location: Trondheim, Norway

Post by tknaps »

I'm hoping to see more of it at least. Have a kid choose between classic Tom & Jerry vs. som glossy 3D rendered stuff, and he/she'll choose T&J 99% of the time.

The games industry is another department which should really consider going back to 2D in certain areas as well. Lousy games which would actually have been more fun in 2D than 3D are a dime a dozen.
Tarjei
nobudget
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:01 pm
Contact:

Post by nobudget »

I believe both styles have their purpose, it's a different approach but in the end it's just choosing the right tools to tell a story. And within 2D or 3D there are many variations like cartoon/realistic/simple/detailed and 2D and 3D can be merged seamlessly, the robot in "The Iron Giant" was a 3D character in a traditional animation environment for instance.

And maybe cinema features are mostly 3D now many TV shows are still 2D so it's not like that style will become obsolete anytime soon. 3D is just another tool in the toolbox of an animator and of course people like to play with new stuff but it will balance out eventually.

And on a final note concerning the storytelling aspect, there is a South Park movie that many people enjoyed with very crude animation and a high-tech beautiful box-office disaster like "Final Fantasy" that has a brain-numbing plot. Mind over matter :D

Reindert.
www.nobudgetvideo.com
User avatar
Squeakydave
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 9:44 pm
Location: UK - London-ish
Contact:

Post by Squeakydave »

Blimey! that was unexpected it actually does look interesting and from Disney no less. Not sure I'm going to buy Home on the range though.

I think the future of 2d has to be more stylised. When I was drawing 'traditional' type animation I was really trying to draw things in 3d. Nowadays 3D animation does that so much better than I ever could.

And I agree with nobudget 100%. The story is the most important thing no matter how animation is done. I read a quote from Walt Disney a few years ago that I think sums up why Disney is in the state it is in. He said that you should never let the story get in the way of the entertaiment.

Hmmmm.
User avatar
spasmodic_cheese
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:02 am

Post by spasmodic_cheese »

i like that style so much more than 3D, very suprising coming from disney
User avatar
AcouSvnt
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:14 am
Location: Rochester, NY
Contact:

Post by AcouSvnt »

Squeakydave wrote:I read a quote from Walt Disney a few years ago (...) He said (...)
:shock: :shock: :shock:

Oh wait, you mean you read it a few years ago, but it was from ... I'm assuming ... farther back?

I think 3D is over-popular right now because it's new, and people are excited about what they can do with it. Frankly I find it to be show-offy. I'm excited about the potential for making 2D animation with a bit of texture to it, so that it's flat but you still feel like you can touch it. Think about how most OS GUIs have kind of a semi-3D look to their edges, but are still basically flat. I kind of prefer those things to be subtle on GUIs, and I'd like 3D qualities to be more subtle in animation as well.
-Keith
User avatar
Manu
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:11 pm
Contact:

Post by Manu »

AcouSvnt wrote:Oh wait, you mean you read it a few years ago, but it was from ... I'm assuming ... farther back?
...Dave communicates with the dead.

Anyway, I got that Disney-link from CGTalk where a lot of 3D people are hanging around. It's very interesting to see how they reacted to that link. There was a lot of antipathy towards the designs, often complaining that the designs are too simple, too flat, too South-parkish which is exactly what I like about it, the silliness of it. I guess 3D people often think too much in technical terms.
TheTallGuy
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:16 pm
Location: California

Post by TheTallGuy »

AcouSvnt wrote:I think 3D is over-popular right now because it's new, and people are excited about what they can do with it. Frankly I find it to be show-offy.
In the US, we seem to look at the whole 2D/3D debate as an either/or proposition. I, too, scoffed at Disney's seemingly foolish decision to kill 2D animation in favor of 3D only -- it seemed at the time that they made animation style the whipping boy for what really seemed to be a bankrupt creative process.

Then I went to see Shrek II. I noticed the theater was filled with adults who DIDN'T have kids in tow. And I talked with non-animators. And I realized, to my chagrin, that in the US (and maybe Europe, too) people seem to equate 2D with "children" and 3D with "adult".

Now I think what Disney is REALLY trying to do is break out of the "for kids" box and make crossover entertainment. Finding Nemo did good box office, but Shrek did amazing box office, because it went for a wider audience. (Not saying it was a better movie, mind you, but it made more money.) You could (and I do) argue that Disney's decision was pretty short-sighted and weak-kneed, but I also have to admit that there seem to be some sound marketing reasons behind it.

For me, I've found myself losing interest in western animation and focusing more on Asian animation. In Japan, they happily mix 2D and 3D elements together and do all-digital production. (Watch series like Last Exile to see how this looks.) And they make great entertainment for a fraction of the price of Disney and Dreamworks.
User avatar
kdiddy13
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by kdiddy13 »

And I realized, to my chagrin, that in the US (and maybe Europe, too) people seem to equate 2D with "children" and 3D with "adult".
This is one of my biggest pet peeves with peoples' prejudice towards animation. It drives me crazy to hear people only validate 3D animation as worthwhile entertainment. It's unfortunate that the last time 2D was aimed at the adult market succesfully in the theaters was with the original Looney Toons shorts (there are some obvious exceptions on television with the Simpsons, King of the Hill, Family Guy, etc.). They're really missing out on a form of entertainment that has a lot to offer.
For me, I've found myself losing interest in western animation and focusing more on Asian animation. In Japan, they happily mix 2D and 3D elements together and do all-digital production. (Watch series like Last Exile to see how this looks.) And they make great entertainment for a fraction of the price of Disney and Dreamworks.
I've been turning to the Asian theater for animation inspiration as well (with some exceptions on Cartoon Network and Nick). I find their economy of motion (someone in a static pose with moving action lines, etc.) applies particularly well to the independent animator. They also tend to spend much more time on the cinematic composition of a shot than many of their Western counterparts. Moho seems to be particularly well suited for this type of economical animation.

Again what it comes down to is a number of building blocks not the medium (I think "Father of the Pride" proved that 3D does not neccessarily equal funny or good). You need a solid foundation in the script, solid editing (even the best jokes are rendered useless without timing), solid layout and screen composition, and good sound work. If you have all four of these then it would be difficult to fail.

Quality and type of animation are secondary, it needs to fit the story, but it's still secondary. I've seen many, many short animations that looked like a 5 year old could have drawn them that were incredibly entertaining, funny, and/or moving. On the other hand, I've seen even more beautifully rendered photo-realistic 3D animations (and even a few 2D) that forgot to have a story, sound work or editing, and I couldn't wait until they were over.
User avatar
Squeakydave
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 9:44 pm
Location: UK - London-ish
Contact:

Post by Squeakydave »

...Dave communicates with the dead.
There was a roumor that Walt had himself frozen just before he died. Just put your ear next to your fridge. You can hear him whispering to you.
:shock:
TheTallGuy
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:16 pm
Location: California

Post by TheTallGuy »

kdiddy13 wrote:I've been turning to the Asian theater for animation inspiration as well (with some exceptions on Cartoon Network and Nick). I find their economy of motion (someone in a static pose with moving action lines, etc.) applies particularly well to the independent animator. They also tend to spend much more time on the cinematic composition of a shot than many of their Western counterparts.
I should probably post this link on its own thread, but it seems appropriate for this one. There's an independent animator in Japan named Makoto Shinkai who created a 22-minute anime called "Voices of a Distant Star" using just a Mac, After Effects, and RETAS and Lightwave. He mixed 2D and 3D together to create a film that actually sold very well and got rave reviews. (Not bad for 8 months of work!)

Now, with three other people, he's created an entire movie called "The Place Promised in Our Early Days." Four people, three years, amazing work. You can see the Japanese language trailer here:

http://mztv1.broadbandgw.co.jp/mangazoo/cloud_120l.mpg

If you don't mind doing a bit of work, you can download a .SRT file with subtitles for this trailer. You can find it at the Makoto fan-site,

http://daike.hp.infoseek.co.jp/About_Th ... _days.html
User avatar
kdiddy13
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by kdiddy13 »

That looks great! I hope it can find it's way to a US release (or at least DVD release). See what we're all missing out on!
User avatar
james
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Post by james »

Disney sucks. Walt Disney did not have a single creative hair on his creepy mustache. Ever watch a Disney cartoon? Whether it's from 1935 or 2004 they are boring pieces of crap. It's unbelievable that animators slave to make such unimaginative pieces of waste. The Disney Corp only cares about one thing nowadays...MONEY.

If we keep supporting multimedia mega conglomerates like Disney and AOL Time Warner, you can kiss the independent animators goodbye.

Come on, folks...wake up!
James Bernardinelli
Big Castle Productions
"Quality cartoons in bad taste."
www.bigcastleproductions.com
james@bigcastleproductions.com
User avatar
kdiddy13
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by kdiddy13 »

Ever watch a Disney cartoon? Whether it's from 1935 or 2004 they are boring pieces...
I disagree. While they're writing often isn't quite as punchy as Looney Toons, there are some real classics in the Disney archives. A number of their short films were particularly entertaining (I particularly like the Goofey How To series). Not to mention the quality of animation is worth looking at for reference alone even if you don't plan to immitate it. Discounting it all as unimaginative is discounting some really great works of art.

The corporation on the other hand, I agree, does primarily seem to be conscerned with a quick buck (with perhaps a few fists full of evil tossed in).

If we keep supporting multimedia mega conglomerates like Disney and AOL Time Warner, you can kiss the independent animators goodbye.
Your reasoning is a bit faulty. How does supporting the conglomerates get rid of the independent animator? Doesn't the independent exist reguardless of the mega-corps and maybe even in response to it?

Perhaps a better response would be to support animation where ever possible, mega corp and especially independent. The more money that goes into animation, the more people want to see it and the more people want to fund it. Show the alternatives to the standards and people will begin to realize what they've been missing and demand more.
User avatar
efxmatt
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:26 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by efxmatt »

james wrote:Disney sucks. Walt Disney did not have a single creative hair on his creepy mustache. Ever watch a Disney cartoon? Whether it's from 1935 or 2004 they are boring pieces of crap. It's unbelievable that animators slave to make such unimaginative pieces of waste.
Okay, I know it's "cool" to bash Disney and all, but to write off their earliest cartoons as "boring pieces of crap" or "unimaginative pieces of waste" is pretty harsh, if not completely ignorant. You have to remember that they were breaking completely new ground with their work back then, they were the first ones to really put emotion into animated characters, and people were amazed by it because they had never seen anything like it before. Comparing them to cartoons of today isn't really fair, because the cartoons of today are built upon the foundation that those guys created. It's like watching old footage of Babe Ruth and saying, "He was pretty slow running the bases, he wouldn't last a minute in today's game."

You might want to check out the "Frank & Ollie" DVD, it gives some great perspective on the early days of animation, plus it also has some great old pencil tests and great tips about animating characters too...
http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=BVD030886
Locked