|
|
Post by mhberest on Nov 6, 2005 14:54:09 GMT -5
This poll is to see how you feel about CGI, not just that abominable Popeye one, but in general, whether you love it, despise it, or feel (as I do) that it's good for the things hand-drawn animation is not (such as subtle character expressions and "acting") and vice-versa.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhberest on Nov 7, 2005 19:35:41 GMT -5
You know, the amazing thing about this is I posted it on my Aspie Forum too, which has nothing to do with animation, and I've already got five responses there as opposed to only one here. I expected the reverse.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluto on Nov 8, 2005 7:32:42 GMT -5
I was the one vote, Mike. To me, what's important are the characters and the stories. The style of animation used is secondary, though it certainly should enhance the characters and stories. For example, CGI was perfect for "The Incredibles" and "Toy Story" because those films wanted to convey some sense of "realism" amid the fantasy. "Madagascar" could probably have been just as successful if it had been a hand-drawn project. The jokes and the situations and characters are all-important there, not emotion. In fact, that film is like a long Looney Tune. "Pop-Pie A La Mode" probably wouldn't have the nightmarish impact it does if it was rendered with CGI.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhberest on Nov 8, 2005 15:32:42 GMT -5
I think the cannibal cartoon would have had a Mr. Bill type thing in CGI. Of course, the creator of Mr. Bill has acknowledged that stories of Bill and Sluggo were satires of the downward spiral of animation in Popeye cartoons, particularly the HB ones, where I remember him saying all you saw was a lip moving.
Shrek wouldn't work as a hand-drawn. It's just impossible to generate those kind of facial expressions and movements in hand-drawn animation even if you're Chuck Jones or Preston Blair or even using a rotoscope.
|
|
