FANDOM


  • For those who have grown to like CGI, have you lost  your liking for the old Disney Classics that were produced in the traditional 2D animation, starting with Snow White?  Or is it really just the animation - do you still like the old classics but have now lost interest in 2D for new movies?

    To me CGI should have remained in the Disney/Pixar Studios and should not have came into the Classics canon, because I prefer 2D for the classics.  Such a pity Disney no longer seems to use it!

      Loading editor
    • Although I did love Wreck-it Ralph I highly agree with everything that you said.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with you too. How can you loose interest in 2D though... without 2D there wouldn't be CGI. Heck, before characters are modeled on the computer they are often draw in 2D, and the movie is often put in a storyboard in 2D before it's animated!

        Loading editor
    • its not that people stop liking 2D, its that CGI seems to be films that give modern slapsticks a and realistic places. also, its also disney's fault. if they continue the renaissance streak after tarzan, people would still like 2d. but look at home on the range or treasure planet, not much people like them. meanwhile, pixar and dreamworks dominated through CGI films. so it gave people wrong impressions that CGI is better.

        Loading editor
    • I never saw Home on the Range, though I'm assuming it might have been a bit silly, and maybe Treasure Planet was a little too far off from the original version, i.e. the timeline.  As for a few others after Tarzan, it was probably lack of music.

      I feel I would have liked Tangled if it was in 2D, as it has music, and I feel it may be the same with Frozen.

        Loading editor
    • DisneyJr wrote:
      its not that people stop liking 2D, its that CGI seems to be films that give modern slapsticks a and realistic places. also, its also disney's fault. if they continue the renaissance streak after tarzan, people would still like 2d. but look at home on the range or treasure planet, not much people like them. meanwhile, pixar and dreamworks dominated through CGI films. so it gave people wrong impressions that CGI is better.

      The company's fault? Who was the one who shut 2D in the way? And i know that Pixar and Dreamworks do CGI/3D also.

        Loading editor
    • I hope Disney makes more traditional animated features like Princess and the Frog, but I'm totally fine with CGI movies.

        Loading editor
    • PrincessCharmingShy1 wrote:

      DisneyJr wrote:
      its not that people stop liking 2D, its that CGI seems to be films that give modern slapsticks a and realistic places. also, its also disney's fault. if they continue the renaissance streak after tarzan, people would still like 2d. but look at home on the range or treasure planet, not much people like them. meanwhile, pixar and dreamworks dominated through CGI films. so it gave people wrong impressions that CGI is better.

      The company's fault? Who was the one who shut 2D in the way? And i know that Pixar and Dreamworks do CGI/3D also.

      not just Pixar and dreamworks, but Sony, illumination, warner bros, lionsgate, fox, and many, many others. the only one I remember with originality right now is laika, who produces great stop-motion films like Coraline and Paranorman. and yes, I think its part of disneys fault. they stopped making musicals, thinking no one would like them anymore. they thought people would want heavier slapsticks like DreamWorks, but that's not how it is.

        Loading editor
    • Right Sony,Warner Bros in all. Who was the person shut down the traditionally 2D animation?

        Loading editor
    • PrincessCharmingShy1 wrote: Right Sony,Warner Bros in all. Who was the person shut down the traditionally 2D animation?

      Disney.

        Loading editor
    • DisneyJr wrote:

      PrincessCharmingShy1 wrote: Right Sony,Warner Bros in all. Who was the person shut down the traditionally 2D animation?

      Disney.

      Oh right.Only them.

        Loading editor
    • PrincessCharmingShy1 wrote:

      DisneyJr wrote:

      PrincessCharmingShy1 wrote: Right Sony,Warner Bros in all. Who was the person shut down the traditionally 2D animation?

      Disney.

      Oh right.Only them.

      but u cannot really blame them all for that. sure, Disney closed off its 2d division, but other studios can make 2d films too. Disney is not the only company making 2d films.

        Loading editor
    • Disney still do 2D films, such as Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh. And there are rumours that a few upcoming films will be 2D animated, too.

      All is not lost!

        Loading editor
    • CGI looks waaaay better if you ask me, I thing 2d lovers had their golden age in the 90s. their isn't much hope in 2d making a comeback .

        Loading editor
    • Greenfoot1 wrote: CGI looks waaaay better if you ask me, I thing 2d lovers had their golden age in the 90s. their isn't much hope in 2d making a comeback .

      HA! the only country with CGI-dominated industry is America, whereas Japan is world-wide famous for their hand drawn, and other countries also use either hand drawn or stop motion the most.

      CGI does not look better. there r things that cgi cannot give. u look at cgi and see realistic things, not animation. animation is supposed to be art, beautiful drawings that feel like a storybook. cgi just try to make animation look like live action films, which serves no purpose but destroying the integrity of animation itself.

      im not saying cgi is bad. oversaturation of cgi is bad. we need varieties of cgi, hand drawn, and stop motion. cgi can never be better than hand drawn. at most, theyre equal.

      also, there IS hope. hand drawn still dominates worldwide through Japan and Europe. America keeps churning out garbages of cgi films just coxz its easy to make, whereas hand drawn need time, which can leave space for good quality films as well as beautiful animation. the only studio with such things r Pixar and Disney animation. DreamWorks tried to be like Pixar and Disney, and keep creating 2-3 films per year, and none of them actually have the time to develop into a good story. blue sky, fox, sony, and others keep creating sequels after sequels while Disney and every other countries around the world makes original films after another and r successful. that's called creativity. America completely disses itself in animation, especially with their over-marketed cgi.

        Loading editor
    • ToyStoryFan123 wrote: Disney still do 2D films, such as Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh. And there are rumours that a few upcoming films will be 2D animated, too.

      All is not lost!

      only one lol. all upcoming films r cgi.

        Loading editor
    • I definitely still prefer cgi, excepted when its over done like Mars needs moms(if you have seen it) the animation is way to realistic.

        Loading editor
    • Greenfoot1 wrote: I definitely still prefer cgi, excepted when its over done like Mars needs moms(if you have seen it) the animation is way to realistic.

      well, that's actually called motion-capture, where a real human put electronic things on his/her body so the computer can change them into animate characters.

        Loading editor
    • ya, I figured that out after I posted that

        Loading editor
    • Without 2D animation, there wouldn't even be CGI, so to discredit it would be like dissing the use of riding horses and buggies everywhere (like say, the Amish) now that modern high tech people use cars and what not. Without horses and buggies, there wouldn't even BE cars. Or it would be like dissing the use of an abacus because we have high tech things like hand held calculators and computers.

        Loading editor
    • I really do wish handdrawn will come back but it will probably be in about a decade or 2 when everyone gets tired of CGI and it goes back to handdrawn. But instead of constantly dishing out only handdrawn so people get tired of them again, after a while they should do 2D film, CGI film,2D film ,CGI film and so on.

        Loading editor
    • Disney&WB wrote: I really do wish handdrawn will come back but it will probably be in about a decade or 2 when everyone gets tired of CGI and it goes back to handdrawn. But instead of constantly dishing out only handdrawn so people get tired of them again, after a while they should do 2D film, CGI film,2D film ,CGI film and so on.

      how much u wanna bet Meander will dominate? if history repeats itself, this will likely happen. hand drawn---->CG------>Meander------>hopefully stopmotion----->hopefully all 4.

        Loading editor
    • Actaully I just really hope after the downfall of CGI which we all know will happen its just handdrawn for a straight 2 years and than all the four you listed because they all look very nice and it would be a shame for them any of them to be forgotten.

        Loading editor
    • DisneyJr wrote:

      Disney&WB wrote: I really do wish handdrawn will come back but it will probably be in about a decade or 2 when everyone gets tired of CGI and it goes back to handdrawn. But instead of constantly dishing out only handdrawn so people get tired of them again, after a while they should do 2D film, CGI film,2D film ,CGI film and so on.

      how much u wanna bet Meander will dominate? if history repeats itself, this will likely happen. hand drawn---->CG------>Meander------>hopefully stopmotion----->hopefully all 4.

      To be honest, I don't see the point in the Meander medium of animation. If you want to replicate hand drawn animation in computer animation, why not just make hand drawn animation?

        Loading editor
    • I like 3d because it's more realistic and have different facial expressions.

        Loading editor
    • Walnutrose29370 wrote:
      I like 3d because it's more realistic and have different facial expressions.

      The most realistic animated features I've ever seen are Snow White, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Prince of Egypt, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, Bambi, The Lion King, The Road to El Dorado, Gulliver's Travels and The Adventures of Tintin. All of which (save Tintin) are hand drawn. Most recent CG films (such as Tangled, Frozen et cetera) have been trying to replicate the hand drawn style... in CG... which is a little redundant, since if you want it to look like hand drawn animation with a CG flare, why not just go for hand drawn animation with CAPS rendered backgrounds and such?

        Loading editor
    • Yea besides even if CGI is more realistic, that's not what we want to see. We want to see hand drawn animation where the animation has tons of energy and looks realistic and cartoony at the same time. But yea I really don't see the point of this new meander process. It looks nice but why waste time on combing them into one animation style instead of just using the two seperately.

        Loading editor
    • Disney&WB wrote:
      Yea besides even if CGI is more realistic, that's not what we want to see. We want to see hand drawn animation where the animation has tons of energy and looks realistic and cartoony at the same time. But yea I really don't see the point of this new meander process. It looks nice but why waste time on combing them into one animation style instead of just using the two seperately.

      I personally feel that Disney should have gone with their plan 5 years ago, have 1 year see the release of a hand drawn film, have the next year see the release of a computer animated flick.

      And... yeah, hand drawn animation is better at balancing the realistic with the cartoony. Films like Mars Needs Moms go so far with the realism, it becomes un-realistic, films like Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs go so far with the cartoony that it just looks childish. Films like Tangled and Frozen look pretty realistic, but the cartoony characters look a bit distracting in comparison. With Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the cartoony designed dwarfs work, because they look like cartoons, but with a few realistic flairs. The entirity of Dumbo works, also, in its cartoony animation, since it fits with the tone of the movie, which is a circus. Pinocchio, also a cartoony film, works because characters like Gepetto, Figarro and Cleo look good since they have realistic designs, with realistic touches, and Pinocchio works because he looks like a cartoon, yet his movements are so life-like.

      Home on the Range, another cartoony film, also uses the cartoony animation to its advantage. The animals all look life-like, yet the medium of animation gives them exaggerated human-like features, while retaining the aura that they are animals.

      And, as much as I hate it, Chicken Little (a CG cartoony film) is one of the few Disney CG films that I think got the right balance. It seems as though they took a lot of inspiration from Robin Hood, as the animals look like animals, but behave like humans. That, and they don't try to delude themselves. They know it's a cartoony film, and they embrace it. Giving us a lot of sight gags and exaggerated expressions.

        Loading editor
    • ToyStoryFan123 wrote:
      Disney&WB wrote:
      Yea besides even if CGI is more realistic, that's not what we want to see. We want to see hand drawn animation where the animation has tons of energy and looks realistic and cartoony at the same time. But yea I really don't see the point of this new meander process. It looks nice but why waste time on combing them into one animation style instead of just using the two seperately.
      I personally feel that Disney should have gone with their plan 5 years ago, have 1 year see the release of a hand drawn film, have the next year see the release of a computer animated flick.

      And... yeah, hand drawn animation is better at balancing the realistic with the cartoony. Films like Mars Needs Moms go so far with the realism, it becomes un-realistic, films like Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs go so far with the cartoony that it just looks childish. Films like Tangled and Frozen look pretty realistic, but the cartoony characters look a bit distracting in comparison. With Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the cartoony designed dwarfs work, because they look like cartoons, but with a few realistic flairs. The entirity of Dumbo works, also, in its cartoony animation, since it fits with the tone of the movie, which is a circus. Pinocchio, also a cartoony film, works because characters like Gepetto, Figarro and Cleo look good since they have realistic designs, with realistic touches, and Pinocchio works because he looks like a cartoon, yet his movements are so life-like.

      Home on the Range, another cartoony film, also uses the cartoony animation to its advantage. The animals all look life-like, yet the medium of animation gives them exaggerated human-like features, while retaining the aura that they are animals.

      And, as much as I hate it, Chicken Little (a CG cartoony film) is one of the few Disney CG films that I think got the right balance. It seems as though they took a lot of inspiration from Robin Hood, as the animals look like animals, but behave like humans. That, and they don't try to delude themselves. They know it's a cartoony film, and they embrace it. Giving us a lot of sight gags and exaggerated expressions.

      Oh, and to clear up a few things. I have absolutely no problem with the animation of Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, Tangled, Wreck it Ralph and Frozen. I find that they all have masterful animation and truly something to be admired. Films like Wreck It Ralph would have been near-impossible to make in hand drawn animation, but I feel as though Bolt, Tangled and Frozen could have benefited from being hand drawn.

        Loading editor
    • I don't care how realistic CGI makes films seem, to me it can NEVER replace 2D!!

        Loading editor
    • Site Looker wrote:
      I don't care how realistic CGI makes films seem, to me it can NEVER replace 2D!!

      Agreed 100%.

      As good as films like Toy Story, Shrek, How To Train Your Dragon and Tangled were (which is very good), I can never see moving computerised pixels replace the life that pencil and paper bring to the screen.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message