FANDOM


  • The last one I liked was Brother Bear (The Princess and the Frog okay too).  Since Disney classics went to CGI I just haven't been into them.  Tangled I only saw bits of, but would have like better if it was 2D, and I feel it would be the same with Frozen if I saw it.

      Loading editor
    • The Princess and the Frog was the last one I liked but I really like the new CGI movies better. I use to think 2D was better until I saw Frozen. While I was watching I noticed all the amazing detail in the snowflakes and Elsa's dress and I realized the reason the movie had to be in CGI. If it was 2D animated I'm convinced it would of never done as well as it did. Same with the lantern scene in Tangled. It had so much detail and the lighting was so beautiful and I don't think that would be something 2D animation could of have been able to show. I think that's why CGI is so popular now. It is able to show amazing detail that would take too much time or isn't possiable in 2D animation.

        Loading editor
    • Candy55101 wrote:
      The Princess and the Frog was the last one I liked but I really like the new CGI movies better. I use to think 2D was better until I saw Frozen. While I was watching I noticed all the amazing detail in the snowflakes and Elsa's dress and I realized the reason the movie had to be in CGI. If it was 2D animated I'm convinced it would of never done as well as it did. Same with the lantern scene in Tangled. It had so much detail and the lighting was so beautiful and I don't think that would be something 2D animation could of have been able to show. I think that's why CGI is so popular now. It is able to show amazing detail that would take too much time or isn't possiable in 2D animation.

      I have nothing against the artists using CGI for special effects likes falling snowflakes, burning fires, twinkling stars, wind blowing through trees, etc. But not for displaying the characters! And is great detail for certain objects really necessary?

        Loading editor
    • Personally I don't think CGI looks good mixed with 2D. I rather have one or the other. And no the detail isn't needed but it is what makes it stand out from other movies. I don't think movies like the Princess and the Frog would look better in CGI but it does in movies like Frozen where the pros of CGI really show.

        Loading editor
    • Candy55101 wrote:
      The Princess and the Frog was the last one I liked but I really like the new CGI movies better. I use to think 2D was better until I saw Frozen. While I was watching I noticed all the amazing detail in the snowflakes and Elsa's dress and I realized the reason the movie had to be in CGI. If it was 2D animated I'm convinced it would of never done as well as it did. Same with the lantern scene in Tangled. It had so much detail and the lighting was so beautiful and I don't think that would be something 2D animation could of have been able to show. I think that's why CGI is so popular now. It is able to show amazing detail that would take too much time or isn't possiable in 2D animation.

      Or at least, wouldn't be possible with directors that aren't Richard Williams.

        Loading editor
    • I do not care about animation. It's the story I'm looking for.

        Loading editor
    • no one remembers Winnie the Pooh here....that was the actual last WDAS 2D film, and its the best out of the entire era. so far.

        Loading editor
    • Disney4Disney wrote:
      I do not care about animation. It's the story I'm looking for.

      Yeah the story is very important too but if the plot was all I cared about then I would just read a book.

        Loading editor
    • Candy55101 wrote:

      Disney4Disney wrote:
      I do not care about animation. It's the story I'm looking for.

      Yeah the story is very important too but if the plot was all I cared about then I would just read a book.

      exactly. or just go watch a live action or puppetry. Visual is one of the main factors of a good movie, and shouldn't be dusted off as just something insignificant.

        Loading editor
    • Guys, please don't take that comment so seriously, I KNOW visual IS an important factor of a movie and shouldn't be viewed as unimportant, I was just getting REAL annoyed how a lot of people are whining about Disney seemingly stopping 2D animation and say stuff like "Tangled/Frozen would have been better if it was 2D" or "(Traditionally animated film) is better than (CGI Film) because it is 2D!" Or will go to upcoming movies and say stuff like "I can already tell I will not like this movie because it is CGI!" It's just getting SUPER annoying and they are basically saying CGI films can't be good. It just seems like SOME people only focus more on the animation rather than the actual story itself. 

        Loading editor
    • Disney4Disney wrote: Guys, please don't take that comment so seriously, I KNOW visual IS an important factor of a movie and shouldn't be viewed as unimportant, I was just getting REAL annoyed how a lot of people are whining about Disney seemingly stopping 2D animation and say stuff like "Tangled/Frozen would have been better if it was 2D" or "(Traditionally animated film) is better than (CGI Film) because it is 2D!" Or will go to upcoming movies and say stuff like "I can already tell I will not like this movie because it is CGI!" It's just getting SUPER annoying and they are basically saying CGI films can't be good. It just seems like SOME people only focus more on the animation rather than the actual story itself. 

      sorry for the misunderstandings lol. but im annoyed as well by that fact.

        Loading editor
    • Disney4Disney wrote: Guys, please don't take that comment so seriously, I KNOW visual IS an important factor of a movie and shouldn't be viewed as unimportant, I was just getting REAL annoyed how a lot of people are whining about Disney seemingly stopping 2D animation and say stuff like "Tangled/Frozen would have been better if it was 2D" or "(Traditionally animated film) is better than (CGI Film) because it is 2D!" Or will go to upcoming movies and say stuff like "I can already tell I will not like this movie because it is CGI!" It's just getting SUPER annoying and they are basically saying CGI films can't be good. It just seems like SOME people only focus more on the animation rather than the actual story itself. 

      Hey, I have nothing against CGI films other than the fact that a lot of times, they generally emphasize special effects at the expense of the actual story (like Chicken Little, or the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars, or Revolutions and Reloaded of the Matrix series, heck, several DreamWorks productions, like their more recent Mr. Peabody remake). In fact, I thought the Toy Story films, A Bugs Life, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo, and the Incredibles were pretty good (with that said, I can't say the rest were that good). However, that doesn't mean Disney needs to sacrifice what is effectively its forte for CGI, especially when the only reason their last 2D hand-drawn film bombed was because they were stupid enough to air it on the exact same day as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2's opening day. If they want a CGI film, they really should let Pixar handle it since at least they have been proven to be good at both CGI and storytelling, and also make sure the films directly made by Disney are kept at hand-drawn. It worked for several decades, and heck, Winnie the Pooh, for a film that had the unfortunate timing of premiering the exact same day as the anticipated conclusion of a series of film adaptations of a popular book series for tweens, actually didn't do that bad (it was actually a critical success if the reviews are anything to go by). I mean, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, or in this case, throw it out.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Disney4Disney wrote: Guys, please don't take that comment so seriously, I KNOW visual IS an important factor of a movie and shouldn't be viewed as unimportant, I was just getting REAL annoyed how a lot of people are whining about Disney seemingly stopping 2D animation and say stuff like "Tangled/Frozen would have been better if it was 2D" or "(Traditionally animated film) is better than (CGI Film) because it is 2D!" Or will go to upcoming movies and say stuff like "I can already tell I will not like this movie because it is CGI!" It's just getting SUPER annoying and they are basically saying CGI films can't be good. It just seems like SOME people only focus more on the animation rather than the actual story itself. 

      Hey, I have nothing against CGI films other than the fact that a lot of times, they generally emphasize special effects at the expense of the actual story (like Chicken Little, or the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars, or Revolutions and Reloaded of the Matrix series, heck, several DreamWorks productions, like their more recent Mr. Peabody remake). In fact, I thought the Toy Story films, A Bugs Life, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo, and the Incredibles were pretty good (with that said, I can't say the rest were that good). However, that doesn't mean Disney needs to sacrifice what is effectively its forte for CGI, especially when the only reason their last 2D hand-drawn film bombed was because they were stupid enough to air it on the exact same day as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2's opening day. If they want a CGI film, they really should let Pixar handle it since at least they have been proven to be good at both CGI and storytelling, and also make sure the films directly made by Disney are kept at hand-drawn. It worked for several decades, and heck, Winnie the Pooh, for a film that had the unfortunate timing of premiering the exact same day as the anticipated conclusion of a series of film adaptations of a popular book series for tweens, actually didn't do that bad (it was actually a critical success if the reviews are anything to go by). I mean, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, or in this case, throw it out.

      im sorry, but despite agreeing what u said about not throwing out hand drawn, im being incredibly pissed at 'LEAVE CG TO PIXAR'. NOO! Pixar isnt the end all of CG. WDAS, in the past, had hand drawn, live action, and CG in their slates of animated films. meaning, unlike every other animation studios out there, WDAS' main goal is to use all the possible animation techniques to tell a story. They are NOT restrained to hand drawn. Did people complain when only hand drawn movies were made for the past 90 years? no! its only been 1 decade since the creation of CG animation.

      Disney can use whatever forms of animation they want. Sure, i would love it if they make hand drawn films, but that doesnt mean they should just abandon every other form of animation. Besides, if u are a deep animation fan, you will notice the difference between WDAS' CG and Pixar's CG. Pixar stays in realism and have actual weight (ex: in Brave:the way Merida closes doors and carries clothes make it feel like they have realistic weights, where as in Tangled, Ralph, and Frozen: everything feels light, like Rapunzels hair)。 Also, Disney CG films contain that sort of Disney magic that Pixar and DreamWorks dont have. Sure, people who dont like CG that much (like you) tend to think 'HAND DRAWN IS DISNEY MAGIC AND CG IS NOT!!!‘ NOO。 it doesnt work like that.tangled and frozen had the feels of the renaissance, despite being in CG.

        Loading editor
    • DisneyJr wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Disney4Disney wrote: Guys, please don't take that comment so seriously, I KNOW visual IS an important factor of a movie and shouldn't be viewed as unimportant, I was just getting REAL annoyed how a lot of people are whining about Disney seemingly stopping 2D animation and say stuff like "Tangled/Frozen would have been better if it was 2D" or "(Traditionally animated film) is better than (CGI Film) because it is 2D!" Or will go to upcoming movies and say stuff like "I can already tell I will not like this movie because it is CGI!" It's just getting SUPER annoying and they are basically saying CGI films can't be good. It just seems like SOME people only focus more on the animation rather than the actual story itself. 

      Hey, I have nothing against CGI films other than the fact that a lot of times, they generally emphasize special effects at the expense of the actual story (like Chicken Little, or the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars, or Revolutions and Reloaded of the Matrix series, heck, several DreamWorks productions, like their more recent Mr. Peabody remake). In fact, I thought the Toy Story films, A Bugs Life, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo, and the Incredibles were pretty good (with that said, I can't say the rest were that good). However, that doesn't mean Disney needs to sacrifice what is effectively its forte for CGI, especially when the only reason their last 2D hand-drawn film bombed was because they were stupid enough to air it on the exact same day as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2's opening day. If they want a CGI film, they really should let Pixar handle it since at least they have been proven to be good at both CGI and storytelling, and also make sure the films directly made by Disney are kept at hand-drawn. It worked for several decades, and heck, Winnie the Pooh, for a film that had the unfortunate timing of premiering the exact same day as the anticipated conclusion of a series of film adaptations of a popular book series for tweens, actually didn't do that bad (it was actually a critical success if the reviews are anything to go by). I mean, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, or in this case, throw it out.

      im sorry, but despite agreeing what u said about not throwing out hand drawn, im being incredibly pissed at 'LEAVE CG TO PIXAR'. NOO! Pixar isnt the end all of CG. WDAS, in the past, had hand drawn, live action, and CG in their slates of animated films. meaning, unlike every other animation studios out there, WDAS' main goal is to use all the possible animation techniques to tell a story. They are NOT restrained to hand drawn. Did people complain when only hand drawn movies were made for the past 90 years? no! its only been 1 decade since the creation of CG animation.

      Disney can use whatever forms of animation they want. Sure, i would love it if they make hand drawn films, but that doesnt mean they should just abandon every other form of animation. Besides, if u are a deep animation fan, you will notice the difference between WDAS' CG and Pixar's CG. Pixar stays in realism and have actual weight (ex: in Brave:the way Merida closes doors and carries clothes make it feel like they have realistic weights, where as in Tangled, Ralph, and Frozen: everything feels light, like Rapunzels hair)。 Also, Disney CG films contain that sort of Disney magic that Pixar and DreamWorks dont have. Sure, people who dont like CG that much (like you) tend to think 'HAND DRAWN IS DISNEY MAGIC AND CG IS NOT!!!‘ NOO。 it doesnt work like that.tangled and frozen had the feels of the renaissance, despite being in CG.

      Okay, fair enough, though I should mention that, to my knowledge at least, before Meet the Robinsons, the only CGI movies not made by Pixar that was made by Disney was Chicken Little and the Disney Fairies franchise (and from what I've heard, they bombed), maybe Bolt, although I'm not sure whether that was before PATF or after it, though please, correct me if I was gravely mistaken about that.

      Still, they really should place more emphasis on 2D hand-drawn animation since that is their forte. Maybe they can do independent CGI films once in a while (IE, CGI films that aren't made by Pixar), but their primary focus should be hand-drawn animation.

        Loading editor
    • 1. Chicken Little bombed critically. financially, it was a hit. 2. Disney Fairies franchise have always been successful. 3. Bolt is after Meet the Robinsons, and made 100million more money than Princess and the Frog.

      i think their priomary focus should be the story itself. as for the medium, this is what i want: hand drawn every year, CG every other year. so we can have a hand drawn one year and have a CG the next year, and this keeps on going. balances out the medium. done.

        Loading editor
    • DisneyJr wrote: 1. Chicken Little bombed critically. financially, it was a hit. 2. Disney Fairies franchise have always been successful. 3. Bolt is after Meet the Robinsons, and made 100million more money than Princess and the Frog.

      i think their priomary focus should be the story itself. as for the medium, this is what i want: hand drawn every year, CG every other year. so we can have a hand drawn one year and have a CG the next year, and this keeps on going. balances out the medium. done.

      1. Wasn't Chicken Little made because Home on the Range was a bomb? I don't particularly recall Home on the Range being a financial bomb, though it was most certainly a critical bomb.

      2. Not according to TVTropes: Legend of the Neverbeast is currently the last film in the Fairies franchise precisely because of bad sales and bad merchandising. That sounds like it bombed.

      And regarding film development, obviously the story exceeds which medium it should be shown on, be it live action, CGI or hand drawn animation. After all, it doesn't matter how well-animated or how well filmed the movie is if the storywriting is a total dud. I'm just limiting it to specific mediums under the presumption that they place large emphasis on the story.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      DisneyJr wrote: 1. Chicken Little bombed critically. financially, it was a hit. 2. Disney Fairies franchise have always been successful. 3. Bolt is after Meet the Robinsons, and made 100million more money than Princess and the Frog.

      i think their priomary focus should be the story itself. as for the medium, this is what i want: hand drawn every year, CG every other year. so we can have a hand drawn one year and have a CG the next year, and this keeps on going. balances out the medium. done.

      1. Wasn't Chicken Little made because Home on the Range was a bomb? I don't particularly recall Home on the Range being a financial bomb, though it was most certainly a critical bomb.

      2. Not according to TVTropes: Legend of the Neverbeast is currently the last film in the Fairies franchise precisely because of bad sales and bad merchandising. That sounds like it bombed.

      And regarding film development, obviously the story exceeds which medium it should be shown on, be it live action, CGI or hand drawn animation. After all, it doesn't matter how well-animated or how well filmed the movie is if the storywriting is a total dud. I'm just limiting it to specific mediums under the presumption that they place large emphasis on the story.

      Yeah. I misunderstood you too DisneyJr but you are right. People shouldn't judge a movie just beacuse it's 2D or CGI. Also I wouldn't call TVTropes a reliable source for stuff like that and I can't find an offical announcement from Disney or any other site that says that Legend of the Neverbeast is the last Disney Faries movie.

        Loading editor
    • A LOT OF YOU ARE NOT REALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION: WHAT WAS THE LAST 2D ANIMATED CLASSIC YOU LIKED?

        Loading editor
    • Site Looker wrote: A LOT OF YOU ARE NOT REALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION: WHAT WAS THE LAST 2D ANIMATED CLASSIC YOU LIKED?

      we already answered it. Winnie the Pooh for me, Princess and the Frog for most people.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      DisneyJr wrote: 1. Chicken Little bombed critically. financially, it was a hit. 2. Disney Fairies franchise have always been successful. 3. Bolt is after Meet the Robinsons, and made 100million more money than Princess and the Frog.

      i think their priomary focus should be the story itself. as for the medium, this is what i want: hand drawn every year, CG every other year. so we can have a hand drawn one year and have a CG the next year, and this keeps on going. balances out the medium. done.

      1. Wasn't Chicken Little made because Home on the Range was a bomb? I don't particularly recall Home on the Range being a financial bomb, though it was most certainly a critical bomb.

      2. Not according to TVTropes: Legend of the Neverbeast is currently the last film in the Fairies franchise precisely because of bad sales and bad merchandising. That sounds like it bombed.

      And regarding film development, obviously the story exceeds which medium it should be shown on, be it live action, CGI or hand drawn animation. After all, it doesn't matter how well-animated or how well filmed the movie is if the storywriting is a total dud. I'm just limiting it to specific mediums under the presumption that they place large emphasis on the story.

      1. Well, it was a financial hit, as I said. but it was terrible with critics. and Home on the Range was a financial bomb: budget of 110m, gained 104m.

      2. TV Tropes is indeed right. People nowadays illegally download movies. The overall market of DVD and direct-to-DVD are all financially declining, not just Disney Fairies. however, the Fairies franchise is very popular in the market, despite low sales (Pirate Fairies debuting in top 3 for several consecutive weeks). in terms of current downward trend of direct-to-DVD, it's still very popular. but in terms of making money, its not that much. But becoz of the overall low sales of every direct-to-DVD currently, Disney decided to stop making direct-to-DVD overall, and focus on theatrical releases. They can actually theatrically release next Fairies movies and see how it does.

        Loading editor
    • Site Looker wrote:
      A LOT OF YOU ARE NOT REALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION: WHAT WAS THE LAST 2D ANIMATED CLASSIC YOU LIKED?

      Winnie the Pooh.

        Loading editor
    • The most recent counting, or my all time favorite?

      The most recent I can think of that was classically animated by Disney was Lilo and Stitch, back in 2002. I relate to Lilo so much now, it's almost ironic. And Treasure Planet, too. I usually gravitate to stories about kids who aren't the typical child. But the rest are CGI or not Disney, so, I won't count those.

      My all time favorites that were classically animated by Disney have to be the Little Mermaid: Return to the Sea, the Lion King II, and Robin Hood. :)

        Loading editor
    • Winnie the Pooh 2011 obviously, looking forward to see The Name Game.

        Loading editor
    • The 13th Hero wrote:
      Winnie the Pooh 2011 obviously, looking forward to see The Name Game.

      If you havent noticed already, the Name Game was a fluke, the person who first put it into the public confirmed it to be fake. So no Name Game.

        Loading editor
    • DisneyJr wrote:
      The 13th Hero wrote:
      Winnie the Pooh 2011 obviously, looking forward to see The Name Game.
      If you havent noticed already, the Name Game was a fluke, the person who first put it into the public confirmed it to be fake. So no Name Game.

      I sadly know, but I just wish it'll exist.

        Loading editor
    • The Princess and the Frog, easily

      For the CGI ones, Tangled I'd put on the same level as Snow White or Sleeping Beauty, and Wreck-It Ralph I put on the list of awesome Disney movies. Frozen was meh, Big Hero 6 was not that great, Zootopia was all right (for one that doesn't meet my standards), and I haven't seen Moana yet but I will if it gets on Netflix like Zootopia

        Loading editor
    • The Princess and the Frog. I wish it was longer and had better development or more scenes at least for Dr. Facilier, to explain better his motives and background (wish they kept him as Mama Odie's son).

      Tangled is basically a Renaissance movie in CGI, that's why it's hands down my favorite Revival Era movie. Wreck-It Ralph is a second close, although it suffers a bit of not making use of the videogame enviroment after the first act.

      Frozen, Big Hero 6, Zootopia ? All trash in my book. One has too many songs and no substance whatsoever. The other is like every generic superhero cliches made into a movie. And the third one, unlike WiR, uses TOO MANY references, its tone shifts too much from light-hearted cynical satire to noir that tries to takes itself seriously with no balance, and I found it laughable (not in a good way) how the creators had the BALLS to make a Breaking Bad reference, but not enough balls to show how real racism is, by showing segregation of the predators or Bellwether (horrible villain btw) go Trump mode on them. A movie that tried too hard to please movie nerds and furries, but not enough with its actual storytelling.

      Moana seems to have finally brought things back on track, slightly, at least around WiR's levels.

      But I do miss hand drawn animation, some story with actual effort, and a good villain once again.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, Winnie the Pooh 2011. It was more enjoyable than any Winnie the Pooh movie I've ever watched.

        Loading editor
    • The last 2D film I saw was the Emperor's New Groove. And I still loved it! Although there aren't really songs in it, it's still funny with a great storyline. And I love the characters.

        Loading editor
    • LOL You missed quite a lot of movies then.

        Loading editor
    • Lol no. It was the last film I re-watched.

        Loading editor
    • What I meant is that you might have missed a lot of the hand drawn animated movies of the 2000s, such as Lilo and Stitch or The Princess and The Frog.

      In case you haven't seen those, you should ;)

        Loading editor
    • I saw them, but I don't really like them.

        Loading editor
    • I see. Why is that ?

        Loading editor
    • The Princess and the Frog.

        Loading editor
    • I think a lot of people on here are being too nitpicky. I personally think CGI animation is better and looks more real than any other form of animation. And I do not understand criticism of Frozen. In my opinion, it is tied with The Lion King as the best Disney film ever made.

        Loading editor
    • I wrote a blog about hand drawn animation vs CGI a couple of months ago, and this seems like the perfect place to shamelessly plug it, so feel free to have a read: http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:DisneyCWS/Hand_Drawn_Vs_CGI


      Anyway, to answer the question, the 2D WDAS film I liked was PATF (haven't seen Winnie the Pooh). The last one I LOVED was The Emperor's New Groove. I liked Treasure Planet as well, and Lilo and Stitch was decent, but since the turn of the new millennium, hand drawn films at WDAS went pretty down hill (I don't think this is down to the medium, though). 

        Loading editor
    • MBrody wrote:
      I think a lot of people on here are being too nitpicky. I personally think CGI animation is better and looks more real than any other form of animation. And I do not understand criticism of Frozen. In my opinion, it is tied with The Lion King as the best Disney film ever made.

      I for one, don't care how real CGI makes things look.

        Loading editor
    • Site Looker wrote:

      MBrody wrote:
      I think a lot of people on here are being too nitpicky. I personally think CGI animation is better and looks more real than any other form of animation. And I do not understand criticism of Frozen. In my opinion, it is tied with The Lion King as the best Disney film ever made.

      I for one, don't care how real CGI makes things look.

      Yeah, and besides, CGI doesn't make a film better. Look at the various DreamWorks films. Other than maybe Shrek and Madagascar, most of their films were actually pretty bad. And the Matrix Trilogy and the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy had a huge load of CGI, and that was actually one of the films' biggest weaknesses since they relied too much on CGI and not nearly enough on storytelling.

        Loading editor
    • I think certain films are suited to CGI e.g. Frozen (effects on ice and snow) and Moana (effects on water and sand). Both films were widely praised for the animation. Whilst it doesn't necessarily make the films better, it can make it a more pleasant viewing experience.

        Loading editor
    • DisneyCWS wrote: I think certain films are suited to CGI e.g. Frozen (effects on ice and snow) and Moana (effects on water and sand). Both films were widely praised for the animation. Whilst it doesn't necessarily make the films better, it can make it a more pleasant viewing experience.

      Maybe, but then again, The Little Mermaid was able to work wonders on the underwater environment and didn't really need CGI at all, not much CGI anyway (probably the closest it ever needed CGI for was the staircase scene where Ariel rushes down and witnesses Vanessa and Eric conversing with Grimsby).

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      DisneyCWS wrote: I think certain films are suited to CGI e.g. Frozen (effects on ice and snow) and Moana (effects on water and sand). Both films were widely praised for the animation. Whilst it doesn't necessarily make the films better, it can make it a more pleasant viewing experience.

      Maybe, but then again, The Little Mermaid was able to work wonders on the underwater environment and didn't really need CGI at all, not much CGI anyway (probably the closest it ever needed CGI for was the staircase scene where Ariel rushes down and witnesses Vanessa and Eric conversing with Grimsby).

      Excellent point Weedle!

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      DisneyCWS wrote: I think certain films are suited to CGI e.g. Frozen (effects on ice and snow) and Moana (effects on water and sand). Both films were widely praised for the animation. Whilst it doesn't necessarily make the films better, it can make it a more pleasant viewing experience.

      Maybe, but then again, The Little Mermaid was able to work wonders on the underwater environment and didn't really need CGI at all, not much CGI anyway (probably the closest it ever needed CGI for was the staircase scene where Ariel rushes down and witnesses Vanessa and Eric conversing with Grimsby).

      True. I do think Moana would've been fine as hand drawn too, but I think the additional detail was worth it. The crucial difference between Moana and TLM is that the ocean in Moana was an actual sentient character which performed tasks itself. 

        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