Is anyone else getting fed up with so much CGI?

[Trassk]

Before starting off, I'd like to make a point that I do not hate CGI, for what it is. With the advancement of technology and peoples creative talents, the use of CGI in the right situation can be something really awesome. The gaming it is an essential, as games and computer generated graphics are one and together, so the more improved CGI is for in game today, its all the better when the technology advances. Look at the opening cinematics for wow expansions like mists of pandaria or warlords of draenor, these are truly amazing to behold, and I've glad there is such ways to make such amazing graphical cinematics on this level.

However, the problem I have with CGI is while it has grown and gotten better in places you'd expect it to, its also a problem in how much its become oversaturated in every other media out there now, to the cost of so much else.

When I was a kid, for me animated movies and kids cartoon shows were all hand drawn animation. from watching disney movies that were made before I was born to current ones at the time, to shows like ghostbusters, thundercats, transformers, gargoyles, batman the animated series, I grew up on animated shows and movies, and always held a great love for them, and when later on, had an appreciated for the time and work people put into animating such things, the hand drawn element of cartoons and animated movies just gave it something unique, a style onto its own.

I also grew up on some animes, hayao miyazaki movies were some of the best animated movies I saw growing up, and while i never became a major anime or manga fan, I always held a place for anything miyazaki did.


Now today, when movies like toy story, bugs life, Shrek, ice age, kung fu panda, Wall-e and frozen are hits, and I do like the movies, the question I keep asking is.. what as the last good hand drawn animated movie anyone remembers, that didn't come out of Japan?

It might seem needlessly picky, but I just can't help but feel with the advancements in cgi animation, seeing this format replace hand drawn animation just feels kind of cruel or shallow. CGI animation is cheaper to produce and faster to turn out animations for, so the argument could be that its faster and better for making films and cartoons for, but for me having grown up seeing the art styles of animators who made movies like sleeping beauty, laputa castle in the sky, beauty and the beast, the secret of nimh and snow white, I just look at modern day CGI animated movies like Frozen, Tangled, Inside out and how to trains your dragon, and these movies just all look the same to me, the same fast produced cgi animation style that looks less like someones art style and more like a studios tried and reused format for animation now.

As a medium, I think all forms of animation should be encouraged to be part of it, having hand drawn animators, but also CGI animators, and claymation animators, And for a time even when CGI was starting out, it all still ways, and it gave variety. Now, it seems like every studio just wants to go CGI and forget how great hand drawn or claymation can be for films.



Oh, and least try to forget, when animation studios use cgi animation, and it comes off really bad, yeah..

[Vea Lea]

dont care when it looks good

[Independent voter]

I like the Lord of the Rings movies a lot better than the Hobbit movies even though they were made by the same guy. I think a lot of it has to do with the Hobbit having a lot more CGI. A guy in an orc costume is about a 1,000 times more believable than a CGI orc.

[Shiny212]

The last truly good hand-drawn feature I think was Treasure Planet. After that they've started calling computer-animated features Disney classics, which I disagree with.

However, I have to take issue with some of your assumptions. "CGI" animated films as you put it, are not "fast to produce". It's an extremely time-consuming and high-effort process. Disney classics are amazing, the amount of emotion they were able to evoke from hand-drawn characters is staggering, but if you looks at modern animated film, they've raised the bar even higher with the crazy range of expressive body language and facial animation. One problem though, is that since animated films have grown in popularity with each passing year, it's become a goal to squeeze money out of them rather than make quality films.

There are a great many newer animated features today that while truly impressively made, weren't really worth making a movie of in the first place. Before you set out on several year long productions it'd be great if the goal was more than just earning money.

[Trassk]

I like the Lord of the Rings movies a lot better than the Hobbit movies even though they were made by the same guy. I think a lot of it has to do with the Hobbit having a lot more CGI. A guy in an orc costume is about a 1,000 times more believable than a CGI orc.

Yeah thats another point I wanted to touch on. The overuse of CGI in live action movies cannot make up for physical props and camera trickery to make it look more realistic.

When I recently saw Jurassic world, I compared this one to the original a lot, and while the movie was good, when it came to the dinosaurs, I just felt like the cgi dinos in this movie were no better then the cgi dinos in the first movie, they are no more realistic when in cgi, but in the first movie they did use physical props in scenes which worked out for the better.

The hobbit proved just replacing action scenes with cgi just takes away from the effect. I mean look at star wars, the classics are still more loved then the recent ones, and back then they had people in rubber suits and puppets.

- - - Updated - - -

Another thing I forgot to say is while major western studios are going by this design of replacing hand drawn with cgi, in japan they are stull producing anime and manga in traditional animation style, so clearly studios over there felt the need for cgi isn't worth getting ride of what makes anime and manga what it is, which i deeply appreciate.

[Flutterguy]

I'd like to point out that Beauty and the Beast had digital elements and wasn't completely traditional. In fact, the software they used was developed by Pixar. Rescuers Down Under was their first animated movie not fully traditional, quickly followed by Beauty and the Beast.

Lion King several years later used even more digital elements(particularly the CGI wildebeest stampede) and I believe was Disney's first use of a frame blending technique that helped make the animation smoother without requiring more frames.

[Trassk]

I'd like to point out that Beauty and the Beast had digital elements and wasn't completely traditional. In fact, the software they used was developed by Pixar.

And thats fine, because it was in moderation, the main flow of the movie was traditional animation.
Even a gorgeous movie like howls moving castle had mild elements of cgi used.

[A Chozo]

Good in moderation. Even moderation is good in moderation. So, as with lots of stuff in this weird word, there's a cycle. Too much CGI, then almost nothing of CGI. Then they'll go back to CGI. The cycle of "full CGI" is ending!

[s_bushido]

Being hand-drawn didn't stop all the Disney movies that came out in the 80s and 90s from having a very similar look. And being CGI doesn't mean that the Pixar-esque movies don't have their own style.

One of the best cartoons...ever...is Avatar: The Last Airbender, so I can safely say I think your premise is pretty bogus. Non-CGI styles of animation haven't gone anywhere, they simply aren't the only options anymore.

[chazus]

1) Did you intentionally use the absolute worst looking thing as an example of CGI usage? That's like saying burgers are bad because one you found in the trash was bad.

2) Beauty and the Beast uses CGI. In fact, the exact scene you linked has it. A lot of animation studios (Eastern and Western) use CGI. It sounds like you're complaining about bad stuff while entirely ignoring the good stuff.

3) CGI (at least decent stuff) Is not cheap. Nor is it fast. So using that as an 'alternative' to animation is simply not true.

[Flutterguy]

And thats fine, because it was in moderation, the main flow of the movie was traditional animation.
Even a gorgeous movie like howls moving castle as mild elements of cgi used.

[IMG]http://static.tumblr.com/fffv9bg/1tnlk1jxc/howlscastle-lol.gif[/MG]

Oh, I'm fine with it in moderation. It's like special effects. It should add to the film, not take from it.

I do think CGI animation has come a long way though. I used to dislike it because they were unable to capture the expressions they had with more traditional mediums. It's gradually getting better and better at it. Still, though, watching some of those golden age films still have a genius to them that still hasn't been captured on a computer.

[Trassk]

1) Did you intentionally use the absolute worst looking thing as an example of CGI usage? That's like saying burgers are bad because one you found in the trash was bad.

2) Beauty and the Beast uses CGI. In fact, the exact scene you linked has it. A lot of animation studios (Eastern and Western) use CGI. It sounds like you're complaining about bad stuff while entirely ignoring the good stuff.

1 - I mentioned some great CGI animated movies, clearly you didn't read.

2 - Beauty and beast used the most mild elements of it that didn't impact on the hand drawn animation.

[Tulune]

I don't rrally care about it for animated things, but I much prefer practical effects over CGI in live action movies/shows.

As an example, this still freaks me out,

This? Not so much. Looks too video-gamey

[chazus]

1 - I mentioned some great CGI animated movies, clearly you didn't read.

2 - Beauty and beast used the most mild elements of it that didn't impact on the hand drawn animation.

I read, so I guess I misunderstand what your point is. Basically you're saying badly done stuff is bad, and well done stuff is good? Is the main discussion why there isn't as much western animation as there is eastern? I don't really understand what the beef is.

[jasdasm]

CGI is way overused nowadays... 22 year old Jurassic Park showed how it can work when used in moderation. but what do you expect in 2015

[Trassk]

I read, so I guess I misunderstand what your point is. Basically you're saying badly done stuff is bad, and well done stuff is good? Is the main discussion why there isn't as much western animation as there is eastern? I don't really understand what the beef is.

In brief, I feel that western animation studios are forgoing traditional animation, which is and always has been a great format for animation, for CGI.

I think CGI animation has its place, and having studios produce some cgi animated movies is good. But when they outright stop making anything else beside cgi animated films, it forgoes something great.

If they could find a balance with still making traditional hand drawn films, along with cgi and claymation, then it would give better variety, since all are art styles onto themselves.

Look at the art style in a movie like Arrietty, whch was produced in 2010.



Why is it a studio like Ghibli can still make such great animated movies at this, but western studios turn away from this style? Why would they choose to do that when it can work with traditional and cgi today.

[Deleted]

Coraline was the last great hand-made movie in my opinion.

I agree with most of what you said. Following industry standard CGI animations gives an unshakable plastic feel. You can't quite put your finger on it but it somehow feels really off. I get the same feel with all the major blockbusters; Jurassic World, Transformers, Avatar etc. It looks good but it feels so artificial and fake, there's no sense of immersion like you got from the masters of old.

[Trassk]

Coraline was the last great hand-made movie in my opinion.

I agree with most of what you said. Following industry standard CGI animations gives an unshakable plastic feel. You can't quite put your finger on it but it somehow feels really off. I get the same feel with all the major blockbusters; Jurassic World, Transformers, Avatar etc. It looks good but it feels so artificial and fake.

Well Coraline was claymation.. or whatever resin the character models were made of, but still in that style like nightmare before christmas, and yes I LOVED coraline, movies like that and corpse bride.

[Deleted]

Well Coraline was claymation.. or whatever resin the character models were made of, but still in that style like nightmare before christmas, and yes I LOVED coraline, movies like that and corpse bride.

Oh, you said hand drawn... I somehow read that as handmade. Well, The Iron Giant was the last one I remember that really stuck with me. Haven't seen Nightmare before Christmas in decades now. I should revisit that movie soon, today, maybe.

[chazus]

I think the issue largely has to do with audience.

Ghibli is sort of a outlier. Miyazaki loves doing what he did. The fact that it made it to western audience in the first place was coincidence. The fact of the matter is, it's not profitable on a proper scale. There isn't a large enough audience to warrant it. As much as we love them, Ghibli films are severely unprofitable (I don't think The Wind Rises has even made a profit yet). There's really no reason for a western group to pick it up, as it would likely prove even worse, due to likely larger budgets.

The money simply isn't there.