i should have planned ahead. i’m not that great at words, i need to essay plan it the next time i need to talk about shit i hate -laughs-
anyway no one asked my opinion but here it is.
Hi there how are you
As a CG animation student, I am extremely offended that you are calling me a machine. To speak in Tumblr terms, you are completely erasing the fact that ACTUAL PEOPLE are working on this film, putting their souls into them, designing, modeling, doing those darned textures you hate so much. Thanks a lot for all the machines out there actually learning how to use this extremely complicated technology and try to give feelings to people with them. I’m currently going through five years of education to learn how to do this shit, and mind you, I’ve only started the actual 3D in my third year.
Let me tell you about 3D CG animation. If it takes a couple of clicks to create a cube, it’s gonna take you what, a week or so to sculpt an entire character (not counting 2D character design), then you have to put what we call texture on them, for that you have to “unwrap” the geometry to be able to paint on it (yeah I said paint, ain’t that a mechanical term), then you have to rig it for animation (giving it a skeleton to be animated with, this is a very difficult and very technical step), there’s also lighting, rendering, compositing, other effects like realistic hair if you choose to use it (we aren’t even taught this in school because it’s different software and takes way too long), etc. For having done all of this, let me tell you a machine ain’t doing it. You are sounding like people complaining about electronic music not being real music. The computers don’t run themselves…
At my school we all have to learn how to do all of these steps, and we can’t even do all of those professionally because it’s technically too fucking complicated to be fully qualified for every single step of production. Ain’t nobody got time or skill for that.
As for the “they all look the same” argument, I agree with you but I have to specify that CG does not necessarily have that realistic-texture-on-cartoony-design Pixar look. The big movie companies just choose them to all look the same, I don’t know why… Here are a few examples of other looks CG films could have:
Meet Buck, A student film from my school
Meet the Medic from the game Team Fortress 2
MeetOzo, another student film
There are plenty of short films not in the ordinary Pixar look, and I really wish they made feature films with different looks because it’s like people don’t even know that something else is possible.
You can have your bloody opinion on it and I agree that it sometimes look bland and lifeless but this technology is barely 25 years old. It’s still being developed, not only for super-realistic special effects for live-action movies, but also for more cartoony and lively animation and rendering. The great difficulty about 3D is not making it look bland and lifeless, and that takes a shitload of skill and time.
tl;dr A MACHINE AIN’T DOING IT, there ain’t no “make a pretty movie” button, and you are being very disrespectful to all the people who work on CG films.
As a fellow Animation Student who had studied both 2D and 3D animation, I wholeheartedly agree with what steam-powered-jetskis has said. OP is also pretty disrespectful to the animators, if you really want to make an 2D versus 3D argument, I strongly suggest that you did proper research on the techniques and history involved.
3D animation also does not just involve movies like ROTG, there is also Ironman, The Hobbit, Spiderman, the Avengers, which all uses CGI. for example, that scene where the camera goes around the Avengers who were looking into the distance with debris and dust falling all over the place? The surroundings are all CGI, the floor is CGI, the dust is pretty much CGI, the buildings are all CGI.
Bringing up ROTG is a bad example as despite the beautiful animation displayed, it is poorly executed. The flaw you pointed out has nothing to do with ANIMATION itself, just to do with character design.
I’m not sure what is your intention in making this post, but as you have said so yourself, plan your post better next time.
Seriously though, I wonder how OP feels about Paperman. It’s CGI film made to look like 2D drawing, that had me fooled until I found out it was CGI. I thought it retained the hand drawn quality, despite not being hand drawn.
Do people think presenting their opinions in a photoset makes it legit or something?
WE’RE LIVING IN THE FUUUTUUURRRREEEE. Resistance is futile.
I admit I had some reservations about 3D animation when it started becoming mainstream, but honestly, I’m not very often disappointed in a 3D film (Dreamworks has some real talent in their animation and design even when the script is pretty lousy). But I think what really made me throw away my inhibitions about 3D animation was video games. I remember when Final Fantasy X came out and my reaction to the graphics was “HOLY SHIT I NEVER EVEN BELIEVED THIS WOULD BE POSSIBLE BUT LOOK AT THIS!”
When Toy Story came out in ‘95, I was 11 years old. My whole family was blown the fuck away. I distinctly remember my Dad going on and on about how impossible such a film seemed to him and how excited everybody should be about what’s to come. That was when I was a little concerned. I loved my traditionally animated films and cartoons so much, but at the same time, I really loved Toy Story. I started reading a lot about the production of the film, and how much trouble they went through. It took them years to get it done, and when I heard they avoided animating the human characters because it was just so damn difficult, my first thought was “I hope they figure that out one day because that would be so cool.” And now look at 3D animation. Man, they did it. They figured it out alright.
The struggle to tune 3D animation into what it is now was immensely difficult FOR REAL PEOPLE. This whole argument just invalidates all that work.
Not to mention that there are plenty of examples of bad 2D animation. Most 80s cartoons were pretty shoddy in quality. I was forced to watch the last few minutes of Digimon a few times and it was horrible, whatever character was talking was shown from their back as to not have to animate the face. Look at the old Speed Racer. Kinda terrible by today’s standards.
And while stills of old Disney look pretty, you could always tell whatever “background” object was about to be interacted with because it was brighter and stood out.
And yeah, Paperman was amazing.
Hey did you know that a tablet is a machine and your post is technically CGI.