CGI Overusage?

[Brooklyn]

Obviously, times have changed ---

YODA went from being one of the most famous creations from the Henson company, to becoming something generated from a computer for the last episode.

Having miniatures made of sets was not only a money saver but became an art form, now most of that is accomplished via a computer.

So where do all these talented people go? Can they still get work? Is it a dying art form? Is claymation, puppetry and other forms that used to help tell a story being replaced with the perfect renditions from a computer. Does anyone else cringe when they see ELMO’S WORLD and how it is all cgi?

 

[CBPuppets]

Technology.....what will they think of next? My comment.....WHY IS THE WORLD SO CRUEL?

 

[Brooklyn]

I know that when I watch a CGI heavy scene (5,000 soldiers coming over a hill), i'm not thinking WOW, this is amaznig. I have more of a glazed over look. I think the audience gets lost and doesn't really connect with it as much.

 

[MGov]

Whenever the "CGI: Is it Evil?" argument comes up, this is my point of view:

Two of the best animated films in the last 10 years (I think) are "The Incredibles" (cutting edge technology) and "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut" (though probably put together on a computer, still some of the crudest, no pun intended, animation).

The one thing these two films had in common is that they were both well written and entertaining. The method of telling the story doesn't matter if the story isn't well-told. CGI is just a tool. How the tool is used is what's important.

 

[Brooklyn]

I hear your points, I think CGI can be amazing -- i just dont want the other forms to die out.

 

[JJandJanice]

There is totally rooms for computers, especially since now a days everything is done with them.

Here something though Disney's last classic cartoon movie was "Home on the Range," which didn't do as well as they hoped. Here's what brother me about that, the company (from what I understand) thinks it's cause that kind of cartoons doesn't fit in anymore, I disagree I think it just wasn't that great of a movie, that's all there is to it really.

 

[Brooklyn]

No need to worry about 2D dying at disney. The new heads of disney animation is bringing them back.

 

[D'Snowth]

Well you know, MOST 2-D stuff these days are done by computers too - Courage the Cowardly Dog was done by computers, hence why the character designs never were altered (even slightly) over the four years it was on the air, and the show featured photo-realistic backgrounds.

Macromedia Flash is an excellent way to execute 2-D cartoons by computer; I was actually nearly finished with a short animated film, but shelved it because I was burned out from doing cartoons for so long (I also did minimal comic strips as well).

But the thing to remember is that SOME things ARE still done the old fashioned way: Ed, Edd n Eddy has been on the air for nearly ten years now, and although they recently went with coloring the animation digitally, it's still hand-drawn and hand-animated because that's what the producers were wanting: to give it sort of an "old school" look while maintaining a "modern" feel.

 

[Drtooth]

I feel CGI has its place where it's needed. it can be a type of animation all its own. Of course, I think Pixar is the only company that fully utlizes the medium as an art form, and not just some sort of cheap theatrical smoke and mirrors type deal. I think that the one thing I had against the Star Wars prequals is that often times the film seemed dead due to the over use of CGI. It gave Lucas way too much freedom. I do say, I didn't mind CGI Yoda in action scenes, but it would have been great to have kept the puppet in sitting and speaking scenes.

But too many films (Alvin and the Chipmunks for example) look like the characters are cheaply pasted in there, and the actors aren't really talking to anything.

And I also say, Sony should stay the heck out of animation. I have no desire to see Open Season and Surf's up. They are clearly doing it for money's sake. It's just too commercial.

 

[MrsPepper]

For the record, the design in Home on the Range was awesome. I just think there really wasn't a great market for the story.

I think that the companies think that CGI is further ahead than it really is. I think it's really cool depending on how it's used but relying on it too much sort of sucks the realism out of a movie. A good example of this for me is Dobby from Harry Potter 2. The character looks amazing and whoever voice acted it did a good job, and the animators matched up the voice and actions really convincingly. But that's not what I have a problem with; I have a problem believing that he's really there with Harry.