![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Traditional animation and CGI
Aug. 7th, 2011 03:02 pmSo, I saw Arrietty last week. It's really nicely drawn and animated like all Ghibli films. Rather slow and placid, but highly pleasant. It's a slice of life and we get to explore the world of the Borrowers rather than throwing a lot of drama at them. What I really love is that it's so nice to see traditional animation. The scenes are so beautifully painted and you just don't get that sort of attention to detail.
Being aimed at kids, the trailers were for kids stuff. Two that I remember were Tintin and The Smurfs. Both largely based on computer generated animation. I didn't like the look of either of them.
I have no objection to CGI. It's another style of art and looks amazing when done well. The problem is it so rarely seems to be. Too many characters are just creepy. The Smurfs just aren't cute (as an aside, I also think it's really lazy storytelling to transport characters to "the real world"). They're weird. They've been designed by people who don't really understand how cartoon characters are meant to look. It's something I see a lot on posters as well. Characters that have been designed by graphic artists rather than artists. They're ugly!
the other one was Tintin. I thought it looked like it could be really good. Lots of action, intrigue, and adventure! Steven Spielberg directing. The animation was really great! Really good set design and camerawork that really takes advantage of the medium. The problem - the uncanny valley! Tintin and Snowy are just disturbing. Why do they have to be computer generated? Sky Captain showed how live action can be combined with a completely CGI set. Titan A.E showed how cel animated characters can be combined with 3D to good effect.
But apparently kids are only inter5ested in CGI these days. This is of course, rubbish. Kids will watch anything with a good story. Kids are a lot more discerning than the marketeers give them credit for.
Being aimed at kids, the trailers were for kids stuff. Two that I remember were Tintin and The Smurfs. Both largely based on computer generated animation. I didn't like the look of either of them.
I have no objection to CGI. It's another style of art and looks amazing when done well. The problem is it so rarely seems to be. Too many characters are just creepy. The Smurfs just aren't cute (as an aside, I also think it's really lazy storytelling to transport characters to "the real world"). They're weird. They've been designed by people who don't really understand how cartoon characters are meant to look. It's something I see a lot on posters as well. Characters that have been designed by graphic artists rather than artists. They're ugly!
the other one was Tintin. I thought it looked like it could be really good. Lots of action, intrigue, and adventure! Steven Spielberg directing. The animation was really great! Really good set design and camerawork that really takes advantage of the medium. The problem - the uncanny valley! Tintin and Snowy are just disturbing. Why do they have to be computer generated? Sky Captain showed how live action can be combined with a completely CGI set. Titan A.E showed how cel animated characters can be combined with 3D to good effect.
But apparently kids are only inter5ested in CGI these days. This is of course, rubbish. Kids will watch anything with a good story. Kids are a lot more discerning than the marketeers give them credit for.
