All these years later and CGI still doesn't look as impressive as hand drawn animation

>All these years later and CGI still doesn't look as impressive as hand drawn animation
Is it just all down from there?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5KbX4z8yifo
youtube.com/watch?v=M_XwzBMTJaM
youtube.com/watch?v=3Fuecr381c0
youtube.com/watch?v=INi3cGOr7-4
m.youtube.com/watch?v=kpLX_gMwKms
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

OP never watched Rango.

>watched Rango with a friend in theaters
>it's quite funny, really exciting, and looks excellent
>still quote it to this day with him
>parents eventually watch it separately on-demand
>"didn't really like it"
>but_why.gif
>no clear answer
Rango is severely underrated.

CGI is puppetry. 2D is literally moving pictures.

Rango had that great dirty CGI, HTTYD simiarly,but as time goes on, resolutions go up, CGI wont look as impressive, have you tried rewatching Toy Story recently?

I dunno, user. I haven't seen a movie that has rivaled Rango in pure quality (except maybe something like tin-tin which still holds up amazing)

CGI looks more impressive in cinemas. 2D can't beat CGI in movie theaters

>as time goes on, resolutions go up, CGI wont look as impressive, have you tried rewatching Toy Story recently?
This isn't true at all. Good CGI always looks good. +10 years old blizzard cinematic still look fucking amazing

I can't wait until we start getting toy story special editions with enhanced volumetric lighting effects and new toys added to populate andy's room

Why do they keep trying to make 3D look exactly like live-action?? WHY??????????

I'm no expert, but I think it's because CGI doesn't have the "weight" conveyed by 2d animation. Texture, movement, and emotion may be easier to express in 2d, therefore making the figures more convincing/endearing. It's part of the reason why practical effects in live action movies age better than CGI.

I think Rango is the only CGI movie I've seen that matched the qualities of 2d animation. HTTYD 2 is a close second.

so the "eye popping threedee" looks even more eye popping.

luckily there are exceptions

so they don't have to pay actors any more

They had a couple of really good gags in that movie. Especially the 'blink and you'll miss it' stuff
>George and Harold
>Everyone Else

Stuff like Peanuts and Captain Underpants is what 3D movies need to focus on more; mastering a unique artstyle, keeping the fun of the way 2D animation moved as well as retaining its simplicity, but also using 3D to make the production less tedious and easier to bring more life to the medium

But it costs less

I have, I still like the old animation to Toy Story. It's simpler and different and still holds up.

Keep digging, you'll find gold there.

I've heard barley anyone is trained to do 2d these days.

Because they can and because a lot of CGI development is intended to work alongside real actors. Don't worry, once they succeed they'll have to go crazy to stand out.

It won an Oscar.

>All these years later and pooping in a bucket doesn't look as impressive as technological advanced toilets.

because SOMEHOW there was no disney/pixar nominated movie that year.

well,gisnep fired their 2d animators like 4 years ago,guess they retired.

Because live-action CGI has fucktons more applications. You wouldn't want to give up your future waifu simulator 3000 for a decent calvin&hobbes CGI movie, wouldn't you ?

It'll come back in style in the next ten to fifteen years

Most old people like movies that look pretty, like Frozen, Rango is just a bit too gritty in style for old people to enjoy

Ok so what’s hands down the best 2d animation on film ?

many disney movies, done in CGI, are pretty impressively animated even by 2D drawing standards

I don't think there might really be a hands down best. Some of the old Disney guys are really great though. Like Milt Kahl.

Disney had master character animators, but I find the background work in their movies a bit uninspired, compared to Studio Ghibli's films. Might be just a matter of opinion.

Ghibli is also good. But I didn't have a specific animator in mind with them. Except Miyazaki himself back in the day I suppose. Sooo, favorite Ghibli movie people?

Bull fucking shit it doesn't.

youtube.com/watch?v=5KbX4z8yifo

They don't have budget for high quality 2d anymore.

Isn't it more because Princess and the Frog didn't do as well as they were hoping?

This and Peanuts are the best looking CG movies yet. We need more like them.

Hope you're ready for a talking fidget spinner in Toy Story 4.

pls be ironic pls be ironic pls be ironic

Toy Story is dated but had enough care put into that it will never be unwatchable.
It ain’t Reboot, that’s for sure

It may have photorealistic textures but it still looks as cheesy as an old FMV game

Nah, you just gotta give it time. CGI still hasn't hit it's "Looney Tunes Age" yet.

>being this delusional
CGI surpassed hand drawn animation years ago youtube.com/watch?v=M_XwzBMTJaM

Or Winnie the Pooh, although I personally think that was sabotaged by certain higher-ups who wanted to see 2D die.

Stuff like this looks fine on a technical level, like if all you want is more detail, but I've never really seen much CGI animations that express as much character as 2D ones do, but I'd say a fair amount of that comes from my own biases. I'd say xomething like Zootopia came close but it still shares a lot of the restrictions that other CGI animation has in terms of being restricted to individual models that are puppeted around for the whole movie, which is more than understandable but still restricts it in some ways. 2D animation also has this problem, it's especially noticable on shows like Rick and Morty or Bojack Horseman, both fine shows that I'm not trying to dump on (though I'm sure others will) but the animation quality is garbage due to how much of it is done through the weird "paper doll" style of animation where they puppet around characters by rotating their limbs instead of redrawing the characters to make walk cycles, I understand that it's down to budget but it really looks quite bad.

Also, I don't know why people keep posting videogame cutscenes as if they are impressive, they don't look bad or anything but as pieces of animation they aren't a whole lot to write home about.

>it still shares a lot of the restrictions that other CGI animation has in terms of being restricted to individual models that are puppeted around for the whole movie
>restricted to individual models
How is this a restriction? CGI models can do pretty much everything

>I don't know why people keep posting videogame cutscenes
youtube.com/watch?v=3Fuecr381c0

It's the artist, not the tool

Disagree.

Rango had the ugliest art style that really makes me not like the movie as a whole.

You are really, REALLY biased against CGI

I'm with on this. This "techncial level" bullshit is the only reason to appreciate 2D style animation (if it's not using CGI techniques like full canvas etc.) over some of the 3D shit the push out. And heck, it's almost like people are posting video game shit because that's where a lot of the talent is, short of Industrial Light & Magic. Everyone else is still stuck in bubbly circular cartoon mode.

>It's part of the reason why practical effects in live action movies age better than CGI.
youtube.com/watch?v=INi3cGOr7-4

Because they have to keep using the same models, they have to pose and manipulate the ones they have to best fit the shots they want them in where they just have to get the best shot possible where it looks better (to me) to redraw the characters each frame to fit what looks best. I feel a lot of character is lost in simple minor things like characters talking, look at the Megamind clip you posted, it looks alright but a lot of expression is lost in how the character models probably can't stretch and skew so much without it looking weird, where I'm sure if they had the resources (and time) to make new models for each frame it would look a lot better. I don't know if I'm communicating this right or just sounding like a huge autismo here, probably the latter.

I guess I am. I'm not saying that it looks outright bad or never looks good or that there isn't 3D animated stuff I don't enjoy or it isn't valid as an artform or is just not the same, but I'm willing to admit I'm biased.

The "technical level" stuff I'm referring to is stuff like more model details, more textures, more particle effects that just doesn't really impress me much, I'm sure it's hard work to create and whatever but it's just more time spent at the render farm and leaving a lot of it up to algorithms to generate.

haven't seen this but that looks like surprisingly competent CGI, most CGI even in big budget movies I think looks like garbage. The Hobbit for instance, fuck that was bad.

>it doesn't look impressive because I don't like it

Yeah, it doesn't look impressive TO ME, that doesn't mean you can't personally enjoy it, I'm just voicing my own opinion on a website that's all about voicing opinions.

I don't understand this. Even old bugs bunny cartoons tried to do realistic backgrounds. Unless you go UPA type stylized or something, isn't realistic a thing to strive for in art in general? Reference, Reference, Reference!

Did you watch Logan? Driving Wolvy that was dodging bullet was not Hugh Jackman. It was stuntman with cg face. Sometimes live action integration is so subtle you don't notice it until you see the original plate

i know

Its a principle of hand drawn animation to go beyond and exaggerated in every aspect you can, they are remaking every frame with the same degree of polish and pushing each new created image just as much, with cgi theres specific limits, it will always be the same model manipulated frame to frame no different than stop motion just on a perfect scale

>You wouldn't want to give up your future waifu simulator 3000 for a decent calvin&hobbes CGI movie, wouldn't you ?

If anyone is still confused about (part of) what I mean in:
This guy says what I'm trying to say in less words and less clumsily.

>Not posting a gif from The Thief And The Cobbler
Richard Williams managed to get personal lessons from at least three of Disney's Nine Old Men, and it shows.
I'm somewhat biased, myself. On one hand, you can do really cool shit with CGI - once I get a tablet, I'll definitely do some interesting effects and such, because I'm a huge fan of psychedelic imagery and you need a lot of effects and such, especially if you want to animate something like that. I feel that combining both is one of the ways to create something better than the sum of its parts - like how everybody loved the CGI AND the 2d fight scenes in Fate:Zero, or Hussie combining a whole bunch of storytelling mediums when making Homestuck. Even Williams himself admitted that CGI is a very useful tool for animators, while reminding his audience that you still need a firm grasp on the fundamentals if you want to make something exceptional.

>You look like a good user

CGI has to deal with physics, 2D doesn't. This is the difference

You haven't watched anything else.

It doesn't "have" to, it does as a sake of convenience for the animators so they don't have to individually animate, say, Sully's hair from one Monsters Inc. movie to another.

You are fucking retarded

Oh ok, I guess it's literally impossible for a 3D animation to exist without it having to "deal with physics".

And? It's one of the few times CGI is convincing. For every Dawn of the Planet of the Apes there are ten Transformers movies.

>one of the few times

You do realize that FF has always been cheesy af when it comes to its battles in cinematic form. I don't see why Kingsglave would be any less different beyond its fancier coat of paint.

I haven't seen this movie but i love him

After watching enough cgi-heavy live action movies I had that odd realization that all these film actors are interacting with cartoons. I was watching District 9 and thought "this is really a lot like Who Framed Roger Rabbit with a different artstyle".

At the same time though, 2D animation (not Flash/ToonBoom-based) still needs to follow a set model sheet (i.e. height and general appearance) for the character as well.

Sure you can exaggerate movements and poses, but you still need to make sure that it's still the same character regardless. Otherwise you wind up with shit like Steven Universe where characters end up looking ugly and mishapen in nearly every frame. Or you could also end up like Family Guy and make the characters stand in the same stiff poses over and over again.

2D has many of the same issues that CGI has (and some exclusive to the medium), the only difference is that CGI is a lot more scrutinized than 2D animation.

How the fuck did Disney do this so early on

2006 isn't that early for CGI, it was already quite sophisticated at that point. That's post Matrix trilogy, post Incredibles, and post Star Wars Episode 2 for reference. If anything it's more that movie CGI hasn't noticeably improved over the past 10 years.

They were smart enough to know when to use CG magic for fantasy heavily textured characters and not real people with uncanny skin textures.

They've since lost that magic since Beauty and the Beast looks like shit.

>CGI is a lot more scrutinized than 2D animation

I think a part of this is the bias people are developing due to 3D animated movies taking such priority over 2D ones. I mean, it's going to make people look back wistfully on 2D when Disney just axes their production of high quality 2D animations. It does for me, anyway, I'll admit to being at least a little biased.

The lighting in Geri's Game may be outdated, but the motion is still some of the best I've seen in CGI.

I watched this for the rabbit but now I don't know anymore

watch the making of

they used a computer

Ernest and Celestine was done on CGI and it looked good enough to fool you into thinking it was animated with cels.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=kpLX_gMwKms

It was adobe flash actually. Im looking forward for more works from this studio, Big Bad Fox and Stinky Dog look great. Like children books in motions. None if that "ultra realistic fur/water/hair/felt/glitter" big studios love to jerk themselves over.

And I do get that, I won't lie about how CGI seems to get more priority than 2D. But at the same time, they seem to forget that 2D should probably be at least under similar levels of criticism at times. Not even Disney was perfect 100% of the time and turned out some below average fare before, both animation and story-wise.

Because it was ILM