Animation Source Forums

Ok, perhaps a little opinionated post that I don't want to result in an argument.

I really don't understand why animated films today (computer animated, I mean) have such a weird style to them... With animals that walk on their hind legs and have big heads and stuff. Madagascar, Hoodwinked & Farmyard are just a few examples.

I mean.. when you look at some computer animated movies or even ones with a few computer animated animals they look so realistic. Why is it that they create movies with weird looking animals? I suppose that its meant to be funny but I'd prefer to have characters that actually look like real animals that just have a funny script instead.

What do you think?

I have no trouble watching the animation shown today.

When you said Farmyard, did you mean Barnyard?

Well, as an animation junkie myself, this year I have not been that impressed with the slew of animated films that have made their way into theaters.

First of all, I'm all for the animal films, but there's just too many of them in the past couple of years. Madagascar, The Wild, Barnyard, The Ant Bully, Open Season . . . the list goes on, and all of them feel like I've seen them already. It's because the theme of "talking animals in the wild" is getting very redundant. (I know, Ant Bully really doesn't fit quite as well in this category due to the human factor in it, but the ants still talk. It's like A Bug's Life meets . . . a human? Pretty much. I haven't seen it, but although it didn't perform well in the box office (I may be wrong), I heard that the adults really liked it.)

And as mentioned numerous times, the cartoony animals are overdone. Sometimes they are done realistically (ex. The Wild actually had "realistic-looking" animals throughout much of the film; however, it was severely lacking in the storytelling department. I've seen the film, so I loved the look of it, but the story (I should actually say stories since there was way too many storylines in it for one movie) made me want to go to sleep.), but mostly, I think the creators of these films think that most kids (and their parental units) will be attracted to a more unanatomically-correct animal (like with Madagascar, in which I felt things were done quite well). Sometimes, I feel that they really shouldn't have even bothered to make these films (Barnyard is one of these - I didn't see the film, but one nit-picky thing made me not want to even dare to touch it: male cows with udders. *shudders* UGH. Especially when they move and shake. It's disturbingly gross. And this is marketed to children?! What the CHEESE is wrong with these people?) - waste of money and time.

(At least we should have faith in Happy Feet and Flushed Away - they look like the ones to watch out for next month! Yet again, they are both talking animal films - Happy Feet is more realistically depicted (quite beautifully, based on my looks at the trailers and commercial spots), while Flushed Away has the classic Aardman style, but instead of stop-motion claymation (like in the famous Wallace and Gromit shorts), they used Computer Animation to achieve the style (it looks like the shorts, IMO, so I'm impressed!). I'll probably check these out when they release in theaters!)

And of course, since traditional animation is (IMO) now considered dead (with exception of DTV (Direct-to-Video) sequels and the like), the BOOM of CGI (3-D computer-generated imagery) films is everywhere. Pixar (IMO, the best out there) started it all with its classic Toy Story films and other classics (The Incredibles, A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo, and its most recent success, Cars), while Dreamworks (Shrek, Shrek 2, and Madagascar) and other film companies have joined the bandwagon. Personally, I think that these new films are not as good as when they started.

I miss the old style of animation, really . . . which has also been computer-generated in the recent years. (I think computer-assisted animation has been around since the early 1990s (although Pixar started earlier, Disney features (starting with The Little Mermaid, I do believe) had begun using computer effects to help with some more complex scenes/settings/effects/etc. until finally now all they do is CGI films), but now the only way to see "old-school style" animation done (decently) well is either on TV (like any cartoon on Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, and the Disney Channel/Toon Disney) or on DTV (Bambi II, Brother Bear 2 and many other recent sequels). Yes, not all shows or sequels/midquels/DTVs are animated perfectly (yes, everything has bloopers sometimes. Even classic Disney films have their mistakes), but the story or some other ascept of the film usually can make up for it. (or nothing at all, sometimes . . .) Either way, they are mainly done using hand-drawn pieces that are integrated with computer effects (like the backgrounds of Bambi II - all of them were "painted" using a computer program in the style of the original film . . . which I believe was a job well done.). They are improving, I will say that from what I've seen lately.

Well, that's all I can think up right now.

- Juuchan17

I very much prefer movies with animals that actually look like animals. It's not giving young children much of an insight into the animal world though, is it? Lions do not stand on their hind legs and dance to the people at the zoo.

Madagascar was funny but so cheesy.

Well, you do have a point there. I do understand about the sudden BOOM of Anime films/series/OVAs making their way to the United States (of course, I'm into anime as well, so I can't complain), and the Miyazaki/Studio Ghibli films have helped with "saving" traditional animation all around the world (in a very high quality, I'd have to say; And as you mentioned, even though the classic Miyazaki films are mainly all 2-D animation, his two more recent films have a few CGI/3-D animation ascepts, but they blend in well IMO).

Actually many 3-D films take many years to make, animate, and do all of that other stuff that it takes to make an animated film (If I remember correctly, both Madagascar and The Wild were in progress at the same time, but I had heard that The Wild was thought up first. Of course, we all know that, in the end, The Wild was called a rip-off of Madagascar (mainly because the storylines were similar and it was released after the success of Madagascar) and it bombed in its theatrical release.), whether it's a high-quality or not.

*rant*See, it's stuff like this that somewhat bothers me: Where is the originality of today's animated movies?

I've noticed that with today's films (mainly the ones of an animated nature) have completely lost that spark. I remember the classic Disney films - Snow White, Bambi, Lady and the Tramp, The Little Mermaid, to name a couple - and although each has its own storyline and cast of interesting characters and situations, they are all considered as classics (whether they were box office flops or not, people still like them). Recently, Disney has begun to ask themselves "What if *such-and-such* had a kid after the end of *insert-Disney-film-here*?" or "What if *such-and-such* happened to *such-and-such*?" We see these all the time nowadays, with the BOOM of sequels, midquels, and other nonsensical things, such as: Bambi 2 (a midquel for the 1942 classic . . . over 60 years later), TLK2 (sequel to the box-office smash, The Lion King), and other ones - both the hits and the misses. Sure, I suppose some fans (as do the people who think these films up) want to see a continuation of certain storylines, but I'm sure some just weren't meant to be done (thank goodness!). Let me give you an example of a series with sequels that were (IMO) well done:

- The Aladdin trilogy: Probably one of Disney's most popular films (prior to the Lion King) in the early 1990s, it was the first film since The Rescuers to recieve a DTV sequel, The Return of Jafar (the title is self-explanatory: Jafar returns to plot some evil revenge against the one who originally defeated him - Aladdin). Somehow, the series became so popular, it spawned a TV series (which lasted a couple of seasons) and a third movie, Aladdin and the King of Thieves (which answered the question about his father, now that he was (finally!) getting married to his princess. Of course, evil always tends to ruin the happy times in Agrabah). Thankfully, this was the end of a successful story, although we'll always have questions and ideas on ways to continue the series (but it'll never be done right now).

Sure, not everyone will agree with me, but to each his/her own opinion. I really think some of the recent sequels are well done, but to me, most of them have their ways of disgracing the original charm of the first. Sure, the animation isn't up to par, and the voices may/may not be perfect or the original cast, but some sequels/midquels do their job as being a successful addition to the franchise. Still, it's all about the money. *end rant*

- Juuchan17

You should check it out when you get a chance, KakashiMeeko! Although the animation and the voices are not up to par to the original (it improved greatly in the third film, which I do agree with you there - it is one of the best sequels they've done), the story connects with the end of the original like an actual sequel should and goes a different route than the predictable "let's get married and have a kid" storyline (at least the "let's get married" part actually happens . . . in the third movie . . . at last!).

*rant* But yeah. I have this thing with sequels/midquels/etc. The ones that really get my attention are those "somewhat predictable" ones (you know, the "different and curious offspring" storyline (TLK2, Balto 2, TLM2, LatT2, the list goes on), "let's fall in love all over again" storyline (Mulan 2, Return of Jafar), and the "midquel with a story from the past" storyline (Tarzan 2, Bambi 2, Fox and the Hound 2) - I think at least all sequels/midquels can find a way to fit into one of these categories.). I suppose it takes a lot of thought to make a sequel that actually will sell while also trying to keep to the original storyline (although sometimes a few tend to slip away from the original a bit). *endrant*

But still, it takes a lot of time and money to make an animated film. Whether it sucks or not - I think the sales allow the viewers to decide.

Darn, I had something else on my mind that I wanted to talk about . . . but I just forgot it. Poo. (I'll remember it in a few minutes, I suppose.)

- Juuchan17

Perhaps you wanted to rant about TLK 1 1/2?

Nah. I will say that I could rant about how "good yet bad" it was, but meh. I'd save it for the TLK forum . . . but I think I've mentioned many times about how much I didn't like it.

Don't worry, I'll figure it out eventually!

- Juuchan17