Animation Source Forums

So, which do you like better?

I'd say it's a close race, but Traditional beats Digital by an inch. Remember the good old Trad. made animations? Snow White, Bambi, Aristocats and Pinocchio to name a few. You could ACTUALLY see the pencil strokes everytime a character moved. To some, it's an imperfection. To me, it's the beauty in the art. You can see that someone spent a long while making each scene.

Then came the first Digital animation: Beauty and the Beast. Such detail! The BGs were so eye-catching and vibrant; you could see every little stone in the Beast's castle. The characters, however, seemed....fake. They were perfect; not a line out of place. Every inch of color was even. It didn't seem like much work went into the animating of the characters. But in any case, the backgrounds wer wonderful.

Skip ahead a few years to The Lion King; almost completely digital animation. I love the movie and the characters; but the once beautifully detailed scenery that almost brought a tear to one's eye was now overly bright with radiant oranges, reds, and browns...no detail, just really REALLY bright. Blindingly bright...almost as if they didn't want you to look at the BG so much in hopes that you wouldn't notice the lack of deatil. The characters themselves lacked detail. Everything was so perfectly colored. Animation was beginning to get lazy.

Then came Spirit; a wonder blend of Digital and Traditional...or Tradigital, as some animators like to call it. But still, the chatracters lack so much shading and detail. And then there's that problem where everything is so smooth, so...perfect.


I personally miss those old, Traditional creations. When you could see the incredible amount of work that was put into each scene...every little detail in both the characters AND the background. I'm not trying to bash Digital art or anything; All I'm trying to say is animations used to be a work of art. Very few people had the gift of bringing a bland piece of paper to life simply by applying a few strokes that turned into a work of magnificence. With digital, anyone can learn to use it; therefore anyone can be an artist. The love for the animation is no longer there (true, there are some out there who are true artists to begin with, but there are many out there who just do it to get paid and it certinly shows in their undetailed work.)

It's the flaws and sketchiness of the old cartoons that made them wonderful. But the flawless, BRIGHT animations that are being made nowadays (and those that have been out for many years now) are so fake and emotionless; where has the love gone?

I really cannot choose. Both can be good (e.g. Bambi, Toy Story) and bad (e.g. Barnyard, A Troll in Central Park).

I believe CGI is just a corporate tool that is used by the companies to make cheaper films. Traditional all the way!!!!!

I hear arguments like this a lot. "I like how everything was when I was a kid."

Truth is, traditional animation isn't "better". I'm willing to bet any old-timer would've argued that books in general were so much better than picture shows back in the day when the movie industry started to boom.

Times change, and with it, new technology rolls around. Generally, humans dislike change. They love to dwell in the past. Hell, if nobody tried anything new, we would never get anywhere. Lord forbid someone does something to improve a certain process.

What I see from this topic is that animations of the future will get worse, lazier, and more "love"less? I really don't quite understand...

Let me give an example on the impression that I'm getting: If I were to draw pictures with a pencil for many years and then suddenly switch over to using a computer to digitalize my work for the convenience, does that mean I don't care for my work anymore? Does that mean the "love" has disappeared?

If effort is applied, and producers really care about what they're doing, I couldn't possibly care any less how they get it to show up on my television.

Tradigital, naturally. Sure, traditional is nice, and so is digital sometimes, but I like a mix of both. Digital mixed in with the traditional spices up things a little.

So, liking the older cartoons from when I was a kid makes me a caveman who fears change? I highly doubt that. I never once said that we shouldn't progress; that's not anywhere near what I meant.

What I said and meant was this: Ever since the creation of CG (EX: Photoshop), anyone can be an artist. It's nothing but a computer program, so anyone can learn to use it. Therefore, many of the people who use it in animations don't nessessarily have to be an artist. They don't understand what being an artist is, therfore, their lack of understanding shows in the animations they produce.

A true artist who has drawn on paper for years can get into digital and still produce amazing art because they are an artist to begin with; the animations they produce are wonderful, as they understand what it is to be an artist, and the love for art shines through.

And you're right; If effort is applied and the ARTISTS (not nessessarily the producers) know what they are doing, whether they use digi or trad. doesn't matter. But that's a rare occurance (i.e. Happy Feet...everytime I watch that movie, I forget it's a digital animation because it was done so well.)

I can't understand your reasons for disliking digital animation rolla_wolf. The pinnacle of animation is to have an anatomically-correct character with crisp clean animation, vibrant and appropriate color, and realistic backgrounds, such as the moving grass. The fakeness often comes across through character, which has nothing to do with animation. You can't accuse animation of being too fake, either - because in reality, it all is, isn't it?

Cobalt, for lack of a better phrase: Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I dislike CG...not once. My favorite animated movie of all times happens to be Happy Feet. I just said that Traditional has a more artistic quality to it then CG, which looks real in such a fake way. But, not all Trad. animations are good, and not all CG movies are bad.

Read Meeko's posts: They're perfect examples.

Computers don't do all the work for you. A program requires the same amount of input and effort as pencil and paper. And no, not everyone can be an artist with a computer program. Yet, there are computer artists out there.



So, only if you've ever used a pencil before, can you go on to use a computer and still be considered an artist?


I think it's just years of hearing "Classic Magical Masterpiece" from all those Disney trailers that has you thinking it's love that flows through the pencils of animators on the Disney factory floors.

If you open your mind, art is everywhere. It's not restricted to what humans have already been doing for years.

What should I pick? I love alot of 2D (even if it's mostly Disney),

but the only 3D I like is Pixar, I love Pixar a whole bunch.