Pretty well summed up. I guess we are not the only oned who think Eisner is an idiot. However, Purkisma may be blacklisting himself by making statements like this publically (even though it is 100% true). Blacklisting himself not with Disney, as I am sure he does not care what they think, but with others in the industry who might be afraid to hire someone who might just say the same things about them some day, if he works for them and doesn't agree with their practices.
Oh well...
You know, as I was writing my business plan, I had to think of how this move on Disney's part could hurt or help my business... The way I see it (and I hope I am right) is that this opens the door for other studios to make 2D films that people will WANT to see. Before, the market was so flooded with 2 Disney features a year, and I think th public got bored of it. Now if the market is not as flooded, but rather is flooded with 3D features, 2D can possibly make its comeback. It will not take long before people start to get bored with the 3D features being released in mass, and then there may be some balance in what people want to see. Now, 3D is the new thing and people are crazy about it, but after 2+ films are released per year, the interest may fade somewhat.
I hope that a balance can be achieved, as it is great to have films in both mediums loved by the masses.
Cheers
—
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
it was actually not such a bad statement by Eisner
quote from pruiksma:"This time he states that 2D, (or more precisely, classically hand drawn) animation is dead. That it has gone the way of black and white film, etc. Obviously Michael has not seen "Manhattan" or "The Elephant Man" or “ Raging Bull” or “The Man Who Wasn’t There” or any of the many other rich and beautiful films that have been made, for artistic reasons (something Eisner would know little about), in black and white, (yes, even after the invention of color film)."
well maybe its good then if it goes the way of black and white...!
use 2D only for artistic reasons i don't see anything wrong about it. Eisner is actually right in that respect (although i'm sure he didn't mean it in that way).
Unfortunately Eisner is not capable of doing anything artistic
so its actually great news that this stream of uninspired shitty formulaic Disney animated features will finally come to an end, thank god
time to move on
pass the stick to someone who has an interest in making good films .. Brad bird for instance:
here he talks about a 2D project(Ray Gun) that might be produced in the future by......Pixar!
BRAD Well, it's two things that are hard to sell in Hollywood. Part of it is sort of film noir, even though to me it's only that in the surface details. Really, it's more of an action movie, and it had a substantial amount of comedy in it. I see it as being very mainstream, but Hollywood saw it as being almost experimental, like, "Whoa, what the heck is this?" In animation, you're always fighting against, "Well, that might upset a 5-year-old." My feeling is, "Well, then, the 5-year-old shouldn't go. Come on, can't we make some other things?" RAY GUNN was not it was PG, you know? Maybe PG-13.
when will these terrible moneygrabbing hollywood execs finally get it and learn that animation is not exclusively for kids???!!!
well maybe its good then if it goes the way of black and white...!
use 2D only for artistic reasons i don't see anything wrong about it. Eisner is actually right in that respect (although i'm sure he didn't mean it in that way).
Unfortunately Eisner is not capable of doing anything artistic
so its actually great news that this stream of uninspired shitty formulaic Disney animated features will finally come to an end, thank god
time to move on
Well, Pwassink, I have to disagree with this statement, with all due respect. How many black and white films are released nowadays? Do you want to see our beloved traditional animation be reduced to one film every 5 years (if we are lucky... I don't know when the last b&w film was released, but it has been a while)? I don't know about you, but I love the medium, as much, if not more than 3D, and I would hate to see it reduced to a "retro" style in everyone's eyes... I also like working traditionally, as I am sure many others do, and if it is reduced to this retro style, then there will be a lot less work for us all (us 2D dinosaurs). I think that there can be a balance between the two. Use 2D if the film would be benefitted by it, and 3D likewise, and live action, when it is called for. When looking at a screenplay, it is quite obvious what medium it should/could be done in immediately. It should not simply be done in 3D, just because that is the flavour of this month. I believe it was Phacker who made the observation that "the Incredibles" would probably have benefitted by being done traditionally, and I do not totally disagree with that. However, it IS a Pixar film, and they ARE a 3D studio...
Cheers
—
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
pwas- i totally agree that it would be nice to stop the flow of crap coming out of disney, I can't believe they have andreas deja working on Bambi 2. What an incredible waste of talent, any company that would do that deserves to fall by the waste side.
swade- I can't remember the quote exactly, but i remember hearing brad bird talk about medium, and how he didn't believe medium and story where intertwined. If you have a good story, you should be able to tell it how ever you choose. Which i tend to agree with, however, i can't imagine toy story the same in 2d, but it could have been told in 2d. As far as the incredibles in 2d. yeah it totally could have been done in 2d and well. But i am very glad pixar is doing it in 3d, because it is going to push the medium. If anyone can get the 3d to approach 2d, its gonna be brad and pixar, and that is very exciting!
—
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios www.mattshumway.com
pwas- i totally agree that it would be nice to stop the flow of crap coming out of disney, I can't believe they have andreas deja working on Bambi 2...
Well, your toy story point is the best example I would be able to come up with as well. Yes, any story CAN be told in any medium, most would be best suited for one in particular. Toy STory is best suited for 3D, as the characters are toys (inanimate objects), and perfection and solidity of these toys is a must. The incredibles, being human characters, would be better suited for 2D, but Pixar is not going to be doing that any time soon. If there were a "Transformers" movie, for example (I know there was one years ago, anyone ho ants to throw that at me), due to the level of detail and technical animation, it would be best to animate it in 3D. You see what I am getting at? If there were a film full of realistic humans who board a magical train which takes them to the North Pole, it would probably be best to do it in Live, with some CG effects and animated elements (i.e. the train). Hehehe... Had to throw that in there, but it really does justify my point.
Sure, Pixar has the right to do their film in 3D, scratching on film, or painted with coloured dog pooh, but I honestly believe that this story would just have been better suited for 2D. I am still REALLY looking forward to seeing it though, regardless, as it DOES look great.
I hope what I am saying makes sense. I dunno... I have been animating in Maya all day, and my brain tends to have little farts, leaving me unable to explain myself clearly. Damned graph editor.
Cheers
—
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
actually there is a new transformers movie in the making, cgi + live action as roumors says.
the old transformers movie was hand drawen & painted with cells as well as the backgrounds, TOEI animation studios really rocked those days (also with G.I.Joe the movie), now you can find them making the digimon cartoon.. very sad that the came to that level.
well, 2d is not dead it has been neglected thats for sure.
last disney movie like 'brother bear' probably showed how far really animated disney films suppose to be than the ones it should has been [accourding to walk disney ideas and ambition].
3d was/is new at the time and people who are want to be able to enjoy this new era, that's fine and all by me.
as i said, i don't like 3D as much as i like 2D because of personal involvment in the makingm latest tools [ie: maya] and plugins will produce effects & simulations where only few clicks of a mouse needed.
everyone ahs the right to choose whatever he wants and feel good with it, so go for it, just hold your position because studios tend to fire it's artists for new blood (less money for payment :D).
Awe jeez... I kind of figured there might be one either in the making, or close to it. May even have heard about it, I don't remember. THAT will be a film that warrants the use of 3D, for sure. I sure would not want to be the poor bastard who has to animate thos transformers. I can only imagine how much detail the CG ones will have on them.
Cheers
—
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
I'm gonna have to dissagree with some of you. I think all the 3D movies could have been done, and worked well, as traditional animated movies except for three movies. The three I'm talking about are "Bugs Life," "Nemo," and "Antz." The reason I say this is because of the character masses. Who would really want to animate thousands, if not millions of ants running around an ant hole? Or big schools of fish? I think the Toy Stories would worked good as traditional because they were great stories. "The Incredibles" could totally be done tradititionally, but in todays market, is there a traditional studio that you would want to see animate it? Disney? Warner Bros? Dreamworks? Hell no! I think he went to PIXAR because they are the only studio that would let him tell the story he wants, and because they have some of the most talented animators around. Sounds like a good plan to me :D
The Ape
—
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
The three I'm talking about are "Bugs Life," "Nemo," and "Antz." The reason I say this is because of the character masses. Who would really want to animate thousands, if not millions of ants running around an ant hole?
well the 3D tools could have been used for the sheer masses of characters, but rendered in 2D, like they had done in Lion King with the Wildebeasts. However, I agree with you that these films were well suited for 3D because of what you say.
—
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
but i think that the medium finally chosen to tell a certain story in, will from then on be an useparatable part of that story
in other words to ask if toy story would or would not work in 2D is not a valid question toy story is what it is because it is 3D the excact same story could have been done in 2D but it would have been a totally different film. which could have been just as succesfull and pleasing but it would have been a different film
another good example is Grave of the firefly, i've heard people say it might as well be done as a live-action, but then it would have been a different film, it is special excactly because it is animated
another good example is Grave of the firefly, i've heard people say it might as well be done as a live-action, but then it would have been a different film, it is special excactly because it is animated
Agreed. I feel the same way about The Wings of Honneamise. The character designs and expressions (and in some cases, even the inconsistent-at-times animation quality) combine to make it endearing to me for some reason. I love Wings, but if it were live action I probably wouldn't like it half as much as I do. Oddly enough though, I don't see this as a shortcoming of the script but as a strong point of its animation.
Don't lay it on me, Wade. As usual, you started this fight (post #12) by making personal attacks rather than simply disagreeing and debating.
You are responsible for turning a large portion of this thread to crap. Right off the bat you called me delusional because I said that I don't like 3D television shows and you expect me not to defend myself? Dream on, trouble-maker.
In the future (I've suggested this to him dozens of times so why do I even bother?) simply disagree with a person or ask them to explain a comment you are confused by. Don't start off by attacking a person's character, or by dragging in your anger over past threads.
Cooka, I don't buy it.
You're going to have to show me a specific post where I made a "big logic jump." Until you do so, I'll simply have to take it for the B.S. it appears to be: a snide attempt to trash someone's character without evidence, motivated by a petty months-old grudge.
Besides which, I wasn't so much complaining about the nonsensical "big logic jump" as I was about the personal attack: Wade's implying that I'm delusional because I'm pleased with the state of 2D television.
Is one hypocritical if he complains about a personal attack, since chances are he's made his own personal attack sometime in his life? Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?
Did you ever hit somebody when you were a kid? Well then, don't complain if someone pounds away at your face. That would make you a hypocrite. ;)
Well, gee- it looks like you don't like the fact that someone took something you said and generalized it. But wait- didn't you just do the same thing to me?
And, Wade, can you possibly quit lying long enough to get back to the issue? I never said there are "a couple" of unemployed animators. You twist, you lie, and you distort in an effort to discredit me, rather than dealing with the actual things I said.
That comment was addressed to someone named Wade. Is your name Wade?
And, yes, Wade said that I said "a couple" unemployed animators when, in fact, I never said it. How is that a generalization?
Cooka, I don't buy it.
You're going to have to show me a specific post where I made a "big logic jump." Until you do so, I'll simply have to take it for the B.S. it appears to be: a snide attempt to trash someone's character without evidence, motivated by a petty months-old grudge.
As I stated before, the post I originally referred to has long since been lost. I don't care about the state of your character one way or the other. I've explained my point, and (with your help) went on to provide proof using quotes from this very thread. In this discussion I've proven more of my observations than you have your labeling of my points as "lies" and "B.S.".
As for the petty months old grudge thing- I don't post here very often, so of course I'd remember when one person was especially aggressive toward me, but this is a discussion on the internet, pure and simple. I happened to notice you complaining about something you had used on me before, so I decided to point it out to you.
Besides which, I wasn't so much complaining about the nonsensical "big logic jump" as I was about the personal attack: Wade's implying that I'm delusional because I'm pleased with the state of 2D television.
I don't really care about what you see Wade as implying or the reasoning behind what you posted. Here's your exact quote: "Saying I haven't seen a 3D show that appeals to me obviously does not mean that I think nobody in the universe likes 3D television shows. "
You're refuting Wade's claim based on the idea that a single case doesn't imply a generalization. You go on to make a generalization about a singular case of my own. I point out how this, in addition to the older thread I originally paraphrased, is hypocritical. All of this is explained in my previous post. What part of this isn't getting through to you?
Let's try out your personal attack motive:
Say for a second that in your original "Saying I haven't seen a 3D show..." message you weren't complaining about the logic jump. Let's say, as you suggested, that you were complaining because a personal attack was made on you, and thusly you are not yet a hypocrite. This is from one of your replies to Wade after the "Saying I haven't seen a 3D show..." message:
Seek help, and lay off the booze.
That seems a lot like a personal attack to me. Whether or not it was a rebuttal doesn't change that fact. You complain about a personal attack, and then in less than 2 hours you make one of your own.
Is one hypocritical if he complains about a personal attack, since chances are he's made his own personal attack sometime in his life? Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?
Did you ever hit somebody when you were a kid? Well then, don't complain if someone pounds away at your face.
That would make you a hypocrite. ;)
Great point, except for the fact that I wasn't complaining about someone else doing something to me that I had previously done to someone else. You were; it does apply to you.
Even going along with the mentioned "sometime in his life" and "when you were a kid" time considerations, we still aren't talking about a large timeframe difference. The post I originally mentioned as evidence couldn't have been more than a year old, and the other quotes I cited were from this thread- pretty darn recent.
That comment was addressed to someone named Wade. Is your name Wade?
In case you didn't notice, this is a message board. The idea is that other people see and participate in the discussion. If you don't like getting comments from other people, then don't post comments on a public message board. It's as simple as that.
And, yes, Wade said that I said "a couple" unemployed animators when, in fact, I never said it. How is that a generalization?
You cut that quote short. Look at it again.
As you can see, my comments on the quote in question appear under the quote block. I didn't say that "a couple" was a generalization. I was showing that you accused someone else of distorting, and then I commented on it.
Yikes, way too many lies, embarrassing factual errors, and twisted logic to respond to.
I'll keep it simple: I am in the right because all I did was defend myself. You and Wade are in the wrong because you attacked me, unprovoked, and made up a bunch of crazy crap about me.
A bit of advice people: PLEASE try to be more civil. If you disagree with someone, please try to do so in a civil and rational manner. Most of all, don't jump into the middle of someone else's argument like an angry, pouting infant. Just let the argument die down. Don't try to escalate it.
Yikes, way too many lies, embarrassing factual errors, and twisted logic to respond to.
Actually, I've explained my position and provided proof from this very thread. Calling my claims "lies" and "embarrassing factual errors" doesn't prove anything, no matter how many times you do so.
If you can't follow the logic I used then it's your own fault as I've explained myself thoroughly.
I'll keep it simple: I am in the right because all I did was defend myself. You and Wade are in the wrong because you attacked me, unprovoked, and made up a bunch of crazy crap about me.
I used quotes from this thread as proof. How is my claim that you were being hypocritical "made up" then? Do the quotes not exist? I think I can prove they exist- they appear in this thread.
I'm merely pointing out a fact- that your complaining about Wade's post was hypocritical. Your blatant hypocrisy was the provocation for my post. Are you actually unclear about this?
You kept replying, I kept posting. It's called a dialog. If you want to label it as an attack, then that's your prerogative.
A bit of advice people: PLEASE try to be more civil. If you disagree with someone, please try to do so in a civil and rational manner. Most of all, don't jump into the middle of someone else's argument like an angry, pouting infant. Just let the argument die down. Don't try to escalate it.
Thanks
I've only pointed out how hypocritical it is to complain about something that you've done in the past, then went on to defend my position. To my knowledge I've been well within the rules established for this board the entire time. You asked me to explain myself and I did. You can label my approach as lacking civility if it makes you feel better- it doesn't bother me. I know that I've stuck to the truth and made my point.
Angry, pouting infant? Hardly. I've been nothing but calm throughout this entire dialog. I've provided facts to back up my claims and explained the logic I used. How is this infantile?
If you don't like how the argument has escalated, then you need to be ready to accept half of the blame yourself. I never forced you to read my posts, and you kept challenging them. It's not my fault that you can't prove your side of this.
Just let the argument die down?
If you make false or erroneous points about me or my posts, then I'll defend. Don't make more of them, and I won't. It's really very simple. Other than that, I don't start and stop replying at your mere whim.
I don't really consider my post (#12 as you pointed out) to be a personal attack at all. I told you my opinion of what you were saying. I did not call you a troll, nor did I get all that rude with you. I am not going to get into a pissing match to see who provoked whom, as I cannot win. Nobody can win against you Harvey, so I will leave it at that.
I do love it though how when I disagree with you (or anyone else for that matter), you call it personal attacks. Gimme a break. I have much more constructive ways to spend my time than coming on a forum, looking for one guy who I don't like, and provoking him. I have my views, and make them clear to anyone who cares.
Have you ever wondered why EVERYONE is apparently "attacking you personally"? That is because theya re not. You are making yourself out to be some sort of victim, and you get people fired up whenever you argue with them after they disagree with one of you "points", and tell them they are ATTACKING YOU.
If you want the "personal attacks" to stop, then I would suggest you stop on your end, calling peoples' opinions "asinine" or calling them trolls. Sound familiar, Harv? THAT, my friend, is a PERSONAL ATTACK.
Grow up / Get over yourself.
—
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
actually wade, a personal attack might be, oh i don't know... hunting down someone's address and making fun of where they live, then posting it on a public forum. But Harv aka. greg, would never do anything like that. (o:
guys, its best to just drop it , he is just going to keep quoting you and calling you trolls. How about we get back to talking about what most of us do...animation. (o:
—
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios www.mattshumway.com
I'm sorry Eisner (and many others) seems to think that Disney=Animation. Just because Disney decides to change to 3-D doesn't mean that 2-D is going down. 2-D will never die. Comparing it to black and white TV seems to me to be very short sighted.
"I'm sorry Eisner (and many others) seems to think that Disney=Animation. Just because Disney decides to change to 3-D doesn't mean that 2-D is going down..."
You pretty much hit the nail on the head DC. Most if not all the artists know that Disney isn't the only game in town, and just becuase Disney is leaving 2D doesn't mean it's dead. The scary thing is that a lot if not most of the general public thinks all animation is Disney. The Kid's usually know,because they're smart, but the adults have no clue. I've worked at the Disney Store for a few years, and we had people ask for Bug's Bunny, Kermit (although not technically animation) Shrek, Anastasia, and Sarah and Petree. People see Disney as the Animation, and if they say something, then it must be true. That's what I'm worried about. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true, but if enough people believe it, then it can become the truth.
The Ape
—
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
I'll try to keep this short, Cooka. You only seem to pop into the forum to fight me (am I really THAT provocative?), so I don't want to indulge you too much.
First of all, your characterizations of me in previous conflicts with you is simply untrue.
That's why I called them lies.
That thread is lost now, so there's no way I can dig it up to prove you are "exaggerating," and that your logic was as warped in that thread as it is in this one.
Secondly, you're saying it's inherently hypocritical for most people to complain about being attacked, since chances are they've made an attack at some time in the past. And I suppose you're also a hypocrite for countering MY complaints and ridicule with your OWN complaints and ridicule. Okay, so maybe everyone in the world is a hyprocrite since - at one time or another - they break their own rules. But it's really a trite argument and beside the point. People (including myself) can make all the crazy claims they want on this forum. Fine. I'm only bothered when overly emotional individuals make the issue personal by ripping into someone's character. And, yes, if someone attacks me, I might attack back; although I realize that responding in kind is probably just giving them what they want.
Anyway, I don't think I've ever had such a dumb and boring argument as the one I've having with you, Cooka. You might have to find someone else to pick fights with. I doubt I'll read any more of your posts, since around 75 percent of them are somewhat desperate attacks on me.
I'm sorry Eisner (and many others) seems to think that Disney=Animation.
i totally agree. disney is defentally a driving force, or was. But just cause disney isn't doing it anymore doesn't make it the end of the art form. Those united commercials come to mind. That rose one is one of the most beautiful commercials i have seen in a long time.
—
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios www.mattshumway.com
And, Wade, can you possibly quit lying long enough to get back to the issue? I never said there are "a couple" of unemployed animators. You twist, you lie, and you distort in an effort to discredit me, rather than dealing with the actual things I said.
Well, I was expecting an intelligent repsonse such as this.
—
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
I never said there are "a couple" of unemployed animators. You twist, you lie, and you distort in an effort to discredit me, rather than dealing with the actual things I said.
Well, I was expecting an intelligent repsonse such as this.
Thank you! I was expecting another asinine response from you, but you surprised me for once.
Okay. Until the next time you decide to launch another foolish, reactionary attack. Sometime soon, I'll probably be saying that I like other things as well, so prepare yourself. I might, for example, say that I like the state of police protection in my city, but don't like the noise level. That will be your cue to accuse me of disrespecting the unemployed policemen as well as living in a fantasy world where I believe that everyone in the world dislikes the noise level.
From the article:
"Pixar would benefit from Disney's marketing machine and that the two companies would do well to work together to make sequels of previous hits, like "Monsters, Inc." and last year's "Finding Nemo," Eisner argued."
WHAT'S HIS DEAL WITH F___NG SEQUELS....and WHYYYY is Eisner still the CEO of freakin' DISNEY? I HATE this man!!!!!!:mad:
To make a long story short, I know him personally, and he is less than admirable. He has doen a lot of things to friends of mine that cost them their jobs, even though, the goof-ups were HIS fault. I just have NO respect for the hack. The only probable reason that this film did as well as it did, is that Chomet had a lot of truly talented people working on it who saved his ass. I say "probable" because I do not know this for certain, but am going on Chomet's track record.
—
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
Yeah I have to agree with you Wade. I don't know what the big deal about "Triplets" is either. The style looked nice, and I really liked the dog, because he acts like a dog, but other than that, I think it would've worked better as a half hour short.
I think the problem with this quote: "'The 2-D business is coming to an end, just like black and white came to an end,' Eisner said." is that it's a blanket statement about all 2D. He doesn't say "our" like just Disney, but "The" like as in the artform as a whole. This quote could've been taken out of context, but who knows. It is still something he shouldn't be saying as the CEO of the world's most well know animation studio.
You're right Harvey, I haven't seen a good 3D TV show yet either. The best one I've seen was probably Starship Troopers Roughnecks. We'll see how Dreamworks' "Father of the Pride" fairs later this year, but as for now, the current crop of 3D shows is pretty dismal.
Aloha,
The Ape
—
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
We are looking for 2D and 3D animators and web designers from Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India to do our foreign projects (on freelance basis), hence hereby inviting you to send us your detailed CV with the following:
1. Recent photo (any size)
2. Brief about skillset and of projects handled
3. Contact details
4. Time to reach Nungambakkam
logically 3d computer animation would have eliminated stop motion animation as stop motion puppet animation was the ONLY real 3d animation for decades. and it hasn't, in fact the two are now complimenting each other. we're just going to see a whole lot more integration and cycles of populairty between all mediums. saying 3d animation is the end of 2d animation is already a defeated argument.
Someone remind me from what movie this joke came from:
An actor, writer, director and producer sit down to lunch. The server brings out the soup. The Actor says "This soup is delicious! Best soup I've ever had. Perfect!" The Writer says "This soup is undeniabley the best soup to ever grace my palate. To alter this soup in anyway would be a travesty!" The Director says "I love the co-mingling of flavors. This soup moves in harmony and it's delicate flavors in perfect balance!" The Producer tries the soup and say "Yeah, this soup is pretty good. But hey you know what would make it even better? What if we all pissed in it!"
ok.. here's my grain of salt..
I don't think it is necessarily false to say 2d is coming to an end..
let me rephrase this..
I don't thinkit is NECESSARULY wrong to say that two d AS DONE BY DISNEY is coming to an end!
What I am trying to say , is that, thank god to the emergence of thee d..
Two d now , for some reason, has a full new world to explore again. DOing things that two d does better than three d, or that three d canno't do.
I am a TWO d animator. I also do three d stuff, but I am A traditional , drawing guy
I ADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDore two d..
The thingis... three d now is giving us the means to do stuff that took ages in the way people usually thought of traditional animation.. the disney style..
For a long time, the main bulk of people had forgotten that there is something else than disney style of two D!!
triplettes of belleville is a good exmaple, isn't it??
so.. what I amsayingis that the king disney is dying( then again!!!!!).. longlive the two d king!
Boutros, hilarious. Harvey, well said. And this is not about 2d against 3d......it's about using the best tools to tell the story that will wind up on the final medium of film. They're all to 2d in the end; some are drawn to get there, some are made in the computer and since Mouse detective, but until a suit had the idea they have to be totally CG , were never exclusive of one another.
I don't want to be bringing up any old arguments between people, but there are some interesting thoughts here in this thread.
I've been studying different expressions of style in animation that lend themselves to different artistic intent.
This might sound a bit academic, and in truth it is, but I've found some interesting lines of thought I'd like to share and discuss.
Firstly Dsiney has always been used in arguments, right back to the hey day of animation in the golden era. Shamus Culhane and William Moritz both talk of Disney of becoming so popular that they became synonomous with animation, and I don't think any could argue with that. They complained then of it obstucting what they called 'true animation' of non-linear and non-objective. (their opinions not mine) Yes Disney developed a style of animation which became popular -both in it's realism of life(conforming to real world laws of nature) and it's medium cel animation. Other companies used the medium of cel animation but went in different ways -Warner Bros. and UPI had thei own styles of wackiness that sometimes held off laws of gravity for comedic effects only possible in animation.
But Disney never stayed the same, and has been evolving continually, trying out new technology, first to use sound and colour, xerox copying, digital for cleaning up drawings, painting, modelling backgrounds and animating. Is it almost a natural progression for them to want to try out new technology like this chicken little stuff?
But that does not mean, as everyone is so passionate about, that 2D is dead or 3D better. Lots of other form of animation have existed throughout the history of animation. Even the stop-motion of Aardman is still thriving in the form of their new movie. And what about the sand animation of caroline leaf, or scratching on film. Lots of forms have always been around, it's just cel was seen as popular to the public and comercially viable.
And I think the most important point that people forget about 3D and 2D animation is that they are all just a means to express animation. We may as well argue why a pencil is better then charcoal for drawing. Then someone might say well they prefer pen. Or that they prefer canvas to paper. So pixar likes computers, that's their style. Doesn't matter whether or not they could have been done in stop motion or even paper cut out.
Aardman are doing some CGI, but what's nice is they stick to their style, even down to the finger prints because thats who they are. And if yuo don't like stop motion, you don't have to see it if you don't want to.
DeVinci was a master of all his mediums. It would be interesting to know if he thought drawing was better then sculpting!
Its ironic how silimiar Wade K's and Harvey Human's red icons look similiar...and the banter they throw at each other...schizophrenic, like Geri in Geri's game! Hah im funny! or am I Wade K...I mean Harvey Human...
Its ironic how silimiar Wade K's and Harvey Human's red icons look similiar...and the banter they throw at each other...schizophrenic, like Geri in Geri's game! Hah im funny! or am I Wade K...I mean Harvey Human...
Ironic, how you appear to be far from the point. :rolleyes:
He who seeks the truth, must first empty his heart of a false pursuit.
finally someone who gets me. Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving Diemera...do you thing 2D animation is dying? Im not sure if I care or not (not about your opinion.. but about the asthetics). I think that in the end they are(2D vs. "3D") the same, tools. Build what you want...right??Critics said that canvas painting would die when photography was first developed, that its functionality had deceased.Consequently artists started to paint to paint...for lack of a better term "for arts sake" and the tradition lives on today in many forms. I see 2D everywhere, as well as "3D"
Our (the viewer) experience with animation is all 2D anyway, were not talking about interactive holography here...we see it all on a screen, a flat screen.
This is Wade K...im out.
p.s. dear Animated Ape...I think Foster's is great fun
heh,all u guys need to move to europe to avoid all this 2d vs 3d stuff,seriously..
Things run so strangly in the u.s. and around that side of the pond....its commericial this commerical that,if it ain't making millions its dead blah blah blah!
*not sure who is actually from over there btw,but it seems most*
Its just too bad its all 90% commercialism and 10% art over there,where it used to be the other way round slightly.
When i think of the animation biz in america the first thing that comes to mind is popularity and bank notes.
But when i think of the animation biz in europe i think of artform and culture,and enough money to support the family...and i've said before i know theres sum guys over there that agree,its not as easy as just starting your own studio,but trying never hurts.
I'm not expecting the *2d VS 3d* to end on this forum ever actually,it'll go on forever until both forms of animation die out, cos by then we'd wud have been taken over by robots ,or in the matrix or sumthin :rolleyes:
I agree, if the stories good, then it's worth watching, whatever way it might be presented. The next animation I'm planning will use whatever means suit the story best!
Pretty well summed up. I guess we are not the only oned who think Eisner is an idiot. However, Purkisma may be blacklisting himself by making statements like this publically (even though it is 100% true). Blacklisting himself not with Disney, as I am sure he does not care what they think, but with others in the industry who might be afraid to hire someone who might just say the same things about them some day, if he works for them and doesn't agree with their practices.
Oh well...
You know, as I was writing my business plan, I had to think of how this move on Disney's part could hurt or help my business... The way I see it (and I hope I am right) is that this opens the door for other studios to make 2D films that people will WANT to see. Before, the market was so flooded with 2 Disney features a year, and I think th public got bored of it. Now if the market is not as flooded, but rather is flooded with 3D features, 2D can possibly make its comeback. It will not take long before people start to get bored with the 3D features being released in mass, and then there may be some balance in what people want to see. Now, 3D is the new thing and people are crazy about it, but after 2+ films are released per year, the interest may fade somewhat.
I hope that a balance can be achieved, as it is great to have films in both mediums loved by the masses.
Cheers
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
quote from pruiksma:"This time he states that 2D, (or more precisely, classically hand drawn) animation is dead. That it has gone the way of black and white film, etc. Obviously Michael has not seen "Manhattan" or "The Elephant Man" or “ Raging Bull” or “The Man Who Wasn’t There” or any of the many other rich and beautiful films that have been made, for artistic reasons (something Eisner would know little about), in black and white, (yes, even after the invention of color film)."
well maybe its good then if it goes the way of black and white...!
use 2D only for artistic reasons i don't see anything wrong about it. Eisner is actually right in that respect (although i'm sure he didn't mean it in that way).
Unfortunately Eisner is not capable of doing anything artistic
so its actually great news that this stream of uninspired shitty formulaic Disney animated features will finally come to an end, thank god
time to move on
pass the stick to someone who has an interest in making good films .. Brad bird for instance:
here he talks about a 2D project(Ray Gun) that might be produced in the future by......Pixar!
BRAD Well, it's two things that are hard to sell in Hollywood. Part of it is sort of film noir, even though to me it's only that in the surface details. Really, it's more of an action movie, and it had a substantial amount of comedy in it. I see it as being very mainstream, but Hollywood saw it as being almost experimental, like, "Whoa, what the heck is this?" In animation, you're always fighting against, "Well, that might upset a 5-year-old." My feeling is, "Well, then, the 5-year-old shouldn't go. Come on, can't we make some other things?" RAY GUNN was not it was PG, you know? Maybe PG-13.
when will these terrible moneygrabbing hollywood execs finally get it and learn that animation is not exclusively for kids???!!!
can't wait for that day
Peter Wassink - Digital 2D Animator
Well, Pwassink, I have to disagree with this statement, with all due respect. How many black and white films are released nowadays? Do you want to see our beloved traditional animation be reduced to one film every 5 years (if we are lucky... I don't know when the last b&w film was released, but it has been a while)? I don't know about you, but I love the medium, as much, if not more than 3D, and I would hate to see it reduced to a "retro" style in everyone's eyes... I also like working traditionally, as I am sure many others do, and if it is reduced to this retro style, then there will be a lot less work for us all (us 2D dinosaurs). I think that there can be a balance between the two. Use 2D if the film would be benefitted by it, and 3D likewise, and live action, when it is called for. When looking at a screenplay, it is quite obvious what medium it should/could be done in immediately. It should not simply be done in 3D, just because that is the flavour of this month. I believe it was Phacker who made the observation that "the Incredibles" would probably have benefitted by being done traditionally, and I do not totally disagree with that. However, it IS a Pixar film, and they ARE a 3D studio...
Cheers
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
pwas- i totally agree that it would be nice to stop the flow of crap coming out of disney, I can't believe they have andreas deja working on Bambi 2. What an incredible waste of talent, any company that would do that deserves to fall by the waste side.
swade- I can't remember the quote exactly, but i remember hearing brad bird talk about medium, and how he didn't believe medium and story where intertwined. If you have a good story, you should be able to tell it how ever you choose. Which i tend to agree with, however, i can't imagine toy story the same in 2d, but it could have been told in 2d. As far as the incredibles in 2d. yeah it totally could have been done in 2d and well. But i am very glad pixar is doing it in 3d, because it is going to push the medium. If anyone can get the 3d to approach 2d, its gonna be brad and pixar, and that is very exciting!
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios
www.mattshumway.com
www.enigmathemovie.com
[/b][/size]
BAMBI 2?!!? YOU'RE KIDDING!!!:mad: :mad: EISNER SUCKS!!!
Visit My Online Portfolio!
Who's Swade? ;)
Well, your toy story point is the best example I would be able to come up with as well. Yes, any story CAN be told in any medium, most would be best suited for one in particular. Toy STory is best suited for 3D, as the characters are toys (inanimate objects), and perfection and solidity of these toys is a must. The incredibles, being human characters, would be better suited for 2D, but Pixar is not going to be doing that any time soon. If there were a "Transformers" movie, for example (I know there was one years ago, anyone ho ants to throw that at me), due to the level of detail and technical animation, it would be best to animate it in 3D. You see what I am getting at? If there were a film full of realistic humans who board a magical train which takes them to the North Pole, it would probably be best to do it in Live, with some CG effects and animated elements (i.e. the train). Hehehe... Had to throw that in there, but it really does justify my point.
Sure, Pixar has the right to do their film in 3D, scratching on film, or painted with coloured dog pooh, but I honestly believe that this story would just have been better suited for 2D. I am still REALLY looking forward to seeing it though, regardless, as it DOES look great.
I hope what I am saying makes sense. I dunno... I have been animating in Maya all day, and my brain tends to have little farts, leaving me unable to explain myself clearly. Damned graph editor.
Cheers
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
actually there is a new transformers movie in the making, cgi + live action as roumors says.
the old transformers movie was hand drawen & painted with cells as well as the backgrounds, TOEI animation studios really rocked those days (also with G.I.Joe the movie), now you can find them making the digimon cartoon.. very sad that the came to that level.
well, 2d is not dead it has been neglected thats for sure.
last disney movie like 'brother bear' probably showed how far really animated disney films suppose to be than the ones it should has been [accourding to walk disney ideas and ambition].
3d was/is new at the time and people who are want to be able to enjoy this new era, that's fine and all by me.
as i said, i don't like 3D as much as i like 2D because of personal involvment in the makingm latest tools [ie: maya] and plugins will produce effects & simulations where only few clicks of a mouse needed.
everyone ahs the right to choose whatever he wants and feel good with it, so go for it, just hold your position because studios tend to fire it's artists for new blood (less money for payment :D).
1 green paper to rule them all ..
Visit my site http://www.animdesk.com
Awe jeez... I kind of figured there might be one either in the making, or close to it. May even have heard about it, I don't remember. THAT will be a film that warrants the use of 3D, for sure. I sure would not want to be the poor bastard who has to animate thos transformers. I can only imagine how much detail the CG ones will have on them.
Cheers
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
I'm gonna have to dissagree with some of you. I think all the 3D movies could have been done, and worked well, as traditional animated movies except for three movies. The three I'm talking about are "Bugs Life," "Nemo," and "Antz." The reason I say this is because of the character masses. Who would really want to animate thousands, if not millions of ants running around an ant hole? Or big schools of fish? I think the Toy Stories would worked good as traditional because they were great stories. "The Incredibles" could totally be done tradititionally, but in todays market, is there a traditional studio that you would want to see animate it? Disney? Warner Bros? Dreamworks? Hell no! I think he went to PIXAR because they are the only studio that would let him tell the story he wants, and because they have some of the most talented animators around. Sounds like a good plan to me :D
The Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
well the 3D tools could have been used for the sheer masses of characters, but rendered in 2D, like they had done in Lion King with the Wildebeasts. However, I agree with you that these films were well suited for 3D because of what you say.
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
going into Wade's best suited argument...
but i think that the medium finally chosen to tell a certain story in, will from then on be an useparatable part of that story
in other words to ask if toy story would or would not work in 2D is not a valid question toy story is what it is because it is 3D the excact same story could have been done in 2D but it would have been a totally different film. which could have been just as succesfull and pleasing but it would have been a different film
another good example is Grave of the firefly, i've heard people say it might as well be done as a live-action, but then it would have been a different film, it is special excactly because it is animated
Peter Wassink - Digital 2D Animator
Guess I'm too late...oh well.
Agreed. I feel the same way about The Wings of Honneamise. The character designs and expressions (and in some cases, even the inconsistent-at-times animation quality) combine to make it endearing to me for some reason. I love Wings, but if it were live action I probably wouldn't like it half as much as I do. Oddly enough though, I don't see this as a shortcoming of the script but as a strong point of its animation.
-Cookaburra
Don't lay it on me, Wade. As usual, you started this fight (post #12) by making personal attacks rather than simply disagreeing and debating.
You are responsible for turning a large portion of this thread to crap. Right off the bat you called me delusional because I said that I don't like 3D television shows and you expect me not to defend myself? Dream on, trouble-maker.
In the future (I've suggested this to him dozens of times so why do I even bother?) simply disagree with a person or ask them to explain a comment you are confused by. Don't start off by attacking a person's character, or by dragging in your anger over past threads.
Yeah.
Cooka, I don't buy it.
You're going to have to show me a specific post where I made a "big logic jump." Until you do so, I'll simply have to take it for the B.S. it appears to be: a snide attempt to trash someone's character without evidence, motivated by a petty months-old grudge.
Besides which, I wasn't so much complaining about the nonsensical "big logic jump" as I was about the personal attack: Wade's implying that I'm delusional because I'm pleased with the state of 2D television.
Is one hypocritical if he complains about a personal attack, since chances are he's made his own personal attack sometime in his life? Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?
Did you ever hit somebody when you were a kid? Well then, don't complain if someone pounds away at your face. That would make you a hypocrite. ;)
That comment was addressed to someone named Wade. Is your name Wade?
And, yes, Wade said that I said "a couple" unemployed animators when, in fact, I never said it. How is that a generalization?
As I stated before, the post I originally referred to has long since been lost. I don't care about the state of your character one way or the other. I've explained my point, and (with your help) went on to provide proof using quotes from this very thread. In this discussion I've proven more of my observations than you have your labeling of my points as "lies" and "B.S.".
As for the petty months old grudge thing- I don't post here very often, so of course I'd remember when one person was especially aggressive toward me, but this is a discussion on the internet, pure and simple. I happened to notice you complaining about something you had used on me before, so I decided to point it out to you.
I don't really care about what you see Wade as implying or the reasoning behind what you posted. Here's your exact quote: "Saying I haven't seen a 3D show that appeals to me obviously does not mean that I think nobody in the universe likes 3D television shows. "
You're refuting Wade's claim based on the idea that a single case doesn't imply a generalization. You go on to make a generalization about a singular case of my own. I point out how this, in addition to the older thread I originally paraphrased, is hypocritical. All of this is explained in my previous post. What part of this isn't getting through to you?
Let's try out your personal attack motive:
Say for a second that in your original "Saying I haven't seen a 3D show..." message you weren't complaining about the logic jump. Let's say, as you suggested, that you were complaining because a personal attack was made on you, and thusly you are not yet a hypocrite. This is from one of your replies to Wade after the "Saying I haven't seen a 3D show..." message:
That seems a lot like a personal attack to me. Whether or not it was a rebuttal doesn't change that fact. You complain about a personal attack, and then in less than 2 hours you make one of your own.
Great point, except for the fact that I wasn't complaining about someone else doing something to me that I had previously done to someone else. You were; it does apply to you.
Even going along with the mentioned "sometime in his life" and "when you were a kid" time considerations, we still aren't talking about a large timeframe difference. The post I originally mentioned as evidence couldn't have been more than a year old, and the other quotes I cited were from this thread- pretty darn recent.
In case you didn't notice, this is a message board. The idea is that other people see and participate in the discussion. If you don't like getting comments from other people, then don't post comments on a public message board. It's as simple as that.
-Cookaburra
Just noticed this-
You cut that quote short. Look at it again.
As you can see, my comments on the quote in question appear under the quote block. I didn't say that "a couple" was a generalization. I was showing that you accused someone else of distorting, and then I commented on it.
-Cookaburra
Yikes, way too many lies, embarrassing factual errors, and twisted logic to respond to.
I'll keep it simple: I am in the right because all I did was defend myself. You and Wade are in the wrong because you attacked me, unprovoked, and made up a bunch of crazy crap about me.
A bit of advice people: PLEASE try to be more civil. If you disagree with someone, please try to do so in a civil and rational manner. Most of all, don't jump into the middle of someone else's argument like an angry, pouting infant. Just let the argument die down. Don't try to escalate it.
Thanks
Actually, I've explained my position and provided proof from this very thread. Calling my claims "lies" and "embarrassing factual errors" doesn't prove anything, no matter how many times you do so.
If you can't follow the logic I used then it's your own fault as I've explained myself thoroughly.
I used quotes from this thread as proof. How is my claim that you were being hypocritical "made up" then? Do the quotes not exist? I think I can prove they exist- they appear in this thread.
I'm merely pointing out a fact- that your complaining about Wade's post was hypocritical. Your blatant hypocrisy was the provocation for my post. Are you actually unclear about this?
You kept replying, I kept posting. It's called a dialog. If you want to label it as an attack, then that's your prerogative.
I've only pointed out how hypocritical it is to complain about something that you've done in the past, then went on to defend my position. To my knowledge I've been well within the rules established for this board the entire time. You asked me to explain myself and I did. You can label my approach as lacking civility if it makes you feel better- it doesn't bother me. I know that I've stuck to the truth and made my point.
Angry, pouting infant? Hardly. I've been nothing but calm throughout this entire dialog. I've provided facts to back up my claims and explained the logic I used. How is this infantile?
If you don't like how the argument has escalated, then you need to be ready to accept half of the blame yourself. I never forced you to read my posts, and you kept challenging them. It's not my fault that you can't prove your side of this.
Just let the argument die down?
If you make false or erroneous points about me or my posts, then I'll defend. Don't make more of them, and I won't. It's really very simple. Other than that, I don't start and stop replying at your mere whim.
-Cookaburra
I don't really consider my post (#12 as you pointed out) to be a personal attack at all. I told you my opinion of what you were saying. I did not call you a troll, nor did I get all that rude with you. I am not going to get into a pissing match to see who provoked whom, as I cannot win. Nobody can win against you Harvey, so I will leave it at that.
I do love it though how when I disagree with you (or anyone else for that matter), you call it personal attacks. Gimme a break. I have much more constructive ways to spend my time than coming on a forum, looking for one guy who I don't like, and provoking him. I have my views, and make them clear to anyone who cares.
Have you ever wondered why EVERYONE is apparently "attacking you personally"? That is because theya re not. You are making yourself out to be some sort of victim, and you get people fired up whenever you argue with them after they disagree with one of you "points", and tell them they are ATTACKING YOU.
If you want the "personal attacks" to stop, then I would suggest you stop on your end, calling peoples' opinions "asinine" or calling them trolls. Sound familiar, Harv? THAT, my friend, is a PERSONAL ATTACK.
Grow up / Get over yourself.
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
actually wade, a personal attack might be, oh i don't know... hunting down someone's address and making fun of where they live, then posting it on a public forum. But Harv aka. greg, would never do anything like that. (o:
guys, its best to just drop it , he is just going to keep quoting you and calling you trolls. How about we get back to talking about what most of us do...animation. (o:
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios
www.mattshumway.com
www.enigmathemovie.com
[/b][/size]
I'm sorry Eisner (and many others) seems to think that Disney=Animation. Just because Disney decides to change to 3-D doesn't mean that 2-D is going down. 2-D will never die. Comparing it to black and white TV seems to me to be very short sighted.
2-D animation will never die. The invention of photography did not kill painting. Why would animation be any different?
Dancing Cavy Productions
http://dancingcavy.deviantart.com
Hi Dancing Cavy, haven't seen you in a while.
"I'm sorry Eisner (and many others) seems to think that Disney=Animation. Just because Disney decides to change to 3-D doesn't mean that 2-D is going down..."
You pretty much hit the nail on the head DC. Most if not all the artists know that Disney isn't the only game in town, and just becuase Disney is leaving 2D doesn't mean it's dead. The scary thing is that a lot if not most of the general public thinks all animation is Disney. The Kid's usually know,because they're smart, but the adults have no clue. I've worked at the Disney Store for a few years, and we had people ask for Bug's Bunny, Kermit (although not technically animation) Shrek, Anastasia, and Sarah and Petree. People see Disney as the Animation, and if they say something, then it must be true. That's what I'm worried about. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true, but if enough people believe it, then it can become the truth.
The Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
I'll try to keep this short, Cooka. You only seem to pop into the forum to fight me (am I really THAT provocative?), so I don't want to indulge you too much.
First of all, your characterizations of me in previous conflicts with you is simply untrue.
That's why I called them lies.
That thread is lost now, so there's no way I can dig it up to prove you are "exaggerating," and that your logic was as warped in that thread as it is in this one.
Secondly, you're saying it's inherently hypocritical for most people to complain about being attacked, since chances are they've made an attack at some time in the past. And I suppose you're also a hypocrite for countering MY complaints and ridicule with your OWN complaints and ridicule. Okay, so maybe everyone in the world is a hyprocrite since - at one time or another - they break their own rules. But it's really a trite argument and beside the point. People (including myself) can make all the crazy claims they want on this forum. Fine. I'm only bothered when overly emotional individuals make the issue personal by ripping into someone's character. And, yes, if someone attacks me, I might attack back; although I realize that responding in kind is probably just giving them what they want.
Anyway, I don't think I've ever had such a dumb and boring argument as the one I've having with you, Cooka. You might have to find someone else to pick fights with. I doubt I'll read any more of your posts, since around 75 percent of them are somewhat desperate attacks on me.
i totally agree. disney is defentally a driving force, or was. But just cause disney isn't doing it anymore doesn't make it the end of the art form. Those united commercials come to mind. That rose one is one of the most beautiful commercials i have seen in a long time.
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios
www.mattshumway.com
www.enigmathemovie.com
[/b][/size]
Well, I was expecting an intelligent repsonse such as this.
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
Thank you! I was expecting another asinine response from you, but you surprised me for once.
Okay. Until the next time you decide to launch another foolish, reactionary attack. Sometime soon, I'll probably be saying that I like other things as well, so prepare yourself. I might, for example, say that I like the state of police protection in my city, but don't like the noise level. That will be your cue to accuse me of disrespecting the unemployed policemen as well as living in a fantasy world where I believe that everyone in the world dislikes the noise level.
From the article:
"Pixar would benefit from Disney's marketing machine and that the two companies would do well to work together to make sequels of previous hits, like "Monsters, Inc." and last year's "Finding Nemo," Eisner argued."
WHAT'S HIS DEAL WITH F___NG SEQUELS....and WHYYYY is Eisner still the CEO of freakin' DISNEY? I HATE this man!!!!!!:mad:
Visit My Online Portfolio!
wade..
what is it that you have against chomet???
P.
To make a long story short, I know him personally, and he is less than admirable. He has doen a lot of things to friends of mine that cost them their jobs, even though, the goof-ups were HIS fault. I just have NO respect for the hack. The only probable reason that this film did as well as it did, is that Chomet had a lot of truly talented people working on it who saved his ass. I say "probable" because I do not know this for certain, but am going on Chomet's track record.
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
Makes sense!
I don't know anything about the guy.. just asking.
Thanks for the feedback!
P.
Yeah I have to agree with you Wade. I don't know what the big deal about "Triplets" is either. The style looked nice, and I really liked the dog, because he acts like a dog, but other than that, I think it would've worked better as a half hour short.
I think the problem with this quote: "'The 2-D business is coming to an end, just like black and white came to an end,' Eisner said." is that it's a blanket statement about all 2D. He doesn't say "our" like just Disney, but "The" like as in the artform as a whole. This quote could've been taken out of context, but who knows. It is still something he shouldn't be saying as the CEO of the world's most well know animation studio.
You're right Harvey, I haven't seen a good 3D TV show yet either. The best one I've seen was probably Starship Troopers Roughnecks. We'll see how Dreamworks' "Father of the Pride" fairs later this year, but as for now, the current crop of 3D shows is pretty dismal.
Aloha,
The Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
We are looking for 2D and 3D animators and web designers from Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India to do our foreign projects (on freelance basis), hence hereby inviting you to send us your detailed CV with the following:
1. Recent photo (any size)
2. Brief about skillset and of projects handled
3. Contact details
4. Time to reach Nungambakkam
Please forward your email ID and resumes to grafiks.mail@gmail.com
Sumaidh Shah
logically 3d computer animation would have eliminated stop motion animation as stop motion puppet animation was the ONLY real 3d animation for decades. and it hasn't, in fact the two are now complimenting each other. we're just going to see a whole lot more integration and cycles of populairty between all mediums. saying 3d animation is the end of 2d animation is already a defeated argument.
sooner or later.. with so many animation companies around.. someone will make some REALLY bad films and give animation bad name :(
Over confidence kills..
i think pixar should continue on quality not on quantity...
or they'll just end up like disney..
i fear pretty soon will release new movies every year and some of them will fall and suddenly everything will start to look like crap..
i hope PIXAR always stride for the story and quality :p
Please join my new websites :D
www.EvanIslam.com
Someone remind me from what movie this joke came from:
An actor, writer, director and producer sit down to lunch. The server brings out the soup. The Actor says "This soup is delicious! Best soup I've ever had. Perfect!" The Writer says "This soup is undeniabley the best soup to ever grace my palate. To alter this soup in anyway would be a travesty!" The Director says "I love the co-mingling of flavors. This soup moves in harmony and it's delicate flavors in perfect balance!" The Producer tries the soup and say "Yeah, this soup is pretty good. But hey you know what would make it even better? What if we all pissed in it!"
Eisner should stop pissing in the soup.
ok.. here's my grain of salt..
I don't think it is necessarily false to say 2d is coming to an end..
let me rephrase this..
I don't thinkit is NECESSARULY wrong to say that two d AS DONE BY DISNEY is coming to an end!
What I am trying to say , is that, thank god to the emergence of thee d..
Two d now , for some reason, has a full new world to explore again. DOing things that two d does better than three d, or that three d canno't do.
I am a TWO d animator. I also do three d stuff, but I am A traditional , drawing guy
I ADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDore two d..
The thingis... three d now is giving us the means to do stuff that took ages in the way people usually thought of traditional animation.. the disney style..
For a long time, the main bulk of people had forgotten that there is something else than disney style of two D!!
triplettes of belleville is a good exmaple, isn't it??
so.. what I amsayingis that the king disney is dying( then again!!!!!).. longlive the two d king!
just my grain of salt!
P.
Boutros, hilarious. Harvey, well said. And this is not about 2d against 3d......it's about using the best tools to tell the story that will wind up on the final medium of film. They're all to 2d in the end; some are drawn to get there, some are made in the computer and since Mouse detective, but until a suit had the idea they have to be totally CG , were never exclusive of one another.
For Halloween I thought I'd resurrect a monster thread.
BUWWWAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAAA!
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
Hello!
I don't want to be bringing up any old arguments between people, but there are some interesting thoughts here in this thread.
I've been studying different expressions of style in animation that lend themselves to different artistic intent.
This might sound a bit academic, and in truth it is, but I've found some interesting lines of thought I'd like to share and discuss.
Firstly Dsiney has always been used in arguments, right back to the hey day of animation in the golden era. Shamus Culhane and William Moritz both talk of Disney of becoming so popular that they became synonomous with animation, and I don't think any could argue with that. They complained then of it obstucting what they called 'true animation' of non-linear and non-objective. (their opinions not mine) Yes Disney developed a style of animation which became popular -both in it's realism of life(conforming to real world laws of nature) and it's medium cel animation. Other companies used the medium of cel animation but went in different ways -Warner Bros. and UPI had thei own styles of wackiness that sometimes held off laws of gravity for comedic effects only possible in animation.
But Disney never stayed the same, and has been evolving continually, trying out new technology, first to use sound and colour, xerox copying, digital for cleaning up drawings, painting, modelling backgrounds and animating. Is it almost a natural progression for them to want to try out new technology like this chicken little stuff?
But that does not mean, as everyone is so passionate about, that 2D is dead or 3D better. Lots of other form of animation have existed throughout the history of animation. Even the stop-motion of Aardman is still thriving in the form of their new movie. And what about the sand animation of caroline leaf, or scratching on film. Lots of forms have always been around, it's just cel was seen as popular to the public and comercially viable.
And I think the most important point that people forget about 3D and 2D animation is that they are all just a means to express animation. We may as well argue why a pencil is better then charcoal for drawing. Then someone might say well they prefer pen. Or that they prefer canvas to paper. So pixar likes computers, that's their style. Doesn't matter whether or not they could have been done in stop motion or even paper cut out.
Aardman are doing some CGI, but what's nice is they stick to their style, even down to the finger prints because thats who they are. And if yuo don't like stop motion, you don't have to see it if you don't want to.
DeVinci was a master of all his mediums. It would be interesting to know if he thought drawing was better then sculpting!
Its ironic how silimiar Wade K's and Harvey Human's red icons look similiar...and the banter they throw at each other...schizophrenic, like Geri in Geri's game! Hah im funny! or am I Wade K...I mean Harvey Human...
Ironic, how you appear to be far from the point. :rolleyes:
He who seeks the truth, must first empty his heart of a false pursuit.
Diemeras Dark Angel
finally someone who gets me. Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving Diemera...do you thing 2D animation is dying? Im not sure if I care or not (not about your opinion.. but about the asthetics). I think that in the end they are(2D vs. "3D") the same, tools. Build what you want...right??Critics said that canvas painting would die when photography was first developed, that its functionality had deceased.Consequently artists started to paint to paint...for lack of a better term "for arts sake" and the tradition lives on today in many forms. I see 2D everywhere, as well as "3D"
Our (the viewer) experience with animation is all 2D anyway, were not talking about interactive holography here...we see it all on a screen, a flat screen.
This is Wade K...im out.
p.s. dear Animated Ape...I think Foster's is great fun
heh,all u guys need to move to europe to avoid all this 2d vs 3d stuff,seriously..
Things run so strangly in the u.s. and around that side of the pond....its commericial this commerical that,if it ain't making millions its dead blah blah blah!
*not sure who is actually from over there btw,but it seems most*
Its just too bad its all 90% commercialism and 10% art over there,where it used to be the other way round slightly.
When i think of the animation biz in america the first thing that comes to mind is popularity and bank notes.
But when i think of the animation biz in europe i think of artform and culture,and enough money to support the family...and i've said before i know theres sum guys over there that agree,its not as easy as just starting your own studio,but trying never hurts.
I'm not expecting the *2d VS 3d* to end on this forum ever actually,it'll go on forever until both forms of animation die out, cos by then we'd wud have been taken over by robots ,or in the matrix or sumthin :rolleyes:
ANIMATION FORUM
Production Blog
The last two films I have made have used 2d and 3d combinned. At the end of the day it's what benefits the story - that's STORY!
The Brothers McLeod
[SIZE=2]brothersmcleod.co.uk[/SIZE]
I agree, if the stories good, then it's worth watching, whatever way it might be presented. The next animation I'm planning will use whatever means suit the story best!
Pages