Would you want to see traditional animation come back?

For the Hypothetical Adventure Time traditionally animated film, I think it's a given that it will be accompanied by a traditionally animated Regular Show short film.

You are displaying abnormally high compulsions to over-analyze works of fiction and media. Diagnosis: TV Tropes Addiction.

I agree. I think they might eventually do a movie for Regular Show if they do one for Adventure Time.

I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!

I can't see a Regular Show movie getting a theatrical release, cool as that'd be.

I'm not sure Aardman is too mainstream outside of the U.K. or Europe.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

Maybe not a movie, but as a pre-show thing like Loony Tunes could work.

Yeah, I think Aardman is more mainstream in the U.K. than in America, although I think their most popular work in the U.S. is Wallace and Gromit.

I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!

That'd be correct.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

It's still one of the more important companies overall. There aren't many which do movies and even less which make more than one or two movies and then vanishing again.

To me, it is less about how it is done, but how it looks like. It's certainly impressive when stop motion is done the old fashioned way, but I for my part can't really see if a movie is stop motion or CGI pretending to be stop motion just from looking at it. I can suspect that more details are a hint to CGI, but that's all. And if they ever find a way to make CGI look like traditional animation the way they did in Paperman - well, then I can life with it, too.

Currently though there is this trend to make CGI movies, in which cartoony characters prance in front of realistic looking backgrounds - and I really don't care for this style. I don't want animation which looks "real" (then you can do a movie with real actors from the get go), I want animation which looks artful, in which the background and the characters fit and which are creative.

I am really missing the Disney Acid Sequences.

I don't want animation which looks "real" (then you can do a movie with real actors from the get go), I want animation which looks artful, in which the background and the characters fit and which are creative.

-claps- ;__;

Come back?... It didn't go anywhere.

edited 17th Mar '14 11:45:50 AM by KlarkKentThe3rd

I agree with this also.

edited 17th Mar '14 11:49:43 AM by Rabbitearsblog

I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!

Can't argue with that logic...

But complaining ain't gonna fix the problem, neither...

Either way - words to live by.

Even if I had different face, I AM STILL DISGRACED.

I only wish I could make myself work more. That way I may become an illustrator or character designer (even on the side) and contribute to the artform I love so much.

See, I don't necessarily agree with this logic. Both are totally acceptable forms of expression and art and both have their place. If we were to take this argument and apply it to art in general, that would mean that you're saying that, say, this◊ or this◊ isn't at all artful compared to something like this◊, or this◊, or even this◊. And that's blatantly untrue. Each is just as artful and worthy of consideration as the next.

TL;DR: Don't be such a snob, man.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

Bad example, because I didn't say "I don't like animation with people in it". And neither examples look like photography.

Being picky about my examples doesn't invalidate my point.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

This is one of my favorites: it's a conceptual piece for Wreck It Ralph done by a former long time animator Nik Ranieri. It was posted on his facebook page the same day it was announced he was being let go after 26 years.

Really, just try watching it and not looking at it as a metaphor for a cry of anguished determination for traditional artists.

edited 18th Mar '14 12:28:10 AM by Mattonymy

You are displaying abnormally high compulsions to over-analyze works of fiction and media. Diagnosis: TV Tropes Addiction.

• tears up*

Though I have to say that Wreck-it-Ralph is one of the few movies in which the use of the CGI WORKS! It has the right "in the computer" look, I really love how the movements of the characters are different depending on how old the game in question is, the backgrounds are unbelievable creative....THAT works. (Other examples for movies which do it right are, btw, The Incredibles, Tangled (though I wish they had gone all out for the Mother knows best sequence in this one), Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc and Rise of the Guardians). I mostly object against movies which don't bother to match up the backgrounds with the character design (Brave) or in which the use of CGI feels like a gimmick.

To clarify my point: I have nothing against CGI in principle...but if there is only CGI it would be as if all the paintings out there were drawn in the same style. But I want more than that.

edited 18th Mar '14 4:16:49 AM by Swanpride

I think I'm one of the few people that think Frozen would have been vastly improved in a gorgeous hand drawn medium than cgi. The designs just scream traditional animation, so to have it not be is really a missed opportunity.

You are displaying abnormally high compulsions to over-analyze works of fiction and media. Diagnosis: TV Tropes Addiction.

Awww...it would have been interesting if "Wreck-It Ralph" was in traditional animation, but on the other hand, I think the CGI look worked for "Wreck-It Ralph" since it was in a video game world. I agree that if all the animation was in CGI, then everything would have looked the same and lack the diversity of various art forms in animation.

I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!

Oddly, it would make sense if anything outside of the video game worlds were filmed in live-action!

There are some films where CGI would be best suited for the subject matter, and yet we've been seeing EVERY POSSIBLE ANIMATED FILM being done in CGI anyway!

edited 18th Mar '14 1:29:28 PM by kyun

Yeah, of all the movies to try to make a case around 2D for, Wreck It Ralph is one of the worst candidates. A video game movie like that really is better off with CGI. It's one of those movies where being in 2d would just look weird.

I agree that because Wreck It Ralph is set in a video game universe, CGI would really fit the universe it's in. A better case to make about 2D animation would be around Tangled since that contains a traditional sense of storytelling and 2D animation could work for it (even though I didn't mind the movie being in CGI).

I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!

@someone in the thread

While you totally meant "there is room in this world for all kinds of animation, realistic and not", what the industry is like... is something different. It is an "all or nothing" kind of land. No one is interested in satisfying the needs of all individuals in the audience. The industry will produce what is the most popular at the moment, and completely ignore all other options, formats, and styles. Money will only be put into ONE THING. I am still waiting for a good NOT realistic 2D animated movie from USA, but I guess I will have to settle for Europe and Japan for satisfying my needs.

Well, not for nothing, at least as far as Disney goes, they always design the characters in 2-D first before making the 3-D models, so, really, the traditional animation-ish look isn't exactly unexpected.

I do agree (as far as I've seen, since I've never actually seen the movie yet) with those saying Wreck It Ralph's 3-D animation fit it best...but (to play Devil's Advocate for a minute), only because it was set in the video game world? The original Tron would like to have a word with you—none of its special effects were computer generated, but instead traditionally animated.

edited 18th Mar '14 5:18:14 PM by Odd1

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

I'm also still waiting for the U.S to put out another 2D animated movie also. It's a good thing that Japan and some of the European countries are still putting out traditional animation!

I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!