| 1. | (22 posts) | CG vs. Cels, No Respect for "Yamadas" |
We looked at 50 posts by 31 different contributors.
Wow. A single-thread week, I feel so dirty.
The largest thread this week revolved around the "CG vs. cel" dichotomy (or: The Argument That Can Not Be Solved). Glen Stark started it off with, "it seems modern american audiences really judge an animated work by how glossy and polished it is... regard the high regard for Shrek for example, and not so much on the story or charm factor. I loved kiki, but it may seem a bit primitive for a us theatrical audience."
Hanno Mueller replied, "I don't know. I like Shrek for its story and most of my fellow moviegoers went there because they were told before how funny it is.
True, the humour of Shrek isn't for everyone, but most reviews I read praised the movie mainly for its fun, not for its look.
Disagreement from Robin Casady, "Kiki is cel animation. Shrek is CGI. In the USA, cel animation has the cartoon stigma. CGI is considered cool. . . I have a couple friends who couldn't get past the fact that Kiki and Totoro are cartoons. Cartoons have such bad connotations for them that they couldn't get into the story."
Jeff Gaskell toed the middle line, "For me, cell drawn 2D, computer 3D, live action, or any combination makes no difference. If the story is good and told well, I don't care what form it takes."
Warren Savage replied, "Then you, sir, are in the minority portion of the audience. A majority of the audience are swayed by surface 'looks' and wouldn't know a deeper meaning if it bit them in the @**. For the majority of the audience, cool rules."
Chris Wallace posted the obvious counter, "Then why did "Final Fantasy" tank so hard? I mean, you don't get much cooler than photo-realistic CG.
The people in the Toy Story animations are a joke compared to FF, yet Toy Story clobbered FF. Even "Shrek" was inferior to FF in CG and pulled in better numbers.
The biggest complaint of FF was the lack of a solid story.
The (arguably) biggest raves of both Shrek and Toy Story were the stories.
And heck, "Tron" was the coolest of the cool, yet did horrible in the theatres.
While I agree Special Effects can improve a movie, they cannot *make* a movie. Witness "Pearl Harbor".
Robin commented, "There is CGI software that creates the cel look. It is already heavily in use. Hand drawn animation is already obsolete, but the style may survive for a long time. Shrek is pushing the 3D CGI style in facial expression accuracy. It was state-of-the-art when it came out, but it probably wont be next year.
The 3D style will continue to develop and change with technology. The cel style will probably remain, but be generated with CGI techniques. In a number of cases the 3D style as been merged with cel style. If it isn't done very smoothly, anime fans howl. So, the software to make 3D objects look like they were cel drawn has market pressure to become better and better.
There are people who like the cel style and are not eager to see it replaced by 3D. As long as there are enough people who like the style, it will be used -- regardless of the way it is generated.
David Athay tossed in, "I like Miyazaki's work and the reason I like the classic Disney movies is not the for the mere quality of the animation. I have seen a lot of spectacularly animated films that I hated. Rather, I like those films for there ability to tell a story through their art. That is the one thing that I have seen in Miyazaki's film's as well as films by John Lassiter and Nick Park. These artists have managed to tell well thought out stories through moderate to fine art and the results have been some true master pieces.
Am I making my point here? You see there is something intagible about the way those artist work that I really have a hard time explaining to people. I usually find the best way to explain it is just show them the films and let them figure it out for themselves.
The thread took a turn with Michael Kerpan posting, "Studio Ghibli has already demonstrated that CGI can, perhaps, be used most effectively and creatively in producing a complete UNrealistic work of art. How feasible would the Yamadas have been, if created by traditional methods?
Because I just happened to find it, here's an intersting article on CGI and The Yamadas:
(Galette/Interview with Atsushi Okui)
(BTW, why is it that one of Ghibli's most striking and innovative works gets short shrift even on this list?) ;-}
Sharon Westfall replied, "Yamadas got short changed at the box office too, though. Even the Japanese prefer realistic looking CGI."
Robin thought of other reasons, "I don't think CGI had anything to do with it. Yamadas was different than other Ghibli films in style, plot, and character development. It was a departure from the magic formula that makes Ghibli films successful.
When you go to Ghibli film you expect a certain visual style. Whether a fantasy world like Nausicaa or Kiki, a nostalgic view in Totoro, or even a contemporary urban environment like Whisper, it is always rich with visual detail and beautiful lighting. Yamadas was done in an abreviated sketchy style.
Lee Johnson (who really, really, likes the movie) wrote, "I imagine it's because a) It's not Miyazaki, b) It's recent and therefore not widely seen, c) It did not do well in Japan, especially so after Mononoke, and d) It's different. . . I still haven't seen anything which remotely resembles "Yamadas" Technically and plot-wise."
Just to resolve something in this thread, Sharon wrote, "it seems like the current trend in animation is CGI (Shrek, Monsters Inc., Ice Age...) To me it's like apples and oranges, but maybe not to everyone.
Would be interesting to find out John Lasseter's take on the 2, since he's most famous for CGI (Toy Story) and steering the Spirited Away effort.
David Mankins replied, "Lasseter is a traditional (cel) animator who ended up at Pixar. Back in the early days of Pixar (when they were still making demo tapes, like _Red's Dream_ or _The story of ??? and Wally B._), a lot of people said that a good deal of the charm of their work came from the fact that it was made by a cartoonist who just happened to have very good tools and very smart collaborators."
Sharon closed with, "That would make his opinion even more valuable, because he is experienced in both mediums, and not biased because he knows only one."
"Spirited Away" makes its North American (subtitled) debut at the San Fancisco International Film Festival. Shun Chan spend a few days hangin' with Roger Ebert on the high seas. Michael Johnson spun tales about his trip to the Studio Ghibli Museum.
Lite week, thankfully. Finals week is Not Fun. See you next week!