You can barely compare these 2, the gears animation is looped while the 1991 animation involves the camera flying across the field fast paced. There are so many angles in the 1991 animation that 3D would have been the best option, which it was, even if it looks dated
And how do you know how long that specific shot took to make? And if you do know then please tell me (and provide proof)
5 months ago
guy
Because it took about 2 years, the thing was commissioned by a Saudi prince. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_bXMnKZpIM
Thief was sabotaged because people would be clamoring for more movies on ones and not relying on CGI, if they saw disney continue to use CGI after the success of Thief, Disney would get a lot of backlash for being lazy.
5 months ago
Anonymous
even if the animation is hand drawn and looks good, the production was still way too long. Hell, Lion King took just four years to make. The problem with the thief and the cobbler was that it was too ambitious for its time and it couldn't even be finished before warner bros stepped in
5 months ago
guy
well then that meant disney just had to animate twice as much frames and animate the camera movement not relying on CGI at any point. Then I might have liked their movies a little more, but they didn't do that did they?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Are you talking about rock a doodle? It's not a disney film
5 months ago
guy
disney relies on CGI. They should have animated the cave of wonders on ones without the CG, they were fully capable of doing that, they just chose not to because they are hacks.
They could have animated the tower rolling around in the snow without the CGI, but again they are hacks.
5 months ago
Anonymous
mate it's called working smarter not harder
5 months ago
guy
Roger Rabbit didn't rely on CGI though and was animated on ones, and it was a success. So clearly working harder paid off.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Roger Rabbit had a good story while the two movies mentioned ITT didn't
5 months ago
Anonymous
Roger rabbit was 1/3 animated, it's not really comparable but you seem too moron to understand that
5 months ago
guy
yeah and then Warner decided to proceed with a fully animated movie on ones for Williams Studio, and that made WDAS pissy on top of them being pissy over already being upstaged by richard williams studio on Roger Rabbit. WDAS didn't want people flocking to Warner's movie for running circles around Disney's animation style.
When techniques are new, you're bound to make a lot of garbage before you figure out what it's capable of. Old Felix the cat cartoons weren't exactly peak cartoon comedy. Studios are also a business and need to make balances between budget and schedule. Yeah, sure, Akira can have all its running backgrounds drawn by hand; the animators weren't getting paid nearly the same amount as a Disney animator at the same time. They also received funding from different sources compared to your standard Disney or Warner Brothers studio.
In the specific case of Rock-a-Doodle, keep in mind that Don Bluth movies were REALLY failing at this point. When you compare the visuals to NIHM where he actually had the staff tracing over 3D elements and using rotoscoping for this cool effect, then yeah, Doodle looks way worse. Because Bluth took out like, four mortgages to keep his studio afloat and couldn't afford to do it the prettier way.
It sucks but, you know. You can either have an incomplete film like Thief and the Cobbler, a film where you work your animators to death like Akira, or a completed movie with a semi-healthy working environment like Rock-a-Doodle.
In the end, you're just a consumer, so you don't really have to care about how the sausage gets made. At the very least, it's good to be made aware of it so you know why studios can't just spin gold all the time.
Not only was this technique cutting edge at the time, there's a ton of hand drawn animation mixed into that CG shot. Just because it hasn't visually aged well in every movie doesn't mean it was a lazy way to animate.
It's not really a style, and yeah, it's rarely works out. It makes sense they're experimenting with tech. I imagine they've really improved on it today, but since everything is already 3D there's really not a lot of places where that advancement is shown.
Now I can agree with using CGI.
IF it is meant to achieve a certain animation style.
This russian guy is fusing Hand-Drawn elements with flash elements, yet he is still competent enough to use ones when necessary (which is most of the time) like in this shot in this video, the tree leaves are animated on ones.
>animation
>still image
I couldn't make it into a gif, but just by looking at it you know the thing I'm talking about right?
Yes, it is lazy animation because you were too lazy to animate it
FATALITY
OP IS FRICKING DEAD
No! It's lazy animation because they aren't drawing the camera shot themselves and are rather using dumb CGI to do it! You can see the polygons!
get FRICKED op
TPBP
Here this is what I mean.
oh god not you again
You can barely compare these 2, the gears animation is looped while the 1991 animation involves the camera flying across the field fast paced. There are so many angles in the 1991 animation that 3D would have been the best option, which it was, even if it looks dated
Ok well if you need CG for camera shots, can you please explain how this was done without CGI?
Because it took 31 years to make
not that one shot, though.
And how do you know how long that specific shot took to make? And if you do know then please tell me (and provide proof)
Because it took about 2 years, the thing was commissioned by a Saudi prince. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_bXMnKZpIM
Thief was sabotaged because people would be clamoring for more movies on ones and not relying on CGI, if they saw disney continue to use CGI after the success of Thief, Disney would get a lot of backlash for being lazy.
even if the animation is hand drawn and looks good, the production was still way too long. Hell, Lion King took just four years to make. The problem with the thief and the cobbler was that it was too ambitious for its time and it couldn't even be finished before warner bros stepped in
well then that meant disney just had to animate twice as much frames and animate the camera movement not relying on CGI at any point. Then I might have liked their movies a little more, but they didn't do that did they?
Are you talking about rock a doodle? It's not a disney film
disney relies on CGI. They should have animated the cave of wonders on ones without the CG, they were fully capable of doing that, they just chose not to because they are hacks.
They could have animated the tower rolling around in the snow without the CGI, but again they are hacks.
mate it's called working smarter not harder
Roger Rabbit didn't rely on CGI though and was animated on ones, and it was a success. So clearly working harder paid off.
Roger Rabbit had a good story while the two movies mentioned ITT didn't
Roger rabbit was 1/3 animated, it's not really comparable but you seem too moron to understand that
yeah and then Warner decided to proceed with a fully animated movie on ones for Williams Studio, and that made WDAS pissy on top of them being pissy over already being upstaged by richard williams studio on Roger Rabbit. WDAS didn't want people flocking to Warner's movie for running circles around Disney's animation style.
Rotoscope
When techniques are new, you're bound to make a lot of garbage before you figure out what it's capable of. Old Felix the cat cartoons weren't exactly peak cartoon comedy. Studios are also a business and need to make balances between budget and schedule. Yeah, sure, Akira can have all its running backgrounds drawn by hand; the animators weren't getting paid nearly the same amount as a Disney animator at the same time. They also received funding from different sources compared to your standard Disney or Warner Brothers studio.
In the specific case of Rock-a-Doodle, keep in mind that Don Bluth movies were REALLY failing at this point. When you compare the visuals to NIHM where he actually had the staff tracing over 3D elements and using rotoscoping for this cool effect, then yeah, Doodle looks way worse. Because Bluth took out like, four mortgages to keep his studio afloat and couldn't afford to do it the prettier way.
It sucks but, you know. You can either have an incomplete film like Thief and the Cobbler, a film where you work your animators to death like Akira, or a completed movie with a semi-healthy working environment like Rock-a-Doodle.
In the end, you're just a consumer, so you don't really have to care about how the sausage gets made. At the very least, it's good to be made aware of it so you know why studios can't just spin gold all the time.
any camera shots in Nimh I can see?
a lot of the movie looks choppy though.
Not only was this technique cutting edge at the time, there's a ton of hand drawn animation mixed into that CG shot. Just because it hasn't visually aged well in every movie doesn't mean it was a lazy way to animate.
It's not really a style, and yeah, it's rarely works out. It makes sense they're experimenting with tech. I imagine they've really improved on it today, but since everything is already 3D there's really not a lot of places where that advancement is shown.
Now I can agree with using CGI.
IF it is meant to achieve a certain animation style.
This russian guy is fusing Hand-Drawn elements with flash elements, yet he is still competent enough to use ones when necessary (which is most of the time) like in this shot in this video, the tree leaves are animated on ones.
I just want to see a movie fully animated on ones without CGI, that is finished.
I'm gay btw I forgot to mention.
I'm gay for hand drawn animation on ones without using CGI. I have a girlfriend.