• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Bolt

ZentratheFox

You just lost the game.
Do want to see this. Personally, if the movie is enjoyable, that's all that really matters to me.
 

Huey

Weapons-grade =D
http://alwaysanimated.blogspot.com/2008/11/art-of-american-dog.html

^Here's more detail. As you can see, the change is for the better.

Seriously, I feel angry now. =(

Really? Lasseter? I thought he'd be a bit more resistant to exercising the absolute power that the CCO of Disney Animation wields. He can green-light any project with a stroke of his hand, but is also free to play these games with the writers and directors he hires to make sure things proceed as he desires. Because if things don't proceed as he desires, he can just as easily remove these key players from their own projects.

Besides that, there's way too much self-interest involved if he actually used Cars as one of the reasons as to why Bolt's story had to be so drastically changed. Not only did he, himself, write and direct Cars, it also happens to be the mutt-among-purebreds in Pixar's canon.

Having seen Cars, if there's one thing I don't trust Lasseter to decide, it's measuring style against substance.
 

Emil

Roll Fizzlebeef
Just looks to me like another CGI where everything but the characters are pretty, and the story is mediocre. I doubt Ill dish out the $10 to see it in theaters. Maybe watch it on video some time. I just really dont like CGI movies... once you make the model, all the work is pretty much done... all thats left to do is posing. Ill eventually see it. And Ill probably enjoy it somewhat. But I dont want to pay money for it. Just dont think itll be worth it.

bolt-stuff.jpg


Somewhere, someone who works in marketing just made a happy mess in his pants... ;>.>
 

WolfoxOkamichan

Luffs Buff Wuffs
Just looks to me like another CGI where everything but the characters are pretty, and the story is mediocre. I doubt Ill dish out the $10 to see it in theaters. Maybe watch it on video some time. I just really dont like CGI movies... once you make the model, all the work is pretty much done... all thats left to do is posing. Ill eventually see it. And Ill probably enjoy it somewhat. But I dont want to pay money for it. Just dont think itll be worth it.

Somewhere, someone who works in marketing just made a happy mess in his pants... ;>.>

Have you even WATCHED it? I have read the spoilers and it is actually...

...MANY TIMES BETTER THAN THOSE "CLASSIC" DISNEY FILMS LIKE SNOW WHITE AND JUNGLE BOOK.
 

Ty Vulpine

Well-Known Member
Have you even WATCHED it? I have read the spoilers and it is actually...

...MANY TIMES BETTER THAN THOSE "CLASSIC" DISNEY FILMS LIKE SNOW WHITE AND JUNGLE BOOK.

Well, that's just your OPINION, isn't it? And your opinion may or may not agree with their's. But that doesn't make you "right" or them "wrong".
 

Emil

Roll Fizzlebeef
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT

You make an interactive model, once, and pose it. Big deal. Its pretty much the main advantage over computer generated models over traditionally done animation (real media or not)

I mean, surely youre not going to tell me that more work is involved posing a model than redrawing someone over and over again to get them to move, where if you make a mistake youre fucked and have to start over again. Or worse, if you fuck up a whole scene, you have to decide whether or not its worth the time an effort fixing it(ie redraw the whole scene from scratch). Really, once you show someone how the program for moving a model works, pretty much anyone could do it, and if you screw up, you still got your 3dmodel to fall back on.

Theres just more time and effort involved in more traditional animation, and in the end, it doesnt look like most of the stuff I could buy for my xbox either. And you have to admit, that seems to be the trend with style in theses films.

I have read the spoilers

Oh, so you havnt watched it either yet eh?

No, but it makes them "wrong" for seriously being unfair out of material.

You do realise that disney is the ones who made much of these cg movies that you probably like, including this one.

And if youre trying to tell me that this movie is both prettier AND better written than a more modern traditional animation like, The Lion King, then I dont know what to tell you.

Dont get me wrong. Ill probably see this movie. And Ill probably like it. I just wont like it nearly as much as I liked older, more traditionally made animation.

What I liked was hybridizing. Movies like Treasure Planet and Titan AE were great. Its just too bad that no one wants to put the effort into traditional animation anymore.
 
Last edited:

Aden

Play from your ****ing HEART
You make an interactive model, once, and pose it. Big deal. Its pretty much the main advantage over computer generated models over traditionally done animation (real media or not)

Uh huh. All those lighting TDs, texturers, shaders, renderers, physics managers, etc. would like a word with you.

The big thing that gets me is that you're comparing 2D and 3D animation as if they're in the same ballpark at all. 2D is pure animation, pencil and sweat. 3D is animation mixed with traditional filmmaking, in that you have to model, shade, all of your subjects, and then you have to lay out your scenes using principles of traditional filmmaking. There's enough light theory alone in filmmaking to fill up a library. Unless you've sat down and really tried to do something like this, you won't know how much work goes into every little stage of the pipeline. Quit talking out your ass.
 

Emil

Roll Fizzlebeef
Uh huh. All those lighting TDs, texturers, shaders, renderers, physics managers, etc. would like a word with you.

All equations that work constantly on an environment. Still something you do once and never have to do again except for special occasions. You render a lamp, it casts light. It casts the same amount of light constantly until you change the value. You dont have to worry about coloring everything right so it *looks* like a lamp is shining the same amount of light constantly, as well as render that lamp consistently in ever scene. Any of them are all still labor saving devices so you dont have to move objects piece by piece into realistic positions, paint each and every brick in a wall everytime you want a brick wall, or rack your brain everytime you want the shading to be realistic. You only have to do any of them once, and after that the computer does the rest.

The big thing that gets me is that you're comparing 2D and 3D animation as if they're in the same ballpark at all. 2D is pure animation, pencil and sweat. 3D is animation mixed with traditional filmmaking, in that you have to model, shade, all of your subjects, and then you have to lay out your scenes using principles of traditional filmmaking. There's enough light theory alone in filmmaking to fill up a library. Unless you've sat down and really tried to do something like this, you won't know how much work goes into every little stage of the pipeline. Quit talking out your ass.

All of which you have to do in traditional animation, unless of course you dont mind ending up with a big steaming pile. You just get to bend the rules of reality for maximum effect because things dont rely on equations and numbers. If you tell a a traditional animator that lighting and composition (or indeed any competent 2d artist at all) they will laugh at you and show you the door. You seem to like to lump the flash animations you see on youtube from some fixed perspective in with real, feature length theatrical animation.

And youre making an assumption that I havnt actually tried something like this. For all you know, thats a very big assumption.
 
Last edited:

Aden

Play from your ****ing HEART
And youre making an assumption that I havnt actually tried something like this. For all you know, thats a very big assumption.

Nah, judging by your arguments, that's not that big an assumption. Your assumption that I don't appreciate the work put into 2D, however, is insulting.

3D is a lot of work, but it's a different kind of work. Sure, you don't have to worry about frame-to-frame consistency of that light, but please, I urge you to try to duplicate a lighting setup like this one, which includes animating the subtle character accent lights to be right where they should be every frame.

Sure, computers make things easier. Doesn't mean CG isn't an art.
 
Last edited:

Emil

Roll Fizzlebeef
Nah, judging by your arguments, that's not that big an assumption.

Well, its wrong. Believe me or not, your choice.

Your assumption that I don't appreciate the work put into 2D, however, is insulting.

Youre the one who said that 2d animation has no qualities of traditional filmaking, thats its only "pencil and sweat" *shrugs*

3D is a lot of work, but it's a different kind of work. Sure, you don't have to worry about frame-to-frame consistency of that light, but please, I urge you to try to duplicate a lighting setup like http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2008/06/02/wall-e-cooler.jpg


With a traditional piece of artwork, or in a render?


I didnt say CG isnt art :rolleyes:

It just takes most of the work out of animation so you can focus on smaller details. I never said it wasnt pretty or legitimate, but Wall E wouldnt be as pretty as it is if they had to render him each and every frame of the film, as well as the buildings, the fog, and each piece of garbage in the movie.

I prefer traditional because it requires alot more effort from the entire team. In a big production CG, the people who animate arnt the same people who render. And lets be honest here, they still have concept sketches of each and ever object that gets rendered, so chances are, the ones who rendered the object didnt even really think it up themselves. *shrugs* But I suppose you could say the same thing about traditional animators as well, because the people who do concept still most like arnt the ones doing the animation.

In the end, the whole argument is just time vs money. You say lets see you animate *this* traditional, and all I think is... Its completely possible. Itd just take 20 years to do. Its not impossible, just... not really worth the time to do.

I could get into dehumanization and things such as that, but thatd be dragging the topic more off topic than it already is. I think we should just drop it lol
 
Last edited:

Huey

Weapons-grade =D
Emil said:
It just takes most of the work out of animation so you can focus on smaller details. I never said it wasnt pretty or legitimate, but Wall E wouldnt be as pretty as it is if they had to render him each and every frame of the film, as well as the buildings, the fog, and each piece of garbage in the movie.

Making a large generalization such as this about the work involved in creating animated CG art is patronizing to such artists. Please try to articulate your opinion without deprecating an entire medium as though writing it off as simply being a shortcut for making animation.
 

Emil

Roll Fizzlebeef
Making a large generalization such as this about the work involved in creating animated CG art is patronizing to such artists. Please try to articulate your opinion without deprecating an entire medium as though writing it off as simply being a shortcut for making animation.

So, youre saying CG *isnt* easier to animate than traditional animation?

Youll notice, the only thing Ive ever really complained about is just the animation. Its easier. Simple as that.

Also, no. Because people who work on a CG film are still their own respective artists, and consider themselves such. A renderer is a renderer, an animator is an animator, and a concept artist is a concept artist. They all have their own things to do, and always will. But you cant tell me that animating a render has the same difficulty as actually drawing something out, frame by frame and trying to keep the image consistent.

You can say what you want about how pretty a scene in a CG animation is, but the animator didn't put it there, not anymore. They just make it move.

Anyway... this thread is supposed to be about Bolt not Traditional vs CG animation. So lets just drop it.
 
Last edited:

WolfoxOkamichan

Luffs Buff Wuffs
Uh, what? Dude, give itup. You're not convincing anyone with your "bawwww I hate old Disney and nobody agrees with me!" attitude.

*facepalm*

I am NOT hating old Disney (in fact, I still think 90's animation is the best), but I AM hating the unfair treatment modern stuff are getting at.

Also, you'll be surprised how more memorable 80's/90's Disney are compared to their older ones.
 

CyberFox

Nostalgia Rider
I just came back from seeing BOLT... in Disney Digital 3D
I can tell you this, It's awesome just like the promotional material states

Disney Digital 3D is a double edge sword, there are times it can work (BOLT for example) but there are times that probably won't work (Beauty and The Beast comes to mind)

The Story is bit unoriginal but you can't help but to enjoy it as it is
The characters are likeable in their seperate right, from the awkward perspective all the reviews (even Spill.com) favor Rhino The Hamster and i can see why, He's a laugh a minute or probably a second :3

What i find disappointing is that is currently in 3rd place due to the overhyped vampire/goth film "Twilight" based on a book i never even heard of, I saw that at one of my outings with a local disabilities group, It's great but It's goth overtones can get depressing in short spurts

I highly recommend that you see BOLT either with or without Disney Digital 3D, let's be frank here sometimes a overhyped film or video game often turns out to be nothing more than a disappointment (Advent Rising comes to mind)

Avoid the hype and see BOLT, I promise you it definitely made up for that shitfest that was Beverly Hills Chihuahua (BTW: Spill.com gave Beverly Hills Chihuahua a "Rental" rating)
 

Huey

Weapons-grade =D
So, youre saying CG *isnt* easier to animate than traditional animation?

CG certainly has more work involved.

emil said:
But you cant tell me that animating a render has the same difficulty as actually drawing something out, frame by frame and trying to keep the image consistent.

Sure I can! =D

Doing what you describe is tedious, though not necessarily difficult.
 

Emil

Roll Fizzlebeef
CG certainly has more work involved.

Any actual... you know, examples to back up that statement? Examples that I cant just point out as having a more labor intensive equivalent in traditional animation?

Doing what you describe is tedious, though not necessarily difficult.

...right.
 

Emil

Roll Fizzlebeef
Rigging. >..o

Thats basically an interactive construction step of a sketch. Its a skeleton. It also makes animating large motions ridiculously simple. Especially when compared to doing the same motion in a traditional animation
 
Top