^Here's more detail. As you can see, the change is for the better.
Seriously, I feel angry now. =(
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.
I have read the spoilers
No, but it makes them "wrong" for seriously being unfair out of material.
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.
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 http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2008/06/02/wall-e-cooler.jpg
Sure, computers make things easier. Doesn't mean CG isn't an art.
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.
Uh, what? Dude, give itup. You're not convincing anyone with your "bawwww I hate old Disney and nobody agrees with me!" attitude.
So, youre saying CG *isnt* easier to animate than traditional animation?
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.
CG certainly has more work involved.
Doing what you describe is tedious, though not necessarily difficult.