?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I should be in bed.

I've got to be up early tomorrow morning. I've had all day to generally mooch around and do nothing and only now remembered to write in this thing. Way to go, me.

Today was one of those lazy 'do nothing' days, for me. I've almost finished a commission (see the small wip below) but otherwise I've been playing Defense Grid: The Awakening, all day. A year ago I didn't even know what a 'tower defense' game was.



This Potato Pack was absolutely worth the money for the amount of time I've wasted on its games.

I didn't really have a topic to blog about, until I saw Owlssayhooot's blog post today. She's listing top five Disney Heroines, fair enough, but a comment she made really stood out to me.
Princess and the Frog was a film that I was not looking forward to. I thought it was silly of Disney to go back to old school style because we have all of this new, amazing technology and there is no need to try and improve on something that was always beautiful.
Now, I'm taking this to mean 'why go back to 2D when we can create such stunning CGI movies now?' On a second read through, I wonder if she was actually asking why they (Disney) were trying to improve on traditional animation when it was already perfected. Because what really surprises me most of all is that she's an awesome, intelligent, reasonable girl and I just cannot fathom why anybody would think this way about... anything really. She did go on to say that the film was fantastic and she walked out with tears streaming, but that doesn't change the fact that she was down on it, if my initial reaction is correct, because, heaven forbid, Disney went back to its roots.

Just because technology is moving forward does not necessarily negate its origins. That's like claiming we've absolutely no need for books now the Kindle has come along*, or that we can do away with print now the internet is so prevalent. Should all films be 3D now we've the technology, or are we going to at least try to remember the art of subtlety?

Why can't things run alongside each other and just be enjoyed for what they are? Why is everything in direct competition with The Next Big Thing? Of course, Disney's CGI department these days is fantastic, and Pixar cannot be beat, but thinking that that should somehow do away with traditional animation in favour of CGI is so horribly tunnel minded, and no different in my mind to somebody claiming books are redundant thanks to video games and movies. The medium is different, so what? It doesn't make it 'old' or 'dated', it makes it something different. I'm really surprised if people (and I mean rational, adult people, because understandably children are going to want the cool 3D effects) do look down on something like The Princess and the Frog (or indeed, Fantastic Mr. Fox, or Corpse Bride, or anything straying from the Pixar/Disney CGI/Dreamworks 'norm'). I mean, jeeze. How narrow minded can you get?




*

Tags:

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
ugerchucker
Apr. 17th, 2011 12:00 am (UTC)
I don't care if one day we get the technology to beam stories directly into our heads without having to read, no new techonolgy is taking away my love of books.

Why should the next big thing clear away everything that came before it. I hate people who are only looking for the next update or advancement.

moonykins
Apr. 17th, 2011 12:59 am (UTC)
THIS.

I personally love hand-animated movies, y'know, "old school" animation. They just have a certain extra bit of personality that computer animation never will.

I also refuse to get a kindle or other digital book reader. I love books. The way they feel when you hold them, the way the pages smell. Curling up with a glowing screen just isn't the same.
secondlina
Apr. 17th, 2011 03:58 am (UTC)
Well jeez. Even the "old style" new uses new technologies (I mean, they didn't paint with computers back in the day, amiright?) Stuff evolves. And a style is a style. If disney wants to do 2d AND 3d, I certainly won't stop them. 2d still has a special kind of magic. 3d looks amazing and has incredibly detailed actions, but it's not quite as stylized.

I think Princess and the Frog disappointed people more because of the story content and implications then the style. Though people seem to have associated the failure with the chosen style.
reaperfox
Apr. 17th, 2011 07:55 am (UTC)
I thought Princess and the Frog was a flop, but I looked it up and apparently based on its sales they decided to do more 2D movies? So I guess it didn't flop *that* badly?

I really enjoyed it, but mainly for the bad guy (always the way). I would love it if Disney did both 2D and 3D - isn't that what Lasseter said he'd do when he went to Disney? I love that we're getting more stylised cgi stuff rather than OMG PHOTO REALISTIC 3D. It makes it all so beautiful.
secondlina
Apr. 17th, 2011 03:20 pm (UTC)
So far, seems like they will be doing both. The Snow Queen project is said to be 2d.
cesarin
Apr. 17th, 2011 04:15 am (UTC)
Winter's wrap up screenshot for haters gonna hate?

also, honestly I say.. whats wrong with 3d?
tangled was absolutely amazing, the animation.. 3d enviroments, and specially the body movements of the chars were incredible.. id stay in 3d if they are gonna offer quality like that
reaperfox
Apr. 17th, 2011 07:53 am (UTC)
I love both, and I don't see why we can't have both really. They're both totally different things and serve different purposes, and both have room in the movie industry, I think.

Tangled was gorgeous. Really loved that one. Disney's stuff lately has been really great. I LOVED Bolt so so much.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )