Discuss historic and artistic aspects of animation, merits of 2D and 3D techniques, and the posted documentary for homework #4.

I enjoyed the BBC documentary on the history of animation. I found it interesting to see how familiar animations and techniques used today got started in the early 20 century, such as rotoscoping. One in particular that amazed me was Little Nemo, as a child this was one of my favorite animations. I had no idea that it was based on an older comic strip. It was also entertaining to see the works that started 3D animation. Bringing the genre commercial success and more interested backers.

Both 2D and 3D animation techniques have there own merits. This video highlighted a few. With 3D animation it is easier to change smaller details like eyes. This allows for a greater range of emotions. This combined with the 3D world can add an extra sense of realism to these newer works. For me 2D animation is still a viable artform. While it may seem dead to some. I will never stop watching 2D animations. These animations provide an escape from realism that is different from 3D animation. In addition, the sheer amount of history of 2D animation gives it a nostalgic feeling that I thoroughly enjoy.

This was a really fun documentary! It was made at a really interesting time in the animation industry, and I haven’t really seen a whole lot from that low point for traditional animation. I had forgotten that Eric Goldberg had actually left Disney there for a while, and I had also forgotten he worked on the Looney Toons film! It was really something special to see them talk about Aardman and Miyazaki, as well… if I remember correctly, during the production of the Wallace and Gromit film that they’re discussing in the documentary, one of their storage facilities had a really bad fire and they lost a whole bunch of stuff from their studio’s history.

Commercial attitudes, unfortunately (?) are going to have a huge influence over how animation is made and what animation contains as its focus, message and subject matter, among other things. Films have to be financially viable and promise maximum profit in order to be made. It’s no different in animation. That all ties into marketability– if the film is too progressive, it’s going to get shot down. Walt Disney (and later, John Lasseter) forged new paths with his great instinct in what could be marketable, even if it hadn’t necessarily been tried before.

I think the benefit in computer animation lies in the levels of detail and realism that we can simulate in the computer. We can tell different stories with better layout and camera work, and we can more realistically form the worlds in which the characters live. We have everything from hair and fabric simulators to artificial world physics that create the forces of the universe within the computer. Not only that, but we can control that universe and manipulate it in ways that, frankly, were damn near impossible in traditional animation. Not to mention, now, in the wake of films like Tangled and How to Train Your Dragon, our technology is finally catching up with our imaginations– it’s not about “what can we do,” so much as it is “what do we want to do?”

Now, this isn’t to say that 2D doesn’t have its own benefits. Oh, not so. I would actually like to respectfully dispute Gage’s above claim that 3D Animation allows for control over details “like the eyes.” I would ask, what is easier to control than the eraser on your pencil? My problem with computer animation, for the longest time, was I could never stand to watch the character animation. It was so… devoid of character! The movements were stiff, programmed. There never felt like there was any real life, no legitimate spontaneity. There were little moments, of course– Lasseter mentions Woody thinking, and that was definitely a victory in a small moment. But both subtlety of acting and broad, wide emotions were lost in the computer. Humanity could not be achieved in the beginning, though it has improved… I’m still of the opinion that the power of the line in traditional animation holds a lot of power. We get so caught up in that rush of power, that feeling of “LOOK AT WHAT MY COMPUTER CAN DO,” that we forget that human element sometimes. I remember hearing Glen Keane in an interview talk about the production of Tangled, when he was showing… I think it was Ollie Johnston some of the early work they’d done on Rapunzel. He was telling Ollie, “Look at what we can do with this dress! It looks like real silk, isn’t that incredible?” and pointing out other things like her freckles, stuff like that. And Ollie tells him, “Well, Glen, what I was wondering was, what is she thinking about?” It’s so easy to forget in looking at this incredible tool that we have in our hands sometimes that we’re trying to create a soul, a spark of life– I always feel that as a constant in hand-drawn animation, whereas in the computer, it can be hit or miss.

That said, of course, without 2D animation, there would be no 3D animation. All of the principles are in play– or should be in play, anyway– with the computer. Over a century has gone into creating and developing techniques to build the illusion of life with these moving drawings and computer animation simply cannot ignore those skills. Perhaps just short of the staggering technology it takes to complete a computer animated film, I would venture to say that everything in 3D film is informed by its predecessor, with the possible exception of camera and effects work. I think, more than anything, the thing that 3D animation can take from 2D is the importance of story, character work and and those basic principles of animation.

A simulation of life, after all, is just that– it’s an imitation of reality that may or may not pale in comparison to the real thing. Now, the illusion of life, which all animators strive for… that implies the magic behind it. That there is some very real spark somewhere in those key frames.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching this video while I was working on my Project 1! I ti was really informative and interesting. I loved that part where the guy says that animators are kids that never grew up! In the background he had a huge wall of toys. I can see how that related to many other documentaries and making of videos for other movies and video games that I have seen. I did however feel that they went from one extreme to the other from hand drawn animation to CGI. I feel like there was some other stuff that happened in between. I also found the whole talk about how CGI will replace hand drawn animation interesting and I personally believe that hand drawn animation will never be dead. It was a really enjoyable documentary and I can’t wait to see more!

I enjoyed watching this video and found some of its points interesting. I enjoyed seeing some of the evolution of animation even though I personally don’t think hand drawn animation will ever die. There are some things that just look right in 2D that I don’t think will ever translate as well to 3D. Tom and Jerry or the Loony Toons are some examples of this. Cartoons like those are made for 2D and for artists to draw. I think any translation to 3D for them and you would lose something. But overall I do enjoy a mixture of both.

I enjoyed this video. The contrasts and similarities between 2D and 3D animation are numerous and we certainly wouldn’t have 3D without its predecessor. The one thing I find most interesting and completely true, is that it is the character that makes the animation, not the pencil or the pixel. If the character is believable, whether a desk lamp or Bambi, the audience will relate to it and enjoy the story. I love the amount of detail and the effects that you can get with 3D. If you can imagine it, you can put it on screen. The colors and the lighting can make it look amazing. At the same time, I love the nostalgic feeling I get watching the old animations with the flickering contrast and the dynamics that the hand-drawn illustrations offer. It is there imperfection that makes them unique. In a time where everything is being remade, restyled, recycled and more politically correct, in the case the video made about the Warner Brothers Back in Action Film, I find comfort in knowing that people still feel as I do that there will always be a place for 2D. I think each form of animation has its own merits and I don’t believe 2D is done, or that we have seen everything that 3D has to offer.

Wow I never knew how much history animation had! I guess so much of entertainment is taken for granted, it really pays to explore how the industry has evolved. 2d animation had a special place in my heart, and I don’t think it will ever truly die. The organic, emotional feel of pencil animations are unmatched and have a life of their own, where computer animations something feel dead. I agree with Katie that with the advent of technologies, we overlook the final goals of animation in exchange for more realistic textures or lighting. I think that there are certain advantages with the advent of technology, shots may be reworked and characters can be rigged and made to move according to physics. Ultimately we have to keep an eye on the past, and remember where animation came from.

I love learning the background behind Toy Story and how the whole storyline came to be, it really shows the creative requirements for being an animator. Not only do animations need to appeal to a certain audience, the relevancy must touch all ages. I am also happy that one of my favorite animation series made the documentary: Wallace and Grommet! I love the life created by claymation, and the British humor, of course. I enjoyed hearing about how Nick Park feels about claymation and I found it particularly interesting the comment he made saying “It’s real…that’s the main thing”. I can now see how solid drawing is inherent with claymation because of how real it is.

I found the documentary to be both very informative and interesting. I liked how they showed a comprehensive history of animation from the early hand drawn Steam Boat Willie animations to CG animations like Finding Nemo. It is easy to see how 3D has directly incorporated concepts learned from 2D animation and so without the advent and exploration of hand drawn animations there wouldn’t be such a thing as 3D animation. Unfortunately, due to the large amount of work and money it takes to make a feature-film animation, I believe that commercial attitudes will have a large impact on the content of animations. This attitude will more than likely reinforce animations that are commercially successful and not necessarily an art form. In terms of the capabilities of both 2D and 3D animation, 3D animation benefits from the ability to have high levels of detail. However, I did find it interesting that the characters and story of an animation have the greatest impact on whether the animation is successful or not. Although hand drawn animations may seem out dated compared to the 3D animations that are popular today, I don’t believe they will disappear anytime soon. As long as animations can continue to create characters and stories that are both interesting and likeable, people will continue to watch them regardless of whether they are 2D or 3D.

Why do the BBC always do such good documentaries? I grew up on a steady diet of Tom & Jerry, Woody Woodpecker and Looney Tunes. As a kid I never really knew the history of how they were all tied together, even though my uncle surely mentioned it at some point.

I have to agree with the guy at the end of the show, as soon as some hand drawn cartoon makes millions at the box office the controversy will be over. But at the same time I said several years ago that I could never see comic collectors going digital with their books and I haven’t bought a paper comic since 2005, aside from a Walking Dead Compendium.

Honestly, what I see happening is the same thing that happened several years ago in the Comicbook industry. They introduced a new form of computer coloring that took the place of the traditional form of coloring. At the time everyone said the new stuff would never catch on and then when it did, they said it would kill all the old jobs. Certainly some jobs were lost, but the overall success was that a new tool for creation was found. And as we all know if a new tool works someone will come along and make it better. But it will always carry with it the history of what came before.

After all when you get right down to it, a hydraulic jack is still just a lever and our computers are little more than highly advanced calculators.

I thought the documentary was very interesting. I think that eventually 2D animation will be used less and less over time as technology advances. It may never completely stop, but you can already see the decline. I liked the part where it was talking about how at first computer animation wasn’t as successful, but went on to explain that the reason was because the people who created the software were the ones using it to animate. The analogy he made to the chemist who mixes the paint being the one who paints the picture to the computer animation software builders made this argument very clear. Overall the documentary was very informative and I liked it.

The Sinking of the Lusitania captured my attention. The emotion of that short was powerful. Even though the States were privately supporting the British war effort during the time, this is the event that threw the USA into WWI. I believe that this short piece embodied how Americans felt at the time.

I also like that the documentary, at the beginning, hinted at this cross-section between highly artistic people and highly analytical people. Computer animation is a subject, rare in its kind, that combines these groups of people and values those that can do both, and is challenging and rewarding because of that fact.

I personally enjoyed this documentary because it was very interesting. The Lucas and Bee animation also made me laugh. I was very interested in how long it took animation to take place before the use of computers. In addition I am relieved that computers greatly aid in animation by providing easier and faster tools to aid the animation process. I also took the Gerdie animation humorous. In addition, the Sinking of the Lusitania interested me because animators were able to reconstruct the actual sinking of the ship. 3D animation has not replace 2D animation, but provided a greater range of detail and emotion that is able to be put in the animators work. Overall, I am intrigued and curious to how far digital animation will evolve in years to come.

I really enjoyed this documentary. I liked learning about all the early animations and the different techniques they used, like rotoscoping. It interesting to see the progression from silent cartoon films to today’s computer animations. To also see how the changing of style and types of animation still have about the same core structure in development. I also really liked how I saw shorts and parts of films I grew up with or knew about, like Toy Story, Steamboat Willie, Luxo Jnr., Tin Toy, Finding Nemo, and Chicken Run. It was interesting to learn where ideas for these animations came from. To also see the devlopment of characters and how small details really make a difference to the audience. I believe 2D animation is still at the basic for 3D animation because you still need to plan everything out the same if not more because it is more costly to build a scene then scrap it in 3D versus 2D.

I really loved the way the directors and animators get excited and enthusiastic when their characters came to life. When they were talking about Woody from Toy Story and the scene when he started showing his emotion by just moving his eyes left and right quickly it showed the way he came to life. It was awesome that they were able to express human emotions the same way that real people do rather than huge over the top actions. It was the same way when they were discussing Gromit and the way he simply moved his eye brows when holding the door. Those small actions make the characters and bring them to a level in which viewers can relate.

Also it make me think about how much motion makes a person relate better to a character. For example when you are modeling a character in Maya you don’t think twice about it. But once you start seeing them move around even the slightest, then they become alive and you are able to relate to them even more.

In the video someone said people will continue to love 2D animation because people like it because people like to watch things drawn on the scree. But the another discussion was about the fact that people like animation because of the characters. It doesn’t matter how good the quality of the picture is if the characters are not interesting to the audience. I don’t think that 2D animation is going out completely. I do think a mixture of both can create very good productions