The late great hand-drawn animation renaissance and the hand-drawn versus computer animation debate

[Daryl T]

Hi out there.

Soon I will have to start writing my dissertation. My topic is about the animation boom of the late eighties and early nineties. I'm examining why this renaissance as it is called rose and fell. I know the facts like box office takeand computer animation and direct to video sequels, but I would like to know the precise real reasons from the animation fans. So I send this out to you, as you are all intelligent people:

What are your thoughts about it?
What do you think of the films and television shows that were produced?
Why did hand-drawn animation rise and fall? and
What's your opinion on the hand-drawn versus computer animation debate?

[Mark A]

What are your thoughts about it?

i'm bitter about the fact that nobody makes movies that are traditional animation anymore. i still study movies like brother bear, the lion king, the road to eldorado, secret of nimh etc (i'm a big don bluth fan) to try and get how to do the ultra convincing expressions, poses, subtleties, colours & moods that are just packed into each one. now there are no more movies to study except 3d animated ones and in my opinion they just aren't as bang on with the expressions. it looks like someone grabbed a piece of the character's face, pulled & stretched it, then taped it there and said "look he's surprised now!" traditional animation looks like the eyebrows move as a part of the whole face changing to fit an expression, rather than one part being pulled and stuck there while the rest of the face does not change.

What do you think of the films and television shows that were produced?

I thought the movies were amazing. they were what made me want to become an animator. looking back at the animated tv shows i used to watch i have to admit the animation is definitely done on a budget and they cut corners bigtime in some shows, but all in all they still got the message across.

Why did hand-drawn animation rise and fall?

it rose because it looks spectacular (coughcough fantasia cough). it fell because it costs less money and requires fewer animators to create computer animated movies (at least i'm pretty sure it costs less/takes less time, don't quote me on that one).

What's your opinion on the hand-drawn versus computer animation debate?

i don't think you can pin the two of them up next to each other and say that one is better than the other. it's like comparing a painting to a sculpture (and computer animation is a lot like sculpting), they are different. that's all. there's things you can do with hand drawn animation that just doesn't work in maya, and there are things you can do in computer animation that would be stupid to even try in hand drawn (could you imagine tracking every little piece of fur while animating the animals in kung fu panda?) i guess the audience gets all mystified when they can see every piece of fur, yet i still think that traditional animation expresses the texture and behaviour of fur much better than 3d. you can probably guess that i like hand drawn better, but i still respect computer animation as an art form and try to learn from it as well.

[Daryl T]

Thanks very much. This is very helpful.

[Stephen M. Levinson]

Hand-drawn animation has fallen, but has not fell.

[Vincent Veidt]

Stephen, that doesn't make very much sense.

Anyway, as a [2D] computer animator, I feel that there is a certain degree of nonsense being thrown around in popular terminology. There are three degrees of computer animation, each vastly different than the others. There is the typical "Web/Flash" animation that is two dimensional, but most often vector cutouts. It's rare to find quality animation in this style if only because it's now possible for anyone to pirate a copy of Flash. I will admit that the applications themselves can transcend the barriers imposed by the casual user, but you can't honestly tell me that the majority of [narrative] web animation is any good.

Then comes my preferred style. One term for it is "tradigital" animation in which a classically trained 2D animator simply replaces paper with a digitizing tablet. It is also acceptable to scan work drawn on paper and ink it digitally. While most would argue that 2D animation has become stale with this process, in my personal and professional opinion, it's not because of the software.

Now the style you were referring to, the 3D CG animation that boomed after Pixar figured out how to market it in their famous shorts. I will absolutely agree with Mark on this one, but in the defense of 3D animators out there, this genre, if you will, of modern animation falls into many of the same traps as the aforementioned styles. Many 3D animators skip the basic principals of 2D animation, production teams place stylistic limitations, budgets forbid complex modeling, etc... it's slippery slope, this business. When looking at 3D animation, while the majority is mediocre at best, remember that there are photorealistic 3D animators out there, there are insanely accurate effect and character animators working on films like "The Matrix" and "Spider-Man". You really have to watch carefully to see the transition from live-action to animation... of course, it helps that the audience isn't supposed to watch so carefully.

Anyway, this is about all I can offer on the road, so I'll get back to you with more when I can.
Cheers

[Stephen M. Levinson]

Denny you may be right. What I meant was traditional animation has taken a turn on the downside, but hasn't completely fallen. The poster says "Why did hand-drawn animation rise and fall?" but Traditional Animation is still being used. It's not completely gone.

[Vincent Veidt]

I know what you meant, I was just teasing you into phrasing it properly.

As for traditional animation, yes, it is still used, but many studios have found it more cost effective to take the "tradigital" approach.

As for the poster, Daryl, you've gone and started another one of those infamous RAW threads to get everyone in a fray. Congratulations.

As for your dissertation, I know how hard it is to find fresh sources for your argument (or research if you aren't making an argumentative piece), so I (as well as much of this site's core, certainly) would be willing to go on record for you if need be.

[Daryl T]

Thanks so much. This is why I love Channel Frederator. People can be so nice!

[Daryl T]

Thankyou.

[Andy Linke]

What are your thoughts about it?

Well I agree with Mark, that computer animation or 3d CG probably had something to do with it, but I would also argue that the quality of films being produced at the end of the "era" were not great either. My main thought is that the animation industry quickly became a profitable industry, with films like Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, etc. After this studios rushed to get films out the door. While the animation may still have been fantastic, the foundation and the story were not all there, thus making lackluster films. Yes the technology played a role in the popularity of cg, but I also blame the stories and characters of traditional.

As for the Hand Drawn, Computer Debate. I don't think it matters a good story can be told in any medium. Yes the medium chosen may help get it a wider release, but that won't hide a good story. An example, "Triplets of Bellville" (Great Movie, traditionally animated, limited release), vs "Shrek 3" (Horrible movie, 3d CG wide release).

I think ultimately the story will make or break a movie. Yes you have to have the power, ability, etc, to get it released for people to see, and in turn make money, but bad movies will hurt a genre. "Space Chimps," anyone?

[Daryl T]

Thanks Andy..

[Jennifer Adkins]

Yeah Space Chimps looks terrible. I think as 3d becomes more and more prevalent there will be more and more flops. The audience was ooohed and aaahed before by the shear feat alone and were spoiled by Pixars great writers. But now that 3d is coming to smaller budgets and people who care little about the art and more about the revenue we'll see more Space Chimps and Doogals (omg Doogal was easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen) and the animation will be less "new" and the playing field will even out.

[Jennifer Adkins]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone thought of trying a 2d mixed with 3d movie? I really can't visualize that well enough in my head to know if thats a good idea or a terrible one. I'm guessing terrible but if it could be pulled off well it could definitely be innovative.