Ziggy Plock wrote:Did not know it was called 'cell animation'
Most people don't, and I am a movie geek. So I have to be ready to explain what I mean. It is not at all necessary for a viewer to know these terms to enjoy the show. I just wasn't sure if you were being sarastic along the lines of "Cell animation, what the heck is that old thing?"
Then what's your opinion on movies like Ratatouille, which is clearly fake in your use of the concept, but, to quote Truman C. "real phoney"... and 3D?
I have not specifically seen that one but I have no objection to computer-animated cartoons, because IT IS faster and cheaper. I like the original "Shrek" - because of the story and characters. In the world of cartoons, I don't consider either hand-drawing or computer-drawing any more or less "fake" because they are all obviously drawings, not looking like real people. I simply prefer the
style of (uh) "traditional cell animation." It is simply an aesthetic preference, not any hard and fast LAW for me. Given enough time and clever computer programmers, they can probably come up with a computer animation that LOOKS like cell animation and fools me. I don't know that is what the public wants, though, and if they did it then they would be sure to heavily promote their amazing technological feat. I would then know about it and not be fooled.
(3D gives me a headache, but I could watch the 2D version of Ratatouille.)
I am afraid I have not seen any of your examples of the CGI people, except for short clips from the first Final Fantasy film. (Which looks terribly fake to me, but it IS 21 years old now.) It is just something I avoid, like some people don't watch slasher films.
Also consider that green screen acting is more admirable than acting in a realistic setting or set, since the actors have to rely more on their own imagination.
If I had seen examples where such talent was on greater display, I might be more impressed too! From what I have seen, what we get is spectacularly imaginative surroundings with uninspired performances. This is most prevalent when the actors are all filmed separately so they can not even interact with each other. That does not seem an especially rewarding way to work to ME, unless they are giving a Shakespearian monologue on stage, where they get energy and feedback from the audience.
We can extend your logic even further and demand that the AUDIENCE use their imagination too: just have the actors giving unadorned performances in a total single-color environment. (Supply your own special effects, you lazy bastards.) Something a little close to this would be George Lucas' "THX-1138," which has a good portion of it in a white void, and Lars Von Trier's "Dogville" with minimalist sets.
But when you have sets, props and actors all created by a room full of animators clicking on their computers, it ceases to be an art form made up of live action photography and instead becomes all cartoons. I like cartoons. They have their merits and are an art form in themselves. I do not watch ONLY cartoons. I do not want to give up the live action. If that is what Hollyweird wants, then I still have over a hundred years of old movies to catch up on.
), and Will Smith in "Gemini Man". 
