Poll

Which Animation Studio is more worthy of praise for their first features.

Disney
17 (37%)
Pixar
29 (63%)

Total Members Voted: 46

Author Topic: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar  (Read 17622 times)

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #30 on: March 07, 2009, 10:13:46 PM »
So Pixar exclusively does CGI, right? And yet Bolt is the best use of CGI in a recent motion picture, which happens to be from Disney. Sure Disney has quite a few duds, and two versions of Fantasia (come on! one is more than enough), but I guess these two counter act The Incredibles, plus Toy Story is great, but Hercules and The Lion King together, not to mention the numerous other great films, easily give Disney the edge.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #31 on: March 07, 2009, 10:53:47 PM »
So much wrongness in one post. Can't take it. Brain shut down. Daisy.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36123
  • Marathon Man
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #32 on: March 07, 2009, 11:28:27 PM »
So Pixar exclusively does CGI, right? And yet Bolt is the best use of CGI in a recent motion picture, which happens to be from Disney.
You say this like it's a given.  Like it's a fact.  And I feel most (if not all) of us completely disagree with you.  I wish you would at least make some attempt to explain how Bolt uses CGI better than Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., Wall-E, Toy Story, Toy Story 2 etc.

To my ears you might as well be saying that actors give their best performance when Michael Bay is behind the camera.  That's how much sense it makes.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #33 on: March 08, 2009, 01:04:40 AM »
To my ears you might as well be saying that actors give their best performance when Michael Bay is behind the camera.  That's how much sense it makes.

Sean Connery in The Rock is the greatest! But yes, everything else you said.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16585
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #34 on: March 08, 2009, 03:14:33 AM »
1.   Fantasia
2.   Wall-E
3.   Ratatouille
4.   Alice in Wonderland
5.   Pinocchio
6.   The Incredibles
7.   Toy Story 2
8.   Dumbo
9.   Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
10. Bambi
11. Finding Nemo
12. Peter Pan
13. Toy Story
14. A Bug's Life
15. Lady and The Tramp
16. Cinderella
17. Monsters Inc.
18. Cars


I voted for Disney.

revised!
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #35 on: March 08, 2009, 10:26:00 AM »
So Pixar exclusively does CGI, right? And yet Bolt is the best use of CGI in a recent motion picture, which happens to be from Disney.
You say this like it's a given.  Like it's a fact.  And I feel most (if not all) of us completely disagree with you.  I wish you would at least make some attempt to explain how Bolt uses CGI better than Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., Wall-E, Toy Story, Toy Story 2 etc.

To my ears you might as well be saying that actors give their best performance when Michael Bay is behind the camera.  That's how much sense it makes.

Individually, Wall-E has the best single use of CGI I have ever seen, that comes in the form of the Space Dance sequence, but the amount of detail packed into Bolt is truly astounding, the only other film that comes close that I have seen is Finding Nemo, which is what I shall be using as a comparison for the majority of my reply. First, we start with people, Pixar's most glaring flaw in every film aside from the Toy Stories and Nemo. Now both films show they are capable of rendering humans realistically, but the amount of screen time they are given in Nemo, where I would say they are at their best, is so minimal that it may just be that they serve as another piece rather than a Testament to Pixar's ability to accurately portray humans while still keeping to the semi-fantastical realm. Conversely, Bolt gives its people some cartoon-ish qualities, but the level of detail packed into their faces and the variety of people on screen during the film to show that this is no coincidence, serves as a fairly accurate account to the studio's ability to handle humans in larger roles than Pixar, for example The Incredibles where absolutely no person looks remotely believable or incredibly detailed. Disney gets the decisive edge in that category.

I have two more points that I would like to hit on, animals and environment. Monster's, Inc is good at showing off both animal-esque animations and detail, as Sully's fur is incredibly detailed and even Randall looks great despite just being scales, but then characters like Mike's love interest just seem half assed. So I'll look at other Pixar films. First we'll throw out Cars, because I haven't seen it and because you can't animate a car realistically or believably when its jumping around and talking. Next we'll look at Toy Story, I have few complaints, all the characters are incredibly detailed for the time and behave realistically and imaginatively, but because of the gap in time the CGI in Bolt is noticeably more refined. Next we'll look at Wall-E, I can agree that Wall-E behaves realistically and imaginatively, but the detail does not really scream out as impressive for me, on any of the characters. This is largely because animating robots should not be incredibly difficult, they only have a fixed movement pattern with little room for deviation, so once it's gotten down then nothing else should be too hard. Finally I'll move to Nemo where the fish are beautifully coloured, swim incredibly realistically but are not questioned when they do something fantastic because the world between the real and the cartoon is so well blended. However, the problem I have here, as expected, is that everything is too one note. That encounter with the fish that has the light on its head showed an incredible skill with CGI, but color is nice, however fist really only allow for different shades and different constructions, there aren't really fine details that need to be ironed out. Conversely the animals in Bolt are all incredibly detailed, defining strands of fur and color patches, though it avoids pigeonholing itself into one type of animal by using the pigeons, quite possibly the best CGI creatures in the film next to Bolt. The shades on their necks blend brilliantly and the feathers are very well definied, a complete different aesthetic from dogs, cats, and hamsters. And there is, of course, the behaviours. Each animals moves with an insane amount of precision, keeping realism in tact while also allowing for some unbelievable motions to pass by unnoticed. And once again, the pigeons behave strikingly similar to the real birds, whereas the birds in Nemo, especially the seagulls, throw most attempts at detail and realism to the side for humor's sake, a compromise that Bolt does not make. Nemo makes a damn strong case to break even with Bolt, but the range in the creatures has me lean in Disney's favor.

Finally we have environments, the most varied of which are probably seen in Wall*E, Toy Story, and Nemo. It's hard to argue with how great Wall*E looks, but the color palette is never fully realized as the three primary competitors for time are the blacks of space, the browns of earth, and the whites of the ship's innards. Now the sequence in the ship when all the people are going through the mall is great, but it's a fleeting occurrence and does not remain the whole film, or change dramatically enough throughout the run time. Toy Story, once again, is great, but the age is apparent, still I'd give it the edge over most of Wall*E, and the environments used in that film are all nearly handled, or at least replaced, by the environments in Bolt, ranging from cities to lush fields of grass where the different blades are defined. Now we go to Nemo, the strongest competitor for the environment CGI. Despite being confined to the ocean the dramatic shifts in landscape from part to part. The colors are fully realized, the water is beautiful, and the land is well detailed, even the doctor's office is great. I would give these two films a push, Bolt and Nemo are even money in environment, and I may lean toward Nemo one day and Bolt the next, but as a whole Bolt is a more fully realized CGI film that still works as a cartoon/comedy. Note how I do not call Nemo a bad film, just that the CGI, as a whole, is more impressive in Bolt than in Nemo, what I consider to be Pixar's best use of CGI in any of their films.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #36 on: March 08, 2009, 11:15:27 AM »
A lot of your problems with Pixar is that they don't do things like people and animals "real" enough. I think that this is a creative decision which shouldn't mean that they don't do the best animation. If they don't want to achieve realism but still get what they want to, doesn't that make their efforts successful. Isn't Hercules's character design completely unrealistic on purpose to look more like art from Greece?

Also, I am way more impressed when art can be totally unrealistic but still work on its own terms, something that I think most Pixar and Disney movies do.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #37 on: March 08, 2009, 11:44:18 AM »
A lot of your problems with Pixar is that they don't do things like people and animals "real" enough. I think that this is a creative decision which shouldn't mean that they don't do the best animation. If they don't want to achieve realism but still get what they want to, doesn't that make their efforts successful. Isn't Hercules's character design completely unrealistic on purpose to look more like art from Greece?

Also, I am way more impressed when art can be totally unrealistic but still work on its own terms, something that I think most Pixar and Disney movies do.

It's not that they don't do them real enough, that works in cartoons usually, it's that they don't do them real at all, but almost always they want the world they live in to be completely realistic. The strength of CGI is the ability to blur the lines between the real world and the cartoon world by hitting that middle ground, so if they are just going to go over the top with the cartoon aspect why not just draw the cartoons? It's be much more impressive and likely more colorful. Though the use of Hercules as unrealistic works because it does reference the Greek art, where as a film like The Incredibles may work if it's only the heroes who are out of place to further show their alienation or something, but every human in there is consistent with that style and the choice of how to physically portray people does nothing to advance any of the themes and just clashes with the environment these people exist in. I can get why the people in Wall*E all looked how they did, though I think the character models for the people were bland, but when the film had a chance to actually animate humans with detail what do they do? They use real people instead.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36123
  • Marathon Man
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #38 on: March 08, 2009, 12:41:43 PM »
I want to thank you for presenting your argument in full.  I actually now understand what you are getting at.

I don't agree and will never agree, but I'm sure you expect that.  Neither one of us will switch to the other person's way of thinking, but at least you've taken the time to clarify and explain your position and I really do appreciate it.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #39 on: March 08, 2009, 01:15:23 PM »
You got it buddy, I do my best to give you people a better understanding of my psyche. My outlandish claims are not without reason, usually.

 

love