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 17610 times)

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #40 on: March 08, 2009, 03:26:51 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.

true. I never got your love for those disney stuffs. But I think you probably have a good reason for it.

It's all perspective folks.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #41 on: March 08, 2009, 05:22:01 PM »
I have to say that the animation in Bolt really took me by surprise as well. I thought the characters were given an almost infinite amount of detail. I had never watched a CG Dinsey film (skipped Meet the Robinsons and the chicken thing) and, in a foolish way, took for granted that Pixar simply ruled the world of CG animated films with regards to animation quality. I'm not going to lie, Bolt really caught me off guard with how good it looked.
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2009, 08:03:06 PM »
I have to say that the animation in Bolt really took me by surprise as well. I thought the characters were given an almost infinite amount of detail. I had never watched a CG Dinsey film (skipped Meet the Robinsons and the chicken thing) and, in a foolish way, took for granted that Pixar simply ruled the world of CG animated films with regards to animation quality. I'm not going to lie, Bolt really caught me off guard with how good it looked.

Bolt did indeed look great. Part of it was the level of minute detail, which didn't quite match Pixar's efforts, but was certainly increased over Dreamworks films or the previous Disney CG entries. What really worked better for Bolt, and I think is what people often confuse for detail, is the special muted style of production design they came up with. When Lasseter took over Disney Animation he started digging in to the production of Bolt and actually got the to try to emulate the look of some of the traditionally animated Disney films. This meant making everything not only detailed, but more painterly. They actually developed a method by with the 3-dimensional background sets looked like the classic handpainted, watercolour backgrounds stretched back to the beginning of Disney feature animation in Snow White.

The number of hairs on the dog, by the way, is not detail. That kind of stuff is automatically animated by computer software, and as computers develop it is possible to have more hairs and such.

If you want to see the best detail in animated features the best examples are probably Cars and Ratatouille. In Cars, everything in the world is beautifully and uniquely designed. If you pay close attention you can even see that the bugs in the film are miniature VWs and they leave tiny car tracks on dusty windows. That level of fine detail is not found in Bolt, but the detail that is there is highly commendable. I remember being in awe by the levels of detail the Pixar animators are willing to go to back when I saw A Bug's Life in the theatre and noticed that near the end of the film, the pencil that Flick is sitting on has bite marks in it. What other company would think to add such a small detail? That kind of detail only increases budget and time, but it also adds to the immersive experience of a Pixar production whether you notice every detail or not.

Take a look at my favourite still from Cars:


I admit that Bolt is a beautiful looking film, but there is nothing in the film that matches the kind of detail (or frankly, beauty) that you'd find in Cars.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #43 on: March 08, 2009, 08:28:21 PM »
I apologize but I can't comment on Cars because I haven't seen it yet.
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #44 on: March 08, 2009, 08:32:21 PM »
I apologize but I can't comment on Cars because I haven't seen it yet.

Actually, I just used your quote a jumping-off point. My post was more a response to FLY.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2009, 08:45:01 PM »
The detail that impressed me the most in Bolt was how organic and believable the facial movements of the humans and animals were.
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2009, 08:50:21 PM »
The detail that impressed me the most in Bolt was how organic and believable the facial movements of the humans and animals were.

Not sure I chalk that up to detail. I think it's a style choice. They wanted the whole thing to feel more subdued and naturalistic. Pixr tends to blow movements up just a little more. Dreamworks tends to go full-Looney Toons half the time.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2009, 08:52:01 PM »
The detail was in the subtleties frosty. In the subtleties.
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

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 #48 on: March 08, 2009, 09:22:04 PM »
I apologize but I can't comment on Cars because I haven't seen it yet.

Actually, I just used your quote a jumping-off point. My post was more a response to FLY.

I can't comment on Cars or A Bug's Life because I haven't seen them yet. I still stand by my claim that Bolt has the best environments of any Pixar film though, but I guess this means I have to watch these other two films at some point as well. They aren't going to suck, are they?

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Animation Death Match: Disney vs. Pixar
« Reply #49 on: March 08, 2009, 10:46:53 PM »
I have a few comments to make here. I know, you're shocked. ;)

Consider: How much harder it is to create a compelling, believable, lifelike, emotional performance from a car or a robot than a realistic human? Dismissing these types of characters as easy is unreasonable, it requires infinitely more artistic creativity than with a realistic human character.

You credit Disney with a "decisive edge" regarding humans because The Incredibles art direction is more stylized than Bolt's? Preposterous! Both are equally valid. Your whole argument is built around "detail" and "realism", but that is a pretty narrow minded criteria to measure by.

The number of hairs on the dog, by the way, is not detail. That kind of stuff is automatically animated by computer software, and as computers develop it is possible to have more hairs and such.

This is only partially true. I cringe when I hear things being referred to as "automatically" done by software, because that's basically never the case. Things like hair are indeed simulated, but it requires an enormous amount of work to be set up, and the simulations are tightly controlled to produce the desired result. More detailed interaction with the hair is likely hand animated.

 

love