But with a budget north of $120 mil. Is this really necessary? My kid surely didn't care. I was thinking if it's just Disney bragging at being Disney because no other animation studio could even dream of pulling off this level of visual fidelity. The attention to detail was absolutely amazing!
shareI found it ugly and cheap.
It looked like a AAA videogame.
Gimme Aladdin any day for amazing animation and immersive graphics, not this cheap looking crap.
You want Aladdin? Go watch Aladdin.
shareThat is a great idea but a poor reply.
I want new films to amaze me on that same level of artistry, not to overcrowd the frame with fake looking algorythms that belong to videogames.
Well, it is not like 2D animation has thrived in the last two decades. 😐
shareI agree.
But I'm not just putting down 3d.
I like 3d, I just was not impressed by the overly detailed everything picture in this one, it looked ugly, cloying, corny and a poor artistic choice.
poor artistic choice.
OXYMORON
I didn't like your tone (because 3D animation is a work of art too, not inferior to 2D,) but that doesn't mean I didn't agree about their poor / unecessary choices in this particular movie. You sounded like you bash the entire 3D animated movie industry, but then you said you like 3D.
I thought it was pretty clear from my OP that this level of detail (and the production cost that comes with it) is basically useless for the movie's intended audience, i.e., kids. Never did I ever say it was super beautiful or anything. Just that the visual fidelity was very, very high. Which I appreciated as a technical achievement, not arstistical.
Ok, on a strictly technical perspective, it is quite an achievement. But nothing revolutionary, only the put a lot of money and time on it, and it shows.
But I'm still waiting for an animation that truly breaks through the cartoon world and the uncanny valley.
Judging from the trailer of Buzz Lightyear the movie, it looks like Disney/Pixar really double-down on this seemingly over-detailed, hyper realistic rendering instead of more stylistic approach by other less-technically-capable studios.
I'm starting to think that Pixar was and is a technology company at it's heart. They just used movies to show off their tech. Since the original Toy Story it was always a tech demo one over another.
Monster Inc. was all about fur simulation, again in Brave which has super emphasised hair physics. The Good Dinosaur was all about trees and vistas. Moana was all about water simulation. They chose their movie themes based on what tech they're working on at the moment.
Even this movie, Encanto, was most likely to show off their expertise in crumbling buildings, destructable environtments and dust physics and lighting. Which, I just realised, is the one most important 3D animation techniques used in blockbuster movies nowadays (Disney's own superhero franchises.) So it all makes sense why they decided to do that Lightyear movie next which looks like will be set in space / space stations. Because they are most likely working on, my guess, low and/or zero gravity physics simulations (i.e., for Star Wars / GotG, etc.)
You know, I think you have a point about Pixar being more of a technical company than a storytelling one. Many of their recent films have fallen down on the story front big time, while being technical masterpieces.
Like "The Good Dinosaur", which had an annoying story and was just no fun, well. I don't regret seeing it in the theater, because of the technical stuff, they re-created a Wyoming with no humans or civilization. Ad that was worth the price of admission.
I DON'T DISAGREE ABOUT THE GOOD DINOSAUR MYSELF...BUT MY WIFE,DAUGHTER AND 32 YEAR OLD MALE COUSIN WHO I WATCHED IT WITH LOVED IT AND THEY COULD NOT CARE LESS ABOUT TECHNICAL STUFF.
shareThe Good Dinosaur was a re-do of The Lion King story. It arguably was the best story Disney had so I guess they thought hey it worked last time, probably will work again this time around. Quite telling how they didn't care too much about storytelling but more about showing the, at the time, truly groundbreaking visuals.
However, now I think there were still people pushing for storytelling in Pixar because Inside Out was one of the best storytelling ever done in a movie and I didn't notice any sort of a breakthrough in bleeding-edge technological advantages in that movie.
It's like they make 1 or 2 tech demos, and then 1 real masterpiece using all the tried-and-true techniques, then another 2 tech demos, and so on. It maybe leans more on the tech demos now because of the Disney/Marvel superhero franchises are more important financial wise.
In addition, I believe they're also tasked with padding the Disney+ streaming service because it's still behind the curve on offering original contents againts the competitions, i.e., Netflix. The Dog from Up and Monster Inc. mini-series (both are disapointingly mediocre in my opinion, not even my kid likes them) and, very recently, Turning Red all went straight to Disney+. Looks like they're just too busy now to create another masterpiece. At least not anytime soon.
Totally agree.
Kinda like in many (possibly most) videogames, the tech is leading the way in 3d animation (but also animation in general).
Of course, the great videogames use this tech to greate great gameplay and are thus exploit it to their advantage to create something new and never seen before. The lesser ones, end up being exploited by the tech and are gimmicky or just mildly entertaining.
These pixar filmmakers are mostly tech guys.
They clearly struggle to create something interesting artistically (being it narrative or theme or idea) and THEN think about how to do it (like a real artist would). Instead, they have a great new brush or algorythm or graphic capability and they think "how can I use that in a movie?"
Most their stories are basic, and aimed at children or adults with children.
Compare that to Japanese animation to see what I mean about artists vs techheads and about conveying a concept into film rather than the reverse.
Anime is thriving just fine. Pokémon is the highest grossing media franchise of all time.
shareWell, I think I have to admit that I'm not into anime and don't know much about ut.
But it seems like 2D is almost dead within Western animation.
I think our French friends in Fortiche are reviving 2D-style animation using modern tech.
Check out Arcane, they use 100% hand-drawn backrgrounds, textures and effects then combine them with state-of-the-art 3D models for the characters.
It really does blend well. The end product is, in my opinion, even better than both full 2D or full 3D. Western animation is coming back.
https://moviechat.org/tt11126994
Okay, that's interesting.
shareThe graphics were pretty cool.
share