The Town of Odyssey

Having grown up in the 90s, when Disney animation was at it's peak (IMO), I 100% prefer hand drawn. There is a warmth, a charm, an extra added heart to the hand drawn films.

Don't get me wrong, Pixar is stunning, and their films are among my favorites of all time. But I prefer hand drawn. How about you guys?

Definitely hand drawn. There is neat CGI stuff out there but the hand drawn stuff just has more character IMO.

Likely because of the era I've grown up in, but I vote for CGI. There have been some great hand-drawn movies through the decades (The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, etc.), but modern day CGI-films like Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon top them in almost every way. You can, in my opinion, create a "whole new world" feeling much better with CGI.

I was going to mention Tangled as a lone example of recent fantastic hand-drawn animation, but I guess that is CGI too.

Recent hand-drawn would be Princess and the Frog, which was nice on the animation front, the story wouldn't be a great example. lol. And Disney is coming out with Winnie The Pooh this summer. I was never into WTP, but it is awesome to see them get back into that.

I think I like both. I mean, I have Beauty and the Beast and love it. I mean, hand drawn BEAUTY! But I also love Tangled, and that is just so LIFE-LIKE. Seriously. Who knew you could have a crush on hands? o.0 *don't ask....*

I think both have their ups and downs. I can't think of anything to compare the two as, because I'm sure I'd screw up the comparison. I grew up on many hand drawn movies - and I love Tangled to death. And Pixar... good animation, yeah. The story lines have come to bore me to death - not to mention Cars 2... o.0 Come on. All preference, I guess. I'm for both - it really depends on the movie.

It really depends on the movie. Some stories are better-suited to being told in a different medium. Bolt is one I would have preferred hand-drawn, while the Pixar movies simply wouldn't have the same impact if they weren't CG. In general, I prefer hand-drawn. There's more freedom and it feels more human. There's less of a gap between the artist's hand and the pencil on paper than there is on a computer where entire teams of people can be dedicated just to one aspect like lighting or hair.

American Eagle wrote:I was going to mention Tangled as a lone example of recent fantastic hand-drawn animation, but I guess that is CGI too.

Tangled was an attempt to make CGI look more like hand-drawn animation. They developed new technology for it so that the artist's hand doesn't get lost in all the 0s and 1s, which is why it looks so amazing.

In the end, one is not really better than the other. They are both tools that should be used when needed. BTW, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin did use some CGI, while Tangled tried to mimic hand-drawings of some of the artists who worked on the aforementioned movies.

Glen Keane was very much involved in Tangled - and he worked with Aladdin and BATB. Glen was even directing Tangled before... stuff. o.0 *shrug* I love Bryon and Nathan for directing anyway. And Claire askldjflajsdf Seriously, I love her. Claire Keane. I have "The Art of Tangled" book - so amazing. Just all the ideas brought together, and how things changed, and characters looks transformed. I also have Claire Keane's "Rapunzel's Amazing Hair" book. She's an amazing artist. She takes after her father so well.

The new technology was for the hair. lol. Plus, it was easier to handle and the artists weren't drawing so much, since the hair was 70 feet long.

I believe in an article I read once that Tangled used a little bit of hand-drawn, because Glen is just awesome like that. But they were trying to mimic it, yes. At the same time, it does make it feel more alive. If I compare BATB and Tangled, I like Tangled more for visual aspect because it is so bright and I can see every little thing. Plus, a little more dimensional than BATB.

And this is why I'm trying not to compare. So maybe I'm just stuck on Tangled... *shrug* I don't know it all!

I voted for CGI, but as a side note, The Princess and the Frog was not hand-drawn, it was just a 2D animation done on a computer.

I LOVE CGI!

Steve wrote:I voted for CGI, but as a side note, The Princess and the Frog was not hand-drawn, it was just a 2D animation done on a computer.

Uh... it was hand-drawn. , but then scanned into a computer. Just without dealing with 3D. It seems there was a lot of back and forth, and definitely some computer usage - but wiki claims the characters were still hand drawn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_and_the_Frog

Danielle Abigail Maxwell wrote:

Steve wrote:I voted for CGI, but as a side note, The Princess and the Frog was not hand-drawn, it was just a 2D animation done on a computer.

Uh... it was hand-drawn. , but then scanned into a computer. Just without dealing with 3D. It seems there was a lot of back and forth, and definitely some computer usage - but wiki claims the characters were still hand drawn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_and_the_Frog

Yeah, dude. I have the movie in HD. I can see the pencil marks

Both have their ups and downs. I am saying hand drawn for now because I am kinda getting tired of CGI. That doesn't mean I hate CGI, just wish everyone would stop making CGI movies. I mean what happened to dreamworks? The bible movies Prince of Egypt and King of Dreams were amazing animated musicals.

I would say CGI just because of Toy Story 3 and Tangled











double post fixed - Shennifer