Animation movies - time to change?

[nhs325]

So, this is my basic idea.
I've watched LOTS of animation movies like Frozen, Monsters University or the latest, Epic. They are all good animations, but a thing don't changed.
THE GRAPHICS.
I mean, yeah, look at some of the first animation movies with 3d look like The Incredibles or Ice Age. And look now. Still that 3d look, with big eyes and stuff, nothing changed. No improves. No offense, but I think the age of animation movies, or companies that makes animations like Walt Disney or Blue Sky will not last forever.
And look at the gaming industries. They improve so fast with the graphics. With the new programs like Unity 5 or Cryengine, they could go forever.
So my opinion is: CAN YOU IMPROVE THE GRAPHICS FOR ANIMATION MOVIES? Its not that hard for large companies like Blue Sky or Walt Disney. My basic idea is "Realistic 3d",which just like the original 3d but with more textures or the deep of characters, like for real but still not change the animation looks. Or you prefer the original ones? Put your opinions here.

 

[GhostWolf]

Games really don't advance too much anymore. A few more triangles, textures might be a little higher quality, but there isn't anything truly interesting or new.

About 3D animation movies, it's called style. That's the style the very few companies who produce commercial 3D animation movies (Pixar, Disney...others?) chose.

The whole thing with some games striving for photo-realism is because they can't do it. 3D animated movies could always do it, since they are not real-time, so I guess this just doesn't interest people as much.

In addition, there is the stigma that animated movies are for kids, so it makes sense to not make them photo-realistic.

You can always walk around the lovely artsy part of Youtube, there are endless really good 2D and 3D shorts there with many different styles.

 

[nhs325]

Styles are styles, and could they keep their styles in the future?

 

[Dr Super Good]

Because they are bothering to re-invent something called a plot... You know the thing that "The Incredibles" and "Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" (with Jar Jar Binks) lacked? The very thing that most old Disney films had?

Even frozen had plot problems. I am sure I was not the only one who noticed that the entire ending sequence with the one prince becoming a traitor must have been written after the first part was made as it fitted absolutely terribly and made no sense.

look at some of the first animation movies with 3d look like The Incredibles or Ice Age

No they do not. The visuals in Toy Story 1 were much, much, MUCH more simple than those films. Even a Bugs Life look like shit compared to modern films. Sure if you get the billionths re-release they might have re-rendered the scenes with modern technology but you can notice that they look bad compared to modern films.

 

[nhs325]

Hard for them to make better plots since all the good plots have been used.
Also, about those old animation movies, you kinda right. Cause the last time I saw Bug's Life was 2 years ago and Frozen was last month.

 

[Adiktuz]

I think one of the reasons to keep it like that is that because those movies were supposedly made for kids... and kids like seeing movies with cutesy graphics... Plus I guess it might make the cost go higher, which in the case of movies will just be an unnecessary expenditure given that the sales of these animations using the current style is still phenomenal...

And they don't really need to, specially when there isn't much competition anyways... Games on the other hand tries out to "look better" because there are a lot of competition, and as it seems, lots of gamers nowadays wants "realistic graphics".

Plus if we go with "realistic 3D" why not just do a realistic movie with realistic 3D renders here and there for non-realistic things like dragons and such?

 

[Dr Super Good]

Real does not look good is the reason. Even a realistic film that uses a mix of shot footage and CGI like Marvel Avengers Assemble looks better than real life. HDR allows much better lighting depths than our eyes are capable of. Infinite focus capabilities of CGI allow depths of focus far greater than possible with our eyes. Even the sharpness is enhanced to give better clarity than real life.

The fact is, why would one want a realistic movie? It would be much better to have real life be like a movie.

 

[nhs325]

You are right. AREN'T YOU?
Just check out the trailer of How To Train Your Dragon 2. A good example for what I'm trying to say: not too shiny, but a prefer of a realistic. I want animation movies in the future could be like that.

 

[PurgeandFire]

I think one of the reasons to keep it like that is that because those movies were supposedly made for kids...

This is an interesting point.

I don't care too much whether they change the graphics, but a change of topic would be nice.

I think the last animated 3D movie intended for older audiences (i.e. >13) was Beowulf. I can't really think of many others. As Ghostwolf already mentioned, there are usually just 2 companies behind most of the 3D releases and they are pretty much bound to release PG movies. While the rating doesn't determine how good the movie is, it'd be nice to get a change of scenery once in a while.

 

[Adiktuz]

A change of topic is surely nice...

 

[nhs325]

Hardly true, but how could the animation movies lives on? Although it have make a decade of 3d animation movies, from Toy Story to Frozen, I still want a big change in graphics on those movies if I tell you.
About the plot, take the upcoming movie Maleficent for example. They run out of ideas so they have to twist it, again. Oz: the Great and Powerful is also an example.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I guess the answer to your question is the Uncanny Valley effect. Movie makers fear it alot more than game makers, which is why usually characters in animated movies are stylized in a very comic-like way, to make sure you stay at the "good side" of the valley.

Remember the Final Fantasy movie? It's a good example of the Uncanny Valley effect.

 

[Adiktuz]

But those aren't animated movies... and no one said changing plots of already made movies/ideas so I don't see why that reply was made... if that's a reply for Purge's change of topic, then I'd say this: Plot is not equal to Topic

Anyway, I could care much less for animated movie graphics than how less I care about having realistic game graphics...

 

[PurgeandFire]

Disney likes to play the nostalgia card. It works. Even if the movies aren't too special, it works.

I can see what you mean about new graphics. But I'm saying that isn't all I want. I want for someone to create an animated film that isn't limited in content by trying to be kid friendly. That is why I was so excited for the Warcraft movie several, several years ago. When I first saw Medivh flying through Azeroth and flying into Lordaeron, I was amazed. "HOLY SHIT THIS IS BEAUTIFUL!" Then they go into Tirion's throne room, and they zoom in to his face. "HOLY SHIT I CAN SEE HIS PORES". I was so excited and shocked and amazed.

After they said they were making a movie, I wanted to get that same feeling again. Sadly, it suffered the fate of many western stories: it is going to be live action. It isn't the worst thing ever, but I was really hoping for an animated film.

Speaking of which: live action is all-too-common in Western filmmaking. Animated 3D films are generally created by one of 2 companies, and 2D animated films have become very scarce. The last one was probably the Princess and the Frog, but that was most likely just so that they could have a black princess in Disneyland. The only other source I can think of is Miyazaki, who is essentially the "Walt Disney" of anime (for Western audiences). Most people who like anime in the US have watched at least one of his films (usually Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke). And all of them are really awesome. Yet, they still aren't very popular in America.

That was a weird aside, but my point is that 'variance' in animation is just really limited for Western audiences. We can get tons of variance in video games, but I can't really expect the same from movies so long as Disney and Pixar are behind them. They'll keep chugging it out as long as their younggin'-focused formula works. And since films require a ton of capital to begin with (unless they're independent), I doubt we'll see films from other companies in the future.

EDIT: I completely forgot about Avatar. Tbh, that movie made me hopeful. I'm surprised we haven't seen anything like it since.

 

[sonofjay]

If you're getting tired of 3D animation why not try 2D animations? Studio Ghibli produced a lot of animation films with great plot and development which most 3D films lacks.

 

[nhs325]

Hardly, sonofjay. I really don't prefer anymore of those since I watched Grave of the Fireflies or Spirited Away.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

Games really don't advance too much anymore. A few more triangles, textures might be a little higher quality, but there isn't anything truly interesting or new.

The Vanishing of Ethan Carter

 

[GhostWolf]

The Vanishing of Ethan Carter

I am assuming you expect me to be amazed, but there is nothing amazing or new there.
Like I said, a few more triangles, possibly a little higher resolution textures.

The jacket and hands of the character in the second image look so ridiculously low poly relative to the rest of the scene too, it completely ruins it.

The only reason games look half-decent is because of displacement (usually normal) maps, but you can only do so much with lighting illusions.

 

[Dr Super Good]

The problem with games is not so much computing the graphics, but producing them.

In pre rendered scenes there is no real limit to the complexity of textures and models. Having millions of triangles for even a hand is perfectly acceptable. Obviously you could get away with less, or you could use more but the key thing is productivity.

In real time graphics it is much more difficult to produce the art work. Resources are limited so you cannot just throw triangles and textures at a problem as long as it is fast. A lot of time has to be spent optimizing the model so that it looks good without wasting resources. Detail can only really be spent where necessary.

A good example is Super Smash Brothers Brawl. This was a Wii game and we all know the Wii was just a slightly improved GameCube. It looks absolutely fantastic with the models having high levels of detail and very few cases where performance is a problem. The only thing preventing it from being called "next generation" (at the time, not now) is the low resolution but if you run it in an emulator it looks absolutely amazing.

On the other hand you have the crime against humanity known as Sonic the Hedgehog 2006. This was a "next generation" (at the time) game for the Xbox 360 and PS3. Despite the console having well over 4 times the power as the Wii most of it looked like total garbage. If you were to compare it side by side with Super Smash Brothers Brawl on a SD TV you would think the Wii is next generation. Why did it look bad? Well they used a lot of geometry on some objects so they looked really nice but others looked like something taken from a PS1/2 game. Some objects literally looked like they were plonked down in place with poor alignment. Despite considerably more power than the Wii, it suffered horrendous performance, especially visually.

Later sonic titles like Unleashed, Generations and more recently Lost World (well that is for Wii U but uses same engine) look considerably better. This was because they optimized the visuals using techniques like complex light pre-baking for the static environment, streaming the stage in chunks instead of having it all visible at once, distance objects using simpler geometry, better use of textures so they appear sharper etc. In the case of Unleashed and Generations its the same console as 2006, but looks and performs vastly better. Lost World raised the problem that making such good looking stages costs a fortune, which is why they went for slightly simpler stage design.

 

[nhs325]

Err, we are going too off topic here....

 

[The_wand_mirror]

I am assuming you expect me to be amazed, but there is nothing amazing or new there. Like I said, a few more triangles, possibly a little higher resolution textures.

The jacket and hands of the character in the second image look so ridiculously low poly relative to the rest of the scene too, it completely ruins it.

The only reason games look half-decent is because of displacement (usually normal) maps, but you can only do so much with lighting illusions.

If you are not impressed by their textures than that's really weird because it's not just "more polygons" actually one of their models was very low poly and looked like shit up close but let's be honest any texture up close looks like shit anyway (Unless 4k maybe). I don't know what you are expecting really... immersion (animation etc.) is (should be) the next big thing because graphics will only get you so far. Every game I play looks great anyway.

Read some of their blogposts its pretty intresting.

And eh there are no lighting illusions, one guy there spent one whole year one making grass lol (No pop-up draw distance, very smooth fps etc..) and they used trickery to get the leaves of trees and such working like in reality.

Offcourse now we still have to see the thing for ourselves.

The problem with games is not so much computing the graphics, but producing them.

In pre rendered scenes there is no real limit to the complexity of textures and models. Having millions of triangles for even a hand is perfectly acceptable. Obviously you could get away with less, or you could use more but the key thing is productivity.

Is this aimed at my post? Because they have said there are no custscenes in the game everything is real-time.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Is this aimed at my post? Because they have said there are no custscenes in the game everything is real-time.

No? It was just a general statement for production costs. If they are willing to spend millions making their game look good, good for them. Too bad the story sounds like a load of rubbish and you can be sure I will not be playing it.

Producing a film like Frozen costs hundreds of millions of dollars. If the same money was spent on a game you would probably end up with a lot less impressive visuals as each visual element takes more time. You cannot just throw triangles to solve problems, you need to optimize the models or else you will suffer from real time performance issues. This takes time and reduces productivity. It has nothing to do with how powerful the system is, but how much time people can devote to getting it to produce the best results.

 

[nhs325]

If millions are not enough, how about BILLIONS? Billions could make a god damn good movie with anwsome graphics and effects, not to mention the animation movies could gone overhaul with billions of dollars. If you run out of ideas, ASK THE PEOPLE. They are your movie-watchers, so they know what to expect.
For example, if I have to remake Epic, I will have the character have deeper emotions, better effects, and finally, the battles look like you are enjoying a Micheal Bay production.
What I'm saying is: if you willing to put more money and put your brain matter into an animation movie, or anything, you will get good results. After all, Graphics and Storyline go match together, right?

 

[Adiktuz]

I don't think they're willing to put that much money, coz it poses too much risk too...

according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films

the highest grossing film so far is avatar with $2B... And that is gross revenue not profit... and there are only 18 films so far that exceeded $1B dollar gross revenue, with Frozen being the only animated film on the top 10...

so looking at it, if I spend at most a billion dollars, and if that movie proves to be at least a blockbuster on the level of Frozen, then I'd only have a profit of 97 million... and I don't even have an assurance that I can reach that...

and why risk to earn a profit of less than a hundred million, when I can use the current style and reach the same gross, but since I have less capital, will give me a higher profit?

Plus it will probably take longer to produce that kind of animated film, so there is also the trade-off of making more of the current style in the same time period versus focusing on fewer with higher quality graphics. Probably it poses less risk to sell more of the current style movies than to try to market a single bigger movie because if one movie flops, you lose only a small amount and you still have other movies to rely on...

[Added]
So Frozen seems like to spent along the lines of $250M, so that means it got roughly around $750m profit. So now let's be optimistic and say your $1B budget movie makes the same as Avatar with around $2.x Billion. Now imagine if around that same time, I can already produce 2 movie hits that will hit like Frozen? Now that will be a $1.5B profit for me using the 2 movies which is roughly more than the profit for the 1 movie way
[/added]

So with these, I think from a business point of view, it's simply not worth it. Especially when the current styled movies are still raking in a LOT of cash

And oh, look at Lion King (1994) it had a gross of $987M, if you imagine how less quality the graphics of that one compares to the others on the list, and think about the fact that it was a 1994 film (with ticket prices probably costing much much less than right now), having a low quality graphics isn't really bad...

After all, Graphics and Storyline go match together, right?

For me? Up to a certain point only... There is such a thing as overly unnecessary high quality graphics for me...

 

[vypur85]

To be honest, I'd prefer 2D animated movies than the 3D ones.
I think more effort is required for them and this effort makes me appreciate the movies more.

Old Disney movies and Studio Ghibli are 2 best examples, particularly the latter. The fluidity of the animations are awesome.

Old is good. And I believe they will last.

 

[Dr Super Good]

And oh, look at Lion King (1994) it had a gross of $987M, if you imagine how less quality the graphics of that one compares to the others on the list, and think about the fact that it was a 1994 film (with ticket prices probably costing much much less than right now), having a low quality graphics isn't really bad...

The real irony was that Lion King was made on a shoe string budget. The director started out having no idea what he was doing and it was mostly manned by people fresh out of art college. Disney was putting all its money on Pocahontas and was expecting Lion King to flop. Boy were they in for a surprise when that film did not make even near as much as Lion King did.

 

[Gekigengar]

To be honest, I'd prefer 2D animated movies than the 3D ones.
I think more effort is required for them and this effort makes me appreciate the movies more.

Old Disney movies and Studio Ghibli are 2 best examples, particularly the latter. The fluidity of the animations are awesome.

Old is good. And I believe they will last.

I second that.

Just recently (weeks ago) started watching back 2D movies from my childhood when cleaning up my storage, looking it back, its amazing,
Its not like animations that are done these days, extremely cheap and I cannot feel any passion from it.
But this gem I found, I can literally call it a fine piece of art.

I do not regret spending money to buy its original copy right after.

Worth every cent, I consider it a bargain.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films

God that list makes me angry. I can't believe how much really really bad movies are making nowadays. Movies like Fast & Furious 6, Shrek 2 or Iron Man 3 or Transformers: Dark of the Moon... or Spider Man 3.
Those are just bad movies and still they score sales beyond this world, wheras other movies with a lot more quality aren't even on the list.

I guess it's pretty much the reason why there's such a general lack of quality in modern pop culture: people will swallow what they get served anyway, no matter how bad.

 

[Adiktuz]

IDK, good/bad is a pretty subjective thing...

Like on your list above, I agree with most of it but I do think Iron Man 3 is good...

Plus from my experience, some (or maybe a lot) of people don't really watch based on that... Some people watch because of the artists, some because of familiarity with the subject, some just wanna have fun, some don't rely on reviews and watch whatever they want (guilty of this one, mainly because of the subjectivity of good/bad so I just go on and watch it if I feel like it and decide for myself) etc...

 

[Dr Super Good]

Iron Man 3

It was not a really bad movie compared to some on the list, but I do agree that Iron Man 1 and Iron Man 2 better disserved that position since the silly Chinese friendly plot of Iron Man 3 kind of let it down. Still one will never forget House Party Protocol lol.

The list reflects world wide earnings. This is why Iron Man 3 is so high as it made a few hundred million from China, a market which few films get to. Do not think the version shown in China was the same we got, it was completely different.

 

[Adiktuz]

the japanese animation Space Pirate Captain Harlock seems to be somehow nice... something like graphics you see from video game trailer nowadays

 

[Gekigengar]

the japanese animation Space Pirate Captain Harlock seems to be somehow nice... something like graphics you see from video game trailer nowadays

But the story..

 

[nhs325]

Thanks you guys for keeping my thread alive for me when im gone.
So, i just realize something. The graphics are good now, just look at "how to train your dragon 2". But the effects and storyline are.... Meh. I guess we must wait for a micheal bay or christopher nolan in animation.

 

[Dr Super Good]

But the effects and storyline are

They have improved recently. During the late 1990s and early 2000s it was pretty bad with rubbish like Atlantis, the Incredibles, Spiderman 1-3 etc. Now with films like How to train your dragon, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, etc the storyline has improved.

Then they ruin it all by making Planes and Cars DAMN IT.

 

[Adiktuz]

and now there's a new Planes movie coming

 

[Gilles]

So, this is my basic idea.
I've watched LOTS of animation movies like Frozen, Monsters University or the latest, Epic. They are all good animations, but a thing don't changed.
THE GRAPHICS.

You're just straight up wrong here. The animation improves all the time. Look at the snow in Frozen; it's physics are incredible. Also you should note that you are talking about cartoons, which aren't meant to look real (unlike many video games).

Look at the difference between Monsters Inc. Monsters U looks way better.

Monster Inc

Monster Inc U

 

[Streak]

how about 4D animations or create a 50D

 

[Dr Super Good]

Look at the difference between Monsters Inc. Monsters U looks way better.

I would actually say Monsters Inc looks better, especially seeing how apparently University is nothing but a tiny white cross. Basically the image link is broken.

 

[Gilles]

I would actually say Monsters Inc looks better, especially seeing how apparently University is nothing but a tiny white cross. Basically the image link is broken.

Well it worked the other day. I fixed it once already so now I give up. My point still stands.

Note: Try right clicking and opening the image in a new tab.