• Recent comments
  • soundtrackzdll
    Animal Kingdom (2010)
    i Love this movie.JD is great.
  • Frank
    I Am Number Four (2011)
    Well, sounds like the same feeling I had when I went seeing Percy Jackson and the...
  • Helen
    The Tourist (2010)
    that’s a bit harsh. She’s quite good in some movies. She’s so thin now...
  • alooper21
    The Tourist (2010)
    maybe you should think that “this is a movie with angelina jolie, so it can’t...
  • Helen
    Is 3D here to stay?
    I agree. I didn’t think the 3d in the movie ‘Avatar’ added anything at all...
  • Andrew
    Breakfast on Pluto (2005)
    St. Cetten…ugh, do some bloody research before you post misinformation!

Computer Animation

Filed under: — Arjan Welles on April 2nd, 2004 04:04:52 pm

FindingNemointro.jpgNow that most American animation studios have decided to give up handmade animation and skip to computer animation, let’s take a closer look at the computer drawn animation. It made me realize that just CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) is not a bad development per se. If it is done properly. In this article a closer look on some CGI-made movies, both animated movies and real life animation.

Toy Story (1995)

ToyStory.jpgThis is sort of where it all began. Toy Story was the very first full time animated film and it is already a classic, despite the fact it is not even ten years old. This movie was an instant success and its sequel, Toy Story 2 (1999) was even considered to be better than the original. A rare thing in movie land. This was also the first collaboration between Disney and Pixar. Disney is currently working solo on part 3. I wonder if that will work’

Dinosaur (2000)

Dinosaur.jpgDisney’s very first solo attempt to make a computer animated film. Rather disappointing. It combines traditionally shot (nature) background with pixeled dinos. The story is a mess, the characters look too realistic but have the ability to speak, which kinda gives a weird effect. I prefer the BBC series Walking With Dinosaurs, that had a similar concept but was more documentary like.

Shrek (2001)

Shrek.jpgMaybe not that well animated, compared to the Disney/Pixar productions, Shrek was a huge success. It has an un-Disney sense of humor, annoying unsympathetic characters and messes around with about every fairytale you can possibly imagine. A sequel is planned for release a few months from now and a third Shrek is already in production. The sequel stars new voices by Julie Andrews, John Cleese, Antonio Banderas and Jennifer Saunders.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)

FinalFantasy.jpgBased on a well know computer game, Final Fantasy had a potency to become a huge hit. It was the first movie that had a realistic look, but was completely CGI made. Although some effects were amazing, this one kinda flopped. The humans were already better animated in The Animatrix, in the very first sequence called The Flight of the Osiris, which is very much fun to watch. Still humans in CGI look sort of fake.

Ice Age (2002)

IceAge.jpgFirst computer animated movie by Twentieth Century Fox. The makers intended a specific style of animation, but to me it didn’t work. Bad story and annoying characters (in contrary to Shrek unintended). This movie just didn’t do much for me and I was kind of disappointed by it. I heard a sequel is on the way but I doubt if this is a good thing.

Finding Nemo (2003)

FindingNemo0.jpgPixar’s absolute master piece. Animated movies almost can’t get any better. The very first time a group of animators succeeded in making water look realistic. And water is everywhere in this movie: splashing, dripping and flowing. It also has an amazing animation of light in every possible way. And as a cherry on top: amazing voice cast also, with a stand-out performance by Ellen Degerenes.

FUTURE PRODUCTIONS

There is still a lot to come the next couple of years. A quick look:

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

SkyCaptain.jpgStarring Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law, this production that hits theaters this summer may not be completely suitable for this article, if it wasn’t for the fact it had manlike actors with all CGI backgrounds. The entire movie was shot in front of blue screens.

The Incredibles (2004)

Incredibles.jpgPixar’s next collaboration with Disney. A superhero family has to save the world from perish. After experimenting with difficult to tackle subjects like hair and skin (Monsters Inc.) and water (Finding Nemo), this one is the first Pixar movie starring humans. I am personally very much looking forward to this one. The trailer that can be found online is very funny…

Shark Tale (2004)

SharkTale.jpgDreamworks’ attempt to achieve the success of Finding Nemo. An impressive voice cast, including Martin Scorsese, Angelina Jolie, Will Smith and Robert DeNiro. Godfather starring sharks. Dreamworks unintentionally tried to copy Pixar before with Antz (compared to Pixar’s A Bug’s Life that was released the same year). The animation to me looks a bit crappy, but it could be fun.

The Polar Express (2004)

PolarExpress.jpgRobert Zemeckis rejoins with Tom Hanks after Forrest Gump and Cast Away for this computer animated fairytale. The trailer looks kinda fake, like the director couldn’t choose between an animated and a real life look. We’ll see’

Chicken Little (2005)

ChickenLittle.jpg
Solo Disney project. Looks al kinda cute. Maybe a bit too cute.

Cars (2005)

Cars.gifThe final collaboration between Disney and Pixar. Not much is known about it, except the voice cast including Owen Wilson, Bonnie Hunt and Paul Newman. A bunch of classic cars go on an adventure on route 66.

Robots (2005)

Robots.jpgNot much is known about this production, starring the voices of Ewan McGregor and Halle Berry.

Madagascar (2005)

A Dreamworks production starring a bunch of zoo animals who are released and go back to their natural habitat.

A Scanner Darkly (???)

Based on a novel by Philip K. Dick (Total Recall, Minority Report, Paycheck), starring Keanu Reeves. This movie will be shot and then reanimated by computer.

A DASH OF CGI

Check out the following movies for CGI-characters among a human cast:

Star Wars ‘ Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999)
Lots of CGI characters, with the annoying Jar Jar Binks as the most prominent one.

Scooby-Doo (2002)
The well-known Danish Dog consisting of pixels. Kind of disappointing.

Star Wars ‘ Episode II: The Attack of the Clones (1999)
Thank God less Jar Jar Binks. This time Yoda was completely CGI, where he once was a puppet. Looks rather impressive.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Dobby the House Elf is completely made out of pixels. Quite realistic especially the clothes he is wearing.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Debut of the best CGI character to date: Gollem. No introduction necessary.

Garfield: The Movie (2004)
The overly fat cat in his very first movie, coming this year.

author picture Arjan Welles (213 posts)
Arjan Welles - law graduate. I work at a bank, I work as a film critic for Dutch and English media. My favorite directors are David Lynch, David Fincher, Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino. I love arthouse over blockbusters.

12 Comments

  • Impressive overview.
    There’s nothing wrong with using CGI, but it should not dominate the story. Also I think if it is too realistic (Titan A.E. and Final Fantasy) it becomes kinda confusing.

    There is one obscure technique that you forgot to mention: rendered imaging.
    Not a very populair technique though and not surprising for those who saw Ralph Bakshi’s early version of LOTR, that was shot with the rendering technique called Rotoscope (animation cells drawn over real life film frames).

    Finding Nemo was great, but as soon the humans appear onto the screen they seem not to be able to choose how to animate them. They are often too realistic compared with the other characters but still have peculiar cartoonish traits, which give a strange sense to it all. You also see this in Toy Story.

    Comment by Paco — Sat April 3, 2004 @ 14:04
  • Rendering will happen: with that Keanu Reeves movie. It is not that popular tho’

    Comment by arjan — Sat April 3, 2004 @ 21:55
  • HANG ON A MOMENT!!! Ice Age – disappointing? No way! Finding Nemo Pixar’s masterpiece? Again I don’t believe it. I’m not having a go at you Arjan because everybody has their own tastes and fair enough but personally I found Finding Nemo to be one of the weaker efforts from Pixar, slightly better than A Bug’s Life but nowhere near as clever, funny or memorable as the two Toy Story films, or even Monsters Inc.
    I’ll admit the animation in Finding Nemo is amazing, hands down, but I thought the film itself was rather disappointing, although it does have some good jokes and is FAR from being a bad film. It just didn’t fill we with the sense of joy that other Pixar films have. Perhaps it’s aimed at an audience a lot younger than other Pixar films.
    As for Ice Age, personally I think it’s my favourite of all the CG animated movies I’ve seen. I think the characters are superb and the style of animation is wonderful. The animation reminded me of the work of Chuck Jones. Although it’s using high tech equipment, they kept a traditional animated style, which appealed to me very much. I think the story is hilarious, it has some wonderful set pieces. And personally, I don’t think there’s been an animated character since Marvin the Martian that I’ve loved as much as Scrat – the rat/squirrel thing in Ice Age. Give Ice Age another chance Arjan.

    And I’m not afraid to say this either. I didn’t think Shrek was all that good either. But part 2 looks funny.

    Comment by damian — Sun April 4, 2004 @ 9:03
  • Ice Age was horrible to me. But yeah, it’s a matter of taste. I was annoyed by the nervous squirrel that kept coming back as a gimmick and the annoying sloth…. yuk…

    it looks as though it was made with half the effort of most Pixar films…

    Finding Nemo is just wonderful, the way they captured the movement of fish, that act without becoming too human. They don’t act with their fins a lot (except maybe Dory), because that is not what fish do. But they have an amazing expression, considering the fact fish look like tubes with faces and fins.

    And Ellen Degeneres is amazing in Nemo…

    Comment by arjan — Sun April 4, 2004 @ 10:38
  • oh and… if you look back at Shrek: the animation is not that great and the jokes. well you kinda see them coming… the scene with the exploding bird is hilarious.

    So yeah: I kinda agree with you on that one Damian…

    Comment by arjan — Sun April 4, 2004 @ 10:42
  • Today I was in a restaurant where they had an impressive aquarium and they had “Nemo” and “Dory” in it!!! No B.S.

    I can now vouch for the lifelike depiction of these two fish. Incredible.
    :)

    Comment by Paco — Mon April 5, 2004 @ 1:32
  • Actually I saw a fish tank in a chinese restaurant a while back with both types of fish in them as well, and indeed, great job by Pixar. Baby clownfish are very cute.

    I loved Ice Age as well, the Tae-Kwon Dodos are simply the best joke I’ve seen in an CGI movie. (“goodness gracious it’s you!” is the best one from an animaties movie (Wallace & Gromit, The Wrong Trousers)).

    I didn’t like the way Shrek looked. A little too realistic, and therefore bland. Ice Age looked like direct translation of great artist sketches into 3d models. Especially the Sabretooths.

    Toy Story will probably always remain my favourite. It was the first of it’s kind, and having the merchandise play the lead roles was a stroke of brilliance (be it marketing brilliance) :)

    Comment by weefselkweekje — Mon April 5, 2004 @ 8:40
  • why no mention of Toy Story II?

    Comment by marisa — Mon April 5, 2004 @ 22:49
  • I just picked out some movies, I couldn’t do all. And since it is a sequel I only discussed TS1.

    Comment by arjan — Mon April 5, 2004 @ 23:25
  • I heard that Richard Linklater is going to direct ‘A Scanner Darkly’ with some touch of rotoscope as ‘Waking Life’.

    (read it from the tv news that you get on the Amsterdam’s tram and hearing some buzz about it in IMDB).

    Comment by Anonymous — Tue April 6, 2004 @ 15:24
  • Hey, you forgot Tron!!

    Comment by Paco — Thu April 8, 2004 @ 12:53
  • This moive is wonderful with perfect 3D graphic. Garfield in the movie is really a cool and smart cat who can dance admirably. When he went to the tall building to saved the dog Odie and went down, it was very cool! But it was so dangerous when he dropped down from the tall building.
    The story line is superb and jokey, and the actress is very beautiful and cute. It was very incredible for Jon that the girl could love him, I also have the same feeling and the same experience with Jon.

    Comment by Creford — Fri April 8, 2005 @ 2:41

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.