# Why has the advent of CG/3D animation seemingly killed Drawn/2D in movies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 26, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444 "2009-04-26T23:22:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/41 "2009-04-27T23:24:36Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > But it’s clear to me, and to anyone who looks at it critically, that this “genius artist” doesn’t rise, technically at least, to the level of any 1940s studio cartoon. Can you provide some examples of other critics who think Miyazaki’s animation is exceedingly poor? Because the critics I’ve read have been pretty much unanimous in praising him as one of animations greatest artists. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/42 "2009-04-28T03:10:24Z")
I’ll allow that the Tom and Jerry cartoon you linked was quite good, although I’m sure more animation was reused in the two minutes I watched than in the entirety of the Mononoke clip. Really, I think you just don’t like Miyazaki’s style, and you’re pointing at nitpicky details as an attempt to give your opinion some factual grounding. The pacing of the animation with the wolves doesn’t look wrong to me, only different. The crowd is not full of highly individualized people because (and I’m guessing here, never saw the movie in full) they aren’t important to the story. Why waste time coming up with 30-odd character designs on a group of people all but the toughest nitpickers wouldn’t care about, when time could be spent on more important aspects? Shall we also call Osamu Tezuka a hack because background characters are frequently drawn cartoonishly and with less detail than his important characters? I’ve certainly never found it to detract from the overall engaging work. I’ve seen animation that gives the “illusion of life” and aims for what you’re describing. Titan AE is one of my favorite movies, and Don Bluth is exceptionally meticulous in making the characters’ mouths fit the dialog. However, his attempt at getting _too_ detailed leads the characters to sometimes adopt odd expressions, or produce weird body movements. It’s no more lifelike than Miyazaki’s work, and in some ways adding that much detail can make it even less lifelike than the brief sketches you usually see in anime and manga. I don’t hold it against the movie, though, nor do I call it dreck. It’s just different. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/43 "2009-04-28T04:54:48Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > I’ll allow that the Tom and Jerry cartoon you linked was quite good, although I’m sure more animation was reused in the two minutes I watched than in the entirety of the Mononoke clip. Not true. Remember, the Tom and Jerry cartoon predated the xerox machine by several decades. The only way to repeat a cycle would have been carbon paper or tracing. I just watched the whole thing, and there were only a couple of places where there could have been any cycles (mostly Jerry running in place as Tom held his tail) but even then, I’m doubtful. The point is, this was animated, by hand, 12 frames per second, without any copying technology, every paper drawing inked onto a cell, every cell hand painted - doing all this work for producers so cheap that they washed the ink and paint off the cells to re-use them. > [@](#): > > Really, I think you just don’t like Miyazaki’s style, and you’re pointing at nitpicky details as an attempt to give your opinion some factual grounding. Not true. I’ve seen Spirited Away in the theater, and the design and storytelling _almost_ (but not quite) overcame the poor animation. > [@](#): > > The pacing of the animation with the wolves doesn’t look wrong to me, only different. It’s stiff and unnatural. Watch some footage of real wolves. Or compare the fluid animation of the Tom and Jerry cartoon, how the cat’s body moves. > [@](#): > > The crowd is not full of highly individualized people because (and I’m guessing here, never saw the movie in full) they aren’t important to the story. Why waste time coming up with 30-odd character designs on a group of people all but the toughest nitpickers wouldn’t care about, when time could be spent on more important aspects? Now who’s reaching? Look at the Tom and Jerry cartoon again. I’m not holding this up as the be all and end all of the animator’s art. This was a 1940s era time killer. But as Jerry is knocking plates off a high shelf, the animators bothered to do [different patterns for every plate](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi425IKfFsQ&#t=6m37s)! And Miyazaki couldn’t be bothered to make actual humans look different? > [@](#): > > Shall we also call Osamu Tezuka a hack because background characters are frequently drawn cartoonishly and with less detail than his important characters? I’ve certainly never found it to detract from the overall engaging work. Make your own arguments, please. But no, I have no love for Astro Boy. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen animation that gives the “illusion of life” and aims for what you’re describing. Titan AE is one of my favorite movies, and Don Bluth is exceptionally meticulous in making the characters’ mouths fit the dialog. However, his attempt at getting _too_ detailed leads the characters to sometimes adopt odd expressions, or produce weird body movements. It’s no more lifelike than Miyazaki’s work, and in some ways adding that much detail can make it even less lifelike than the brief sketches you usually see in anime and manga. I don’t hold it against the movie, though, nor do I call it dreck. It’s just different. I’m not arguing that the ideas behind anime are bad, just the execution. And I believe that anime fans look past the technically poor animation because the love the stories. But I see an entire generation growing up nurtured on this stuff, and apparently not developing the critical facility to tell the difference between work that is animated well and work that is animated poorly. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/44 "2009-04-28T09:17:23Z")
Gaffa, Your analysis of that clip isn’t very convincing. Animation isn’t about the “illusion of life”. Why bother with animation since film will get you a much realistic depiction anyway? You sound like someone who thinks that the main criteria for evaluating a painting is how realistically it depicts its subject. In any event Disney animation or Tom and Jerry doesn’t create the illusion of life . Do you know real-world cats and mice who behave like Tom and Jerry? Are real-world animals in the habit of enacting elaborate song-and-dance numbers. It’s particularly absurd to complain about the realism of Miyazaki’s wolf when it’s more realistic than 99% of Disney animals. Disney animation isn’t about realism but using exaggerated movements to depict character and emotion. Like I said it’s a lot like silent-era acting with its dramatic body movements and facial gestures. If you like that style that’s fine but to claim it’s the only “technical” standard for animation is pretty silly. You seem to be under the impression that more animation means better animation but often all that movement just distracts the viewer and undercuts the mood of the scene. Sometimes less is more and I find films like Mononoke and Grave of the Fireflies far more powerful than anything I have seen from Disney. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/45 "2009-04-28T13:46:27Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Animation isn’t about the “illusion of life”. [Some of the greatest animators who ever lived would disagree with you.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illusion_Of_Life) The illusion of life isn’t about realism. It’s about creating a sense of movement, weight, and emotion that makes us forget that we’re looking at drawings. I’m with \*\*gaffa \*\*on this. I LOVE the Studio Ghibli movies, but I’m fully willing to acknowledge that if you judge them purely on the \*technical execution \*of their animation, they fall short. Take a look at [these clips](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5fDk3PeJIw&feature=related)of Shere Khan from _The Jungle Book_. Ignore the dialog, the story, the cartoony character design. Focus just on how he MOVES, the feeling of shifting muscles, the weight of the character … the ANIMATION. (Particularly his walk at 0:53) Now compare it to the wolves in the Mononoke clip. They’re stiff and lifeless in comparason. It’s not an aesthetic choice on Miyazaki’s part – there’s no thematic purpose served by having the wolves move in a stiff and lifeless way. It’s just a deficiency. Now Miyazaki makes up for that deficiency in animation in lots of ways. When it comes to creating arresting images, or telling an adult story, he blows Disney away. But, _as animation_, his movies can’t compare to the best of Disney, or MGM, or Warner Brothers, or the Fleischers. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/46 "2009-04-28T16:31:04Z")
“The illusion of life isn’t about realism. It’s about creating a sense of movement, weight, and emotion that makes us forget that we’re looking at drawings.” I agree that animation is about evoking emotion and completely involving the audience in a make-believe world but I don’t think illusion of life is a particularly accurate phrase for this. Great animation IMO is about selectively focusing on certain aspects of life to create memorable characters and an absorbing universe. And if Disney animators are going for an illusion of weight they fail spectacularly for the most part; their characters move far more freely than their weight would allow, your tiger being a very good example. Disney animation is very much about exaggerating movement and most of their animals are cute, anthropomorphic, singing characters so perhaps this style is appropriate. However this isn’t a set of universal techniques and it’s certainly not appropriate for the wolves in Mononoke who are ferocious wolf-gods and not cute sidekicks. And if you look at clips of real wolves [walking](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh3O8v8FHJ0&feature=related)they actually look quite similar to Miyazaki’s animation in the first few seconds of that clip. Furthermore it’s dark so the slightly jerky movements are appropriate. By contrast no tiger really walks like Shere Khan in that clip. ``` There are many brilliant bits of animation in rest of the clip. The shot of San flying towards the gate, the way she prances out of the reach of the first guard and jumps onto the roof, the shot of her running towards Eboshi. Earlier in the movie Miyazaki ingeniously animates his version of cute, anthropomorphic characters: the kodamas which are far more entrancing and mysterious than anything in Disney. Really, anyone who thinks Miyazaki is anything but an absolutely great animator needs to re-watch his films. ``` ---
**Author:** ![dotchan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@dotchan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dotchan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/47 "2009-04-28T16:59:39Z")
Miyazaki is one of those YMMV things. For me, it’s his flight sequences that always take my breath away. (I believe he did get flight training as a youth and has always been obsessed with planes.) Few animators capture the sense of freedom and breathtaking views that Miyazaki manages to pull off at least once per movie. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/48 "2009-04-28T17:01:14Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > I agree that animation is about evoking emotion and completely involving the audience in a make-believe world but I don’t think illusion of life is a particularly accurate phrase for this. You may not like the phrase “illusion of life” but it’s a well-known term in animation scholarship. And it doesn’t just mean realism. > [@](#): > > Great animation IMO is about selectively focusing on certain aspects of life to create memorable characters and an absorbing universe. You could say that about any movie. What distinguishes animation from other forms of film is DRAWING. And it’s the quality of Miyazaki’s drawing that’s being criticized, not his capacity to create memorable characters or an absorbing universe. You know, it’s possible to like something without liking every little thing about it. Similarly it’s possible to dislike something and admit that some small element of it has merit. Miyazaki can be both a great film-maker AND merely a good draftsman. You don’t need to rationalize away every flaw in his work as “artistic intent”. > [@](#): > > However this isn’t a set of universal techniques and it’s certainly not appropriate for the wolves in Mononoke who are ferocious wolf-gods and not cute sidekicks. And if you look at clips of real wolves [walking](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh3O8v8FHJ0&feature=related)they actually look quite similar to Miyazaki’s animation in the first few seconds of that clip. Furthermore it’s dark so the slightly jerky movements are appropriate. Except it crops up all the time. Look at how Ashitaka rotates his body at 0:43, or the way he runs at 1:26. If the stiffness of the animation were being used for stylistic effect, we’d be able to detect some method to it. Instead some sequences of action are, for no apparent reason, flat and stilted. > [@](#): > > Really, anyone who thinks Miyazaki is anything but an absolutely great animator needs to re-watch his films. I’ve watched them all, many times. I think he’s a great film-maker. But I think there are many better animators, even in the world of anime. For example, I would argue that the animation in Gainax’s \*FLCL \*is superior to the animation in \*Mononoke \*or _Spirited Away_, even though the latter two movies are better works of art. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/49 "2009-04-28T17:40:04Z")
“You could say that about any movie. What distinguishes animation from other forms of film is DRAWING.” What do you mean by drawing exactly? Background, character design or the way the characters are animated? These are three different things but all a product of drawing. I think the background art in Miyazaki’s films is extraordinary and far richer and more imaginative that most Disney films. Like I said his great strength is his ability to take his time and explore his universe often through his trademark flying sequences. I particularly admire the crazy, beautiful patchwork city that he created for Kiki’s Delivery Service. As for his character designs they are much more realistic than those of Disney films but usually well done. I will grant that some his female characters are a little similar in design but he has created a wide range of memorable and unique character designs as well: Porco Rosso, Catbus, the kodamas and many more. Finally his animation. Again he doesn’t believe in heavily animating a scene. If you want characters who prance around every five seconds you won’t get that. That’s because even in his lighter films his characters are real people with genuine emotions not gag machines to constantly entertain the audience. And yet when he needs to Miyazaki can produce virtuoso animation: for example San’s movements in the clip I linked earlier, or the lovely, weird movements of the kodama or the amazing way the plants grow under the foot of the deer-god when he walks on the ground. Or a thousand other moments across his films. “Look at how Ashitaka rotates his body at 0:43, or the way he runs at 1:26.” Well, remember he has been seriously injured because of the curse. Compare his movements to San’s which are ferociously quick. That shows there is a clear logic to which characters move stiffly and which don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/50 "2009-04-28T17:53:52Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I’ve watched them all, many times. I think he’s a great film-maker. But I think there are many better animators, even in the world of anime. For example, I would argue that the animation in Gainax’s \*FLCL \*is superior to the animation in \*Mononoke \*or _Spirited Away_, even though the latter two movies are better works of art. Furi Kuri doesn’t really count, they blew 24 episodes worth of production money on one fourth that many episodes, they frequently lampshade how much of the budget they blew on ridiculously well animated bullet time sequences and the like. It would be like if you gave Miyazaki the funding and time for 4 movies and he just decided to make one average length one instead but still used up everything you gave him. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/51 "2009-04-28T19:11:59Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > Furi Kuri doesn’t really count, they blew 24 episodes worth of production money on one fourth that many episodes, they frequently lampshade how much of the budget they blew on ridiculously well animated bullet time sequences and the like. It would be like if you gave Miyazaki the funding and time for 4 movies and he just decided to make one average length one instead but still used up everything you gave him. Oh, I fully realize that Miyazaki is operating within the fiscal constraints placed upon him. But so was Disney. One of the most beautiful Disney features ever made is _Pinocchio_, partially because the studio hadn’t learned where they could cut corners yet … and it shows. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/52 "2009-04-28T21:50:15Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > However this isn’t a set of universal techniques and it’s certainly not appropriate for the wolves in Mononoke who are ferocious wolf-gods and not cute sidekicks. And if you look at clips of real wolves [walking](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh3O8v8FHJ0&feature=related)they actually look quite similar to Miyazaki’s animation in the first few seconds of that clip. No, real wolves have knees. Real knees bend forwards, as is clearly visible in the video you posted, and is not apparent at all in the Miyazaki clip. The Miyazaki wolves walk stiff-legged, like storm troopers or [North Korean soldiers on parade before “Dear Leader”](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9164005727480680563#0m28s). Maybe it’s just me, but “Wolf Gods” would embody the essence of wolves, would be much more wolf-like than any other living wolf, rather than looking like a wind-up toy. > [@](#): > > Furthermore it’s dark so the slightly jerky movements are appropriate. This statement has me slapping my head in cognitive dissonance. I keep trying to parse it: “…it’s **dark** so the **slightly jerky movements** are appropriate.” “…it’s dark **so** the slightly jerky movements are **appropriate**.” “… **it’s** dark so the **slightly** jerky movements **are** appropriate.” Nope, no connection between darkness and movement. Things move every bit as smoothly in the dark as in the light, and always have in this universe. Maybe it’s one of those anime “bizarro world” things like the throbbing eyes. > [@](#): > > By contrast no tiger really walks like Shere Khan in that clip. At least Shere Khan has knees. Sorry, but this is like pointing out that no real tiger talks or sings either. But as a anthropomorphic singing tiger, he moves much more like a real tiger than the stiff-legged marching tigers in that clip. Seriously, if a Disney animator has turned in those pages, their supervisor would have torn them up and made them re-animate the scene. Or fired them. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/53 "2009-04-29T05:29:31Z")
Please watch that wolf clip I posted earlier and explain precisely how the Miyazaki animation is wrong. And if you think that Shere Khan, and Disney animals in general, move like real animals I would suggest a visit to the local zoo. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/54 "2009-04-29T21:06:44Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Please watch that wolf clip I posted earlier and explain precisely how the Miyazaki animation is wrong. OK, I have both YouTube clips up, and have bounced back and forth from the real wolf to the Miyazaki wolves. The shoulders of the real wolf come up and down with each step, while the Miyazaki wolves shoulders remain inexplicably rock steady. The real wolf’s hindquarters rises and falls with each step, while the Miyazaki wolves’ hindquarters remains, again, rock steady. This steadiness would require the legs of these wolves to actually lengthen and shorten with each step. It’s basic kinematics and bad anatomy. In addition, notice the real wolf’s head shifting side to side - a small amount, and bouncing up and down with each step. Needless to say, the heads of the Miyazaki wolves remain, like their bodies, rock steady. > [@](#): > > And if you think that Shere Khan, and Disney animals in general, move like real animals I would suggest a visit to the local zoo. I would suggest that the animators who drew Shere Khan had been to a zoo, and based their cartoon exaggeration of a tiger on real movements of real tigers. Disney had regular animal viewings for his animators, and from what I understand as part of the curriculum at Cal Arts. Look at [this video of Shere Khan walking](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T0I5UepXMA#t=1m32s). Watch how his shoulders alternately rise and fall, how his back ripples with each step, how the muscles under his skin shift. Compare it to [this footage of a real tiger](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqnrdq3W2r4#t=0m35s). Shere Khan is exaggerated, but every movement is based on the movements of a real tiger, but doubled or tripled in amount for cartoonish effect. But I’m begining the get the feeling that no amount of reasoned criticism will disabuse you of your apparent belief that whatever Miyazaki did is right, and nature must have it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/55 "2009-04-30T06:05:46Z")
> [@](#): > > The shoulders of the real wolf come up and down with each step, while the Miyazaki wolves shoulders remain inexplicably rock steady. Huh? Please watch the clip again. Of course the shoulders are moving. In fact you can clearly see San’s spear bobbing up and down because of the movements of the shoulders. And the head is bobbing up and down as well. Seriously are you watching the same clip that I am? > [@](#): > > Look at this video of Shere Khan walking. Watch how his shoulders alternately rise and fall, how his back ripples with each step, how the muscles under his skin shift. Compare it to this footage of a real tiger. Shere Khan is exaggerated, but every movement is based on the movements of a real tiger, but doubled or tripled in amount for cartoonish effect. Um the bit about the shoulder-blades is precisely the point. No tiger walks like that. The animators are grossly exaggerating for “cartoonish effect”. Of course that is relatively minor bit of exaggeration by Disney standards. Typically their animation is full of movements which are impossible in real life like the way Shere Khan grabs that snake and their characters move far more freely than what is possible in real life. And that’s OK really because animation is suppose to be about creating your own version of reality. Personally I find the Disney style of animation, particularly in their later films, childish and hyperactive as if the audience can’t still for five seconds without a gag but clearly other people including yourself enjoy it. That’s OK too but to hold it up as the only legitimate style of animation is utterly ridiculous. And using Disney as a standard of realism when it comes to animal movements goes well beyond the ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/56 "2009-04-30T06:48:52Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Huh? Please watch the clip again. Of course the shoulders are moving. In fact you can clearly see San’s spear bobbing up and down because of the movements of the shoulders. And the head is bobbing up and down as well. Seriously are you watching the same clip that I am? I get the impression that, even if I were to rent the DVD, find the exact scene, and perform a motion-track on the Miyazaki wolves shoulders and conclusively prove that the distance between the wolves shoulders and their feet is varying, you’ll still disagree just to disagree because I’ve attacked your idol. > [@](#): > > Um the bit about the shoulder-blades is precisely the point. No tiger walks like that. The animators are grossly exaggerating for “cartoonish effect”. Of course that is relatively minor bit of exaggeration by Disney standards. Typically their animation is full of movements which are impossible in real life like the way Shere Khan grabs that snake and their characters move far more freely than what is possible in real life. I’ve no desire to watch Miyazaki’s movies to find more examples of stiff and lifeless animation. But other people posting in this thread who are fans of his work have acknowledged his limitations. If you’re going to claim that his work is more realistic than Disney, what could possibly explain the bizarre mouth shapes in this and other Japanese animation? Human mouths can’t expand 2000%! > [@](#): > > And that’s OK really because animation is suppose to be about creating your own version of reality. Personally I find the Disney style of animation, particularly in their later films, childish and hyperactive as if the audience can’t still for five seconds without a gag but clearly other people including yourself enjoy it. That’s OK too but to hold it up as the only legitimate style of animation is utterly ridiculous. And using Disney as a standard of realism when it comes to animal movements goes well beyond the ridiculous. Could you please refrain from building strawmen? When did I ever say anything about “…the only legitimate style of animation”? No, I said Miyazaki’s films are filled with technically bad animation. Animation that detracts from the story and design of otherwise good work. Flaws that make me cringe every time I see them and pull me out of the film. The first time I saw “Spirited Away”, it was in an empty theater helping a projectionist friend test screen the print. And the flaws annoyed me. Later, I saw it again with a crowd at a much larger theater to see if the flaws would be as glaring. They were less so, but still noticeable enough to pull me out of the film. Leaving the theater, I poked my head in the other auditorium to see the subtitled version to see if there was lip sync in Japanese, and became disgusted at the fact that it wasn’t in sync even in the original language. Maybe it’s because I’ve done animation for years. Maybe it’s because I’ve edited video even longer. Or maybe it’s because I grew up watching a huge variety of well-animated cartoons. All I know is I’m unable to enjoy stiff, jerky animation no matter what rationalizations are offered by those who enjoy it. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/57 "2009-04-30T08:24:52Z")
> [@](#): > > If you’re going to claim that his work is more realistic than Disney, what could possibly explain the bizarre mouth shapes in this and other Japanese animation? Human mouths can’t expand 2000%! OK. Please produce examples of Miyazaki characters’ mouths expanding 2000%. You don’t appear to understand this but Miyazaki’s animation style is very different from most other anime. Of course even if it were true that he used this particular technique it would still make his style vastly more realistic than Disney’s where animals routinely put on elaborate song-and-dance routines… See I think the basic problem is that you don’t understand the difference between technique and style. You appear to have received some technical training in the Disney style of animation and you think that gives you the license to pronounce any other style as “technically bad animation”. No, it’s a different style which uses much more restrained movements than Disney. Miyazaki doesn’t believe in wildly over-animating each character because that would undercut the psychological realism of his work. But when it’s necessary for his story he can produce virtuoso animation as great as any ever produced. Don’t take my word for it: > **[Miyazaki's Admirers // Hayao Miyazaki // Nausicaa.net](https://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/miyazaki/impact.html)** > [@](#): > > John Lasseter, director of Pixar’s A Bug’s Life and the Toy Story series, calls the works of Miyazaki “the most inspirational films” for him, especially in directing Toy Story. In his homage to Miyazaki for the “Ghibli ga Ippai” laserdisc box set, Lasseter writes: > > ``` > At Pixar, when we have a problem and we can't seem to solve it, we often take a laser disc of one of Mr. Miyazaki's films and look at a scene in our screening room for a shot of inspiration. And it always works! We come away amazed and inspired. Toy Story owes a huge debt of gratitude to the films of Mr. Miyazaki. > > ``` > > Lasseter referred to Spirited Away as “hand-drawn animation at its finest.” > > Other admirers include Barry Cook and Tony Bancroft, directors of Disney’s Mulan (“Miyazaki is like a God to us”); Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, directors of Beauty and the Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame; and Glen Keane, Disney’s supervising animator for characters like Ariel, the Beast, Pocahontas, and Aladdin. Paul Dini, the writer and producer of various animated Batman and Superman TV series, TV specials and films in the 1990s, regards Miyazaki as “terrific,” “phenomenal,” and “a filmmaker who just transcends live-action and animation.” (the interview) > > Miyazaki’s works also provide inspiration to various animators. For the beautiful flying sequence of an eagle in Rescuers Down Under, director Hendel Butoy, who regards Miyazaki as “the greatest animator,” was inspired by the breathtaking flying scenes that are the signature of Miyazaki’s films. Kevin Altieri paid homage to Miyazaki in his direction of several episodes of Batman: The Animated Series. Jymn Magon and Mark Zaslove were inspired by Miyazaki’s Castle in the Sky when they produced Disney’s Tale Spin TV series. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/58 "2009-04-30T16:48:31Z")
**Lantern** , let’s try approaching this from a different tack. What would YOU say are the flaws in Miyazaki’s work? After all, no work of art is perfect. An artist is only human. There are always some gaps or deficiencies in execution. Because … it seems like what you’re doing is attempting to rationalize away any flaws that \*\*gaffa \*\*or I point out as artistic intent. It’s not that Miyazaki has failed in any way. Rather the fault lies with US … for failing to realize the deep significance that jerky or stilted movements have in particular contexts. What you’re doing is essentially _fanwank_. You’re cobbling together ad hoc rationales to explain away gaps in the work. The ultimate goal of fanwank is to erase all evidence of the constructed nature of art. All errors become intentional. All flaws become virtues. As a critical stance, this approach is ultimately sterile. What is there to say, then, about a particuar work other than “Wow, that was great!” It’s renders any effort at analysis or interpretation pointless. So, before we continue a pointless argument, it’s worth asking: Are you willing to admit that ANY deficiencies exist in Miyazaki’s work? And, if so, what are they? What do YOU think are his greatest weaknesses as an animator? (Oh, by the way, here’s [an example](http://www.armadaanime.com/poster-totoro-yell.jpg) of Miyazaki using exaggerated mouth shape. Although I have to admit, the animals in \*Totoro \*don’t sing and dance … they just play ocarinas and fly around on spinning tops … so I guess it’s more realistic than _The Jungle Book_. Now the racoons in _Pom Poko_ do sing and dance … but that was directed by Isao Takahata, so even though it’s a Studio Ghibli production I guess it doesn’t count … .) ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/59 "2009-04-30T17:04:19Z")
You know if you want a decent discussion, accusing me of fanwanking is not a very good start… And let me be clear about my point about realism. I don’t think animation should be realistic; quite the opposite. However what is ridiculous is to accuse Miyazaki of not doing realistic animation and citing Disney of all studios as an exemplar of realistic animation. Secondly what annoys me a lot is this idea that there is one technical standard for animation determined by Disney 70 years ago and that animators who depart from this technique are technically sub-standard. So since you seem to agree that Miyazaki’s animation is substandard, let me ask you: who determines the standards of animation and on what authority? What if an animator wants to try a different technique? And in in fact Miyazaki’s animation is sub-standard it shouldn’t be that difficult to find other animators or critics who also believe this. Please cite them. I have already provided cites for other animators who revere Miyazaki. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444/60 "2009-04-30T23:15:45Z")
As Lantern doesn’t answer anyone else’s questions, I don’t see why anyone else should bother answering his. He or she is arguing in bad faith, and many of his or her claims are [logical fallacies](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) including the [Straw Man](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) one and the ever-popular [Appeal to Popularity](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html). The flaws I’ve pointed out in Miyazaki’s work (inadequate frame rate, jerky motion, no lip-sync) demonstrably and undeniably exist and, were this a court of law, would be accepted as evidence. Perhaps the Pit would be a better place for this discussion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-the-advent-of-cg-3d-animation-seemingly-killed-drawn-2d-in-movies/494444.md?page=4)