“I think The Incredibles is successful in what they are trying to do,” says Bonifacio, “Though it’s dangerous to make across the board comparisons because every situation has a different context. At one point I did accept the believability of the characters and story in the first Shrek. But what I saw of the second one seemed unappealing, with live characters that don’t look quite live — only a little better than the feeling of the characters in Polar Express.””In regard to The Incredibles,” says Barnes, “I understood that [Brad] Bird had an appreciation of what was possible in classical. And that he wanted to try to carry over as much of this as he could into CG-3D and so he was happy to ruffle feathers. I feel that he succeeded to a large extent. Certainly, it was a logical step forward, and a refinement of where Pixar were headed in terms of studio philosophy.”

Charlie Bonifacio warns that 2D is in danger because everyone’s going CG-3D. In 10 years artists won’t know how to do inbetweens or cleanup.

Perhaps we can say that with The Incredibles, Bird was definite about making a cartoon and with Ryan, Landreth deliberately crossed the line into surreal and both these clear concepts worked in creating performance but Shrek got stuck sitting on the fence — sort of cartoon, sort of realistic but not quite enough of either.

So in terms of performance, in a period where everything is in flux, CG-3D does indeed seem to benefit particularly from clear context. But even with performances like those in The Incredibles, ones that advance the field, the question still remains whether the cartoon approach is the most suitable application of CG-3D.

“Perhaps CG-3D is best suited for the situations that need extremely detailed subtleties so if you’re going to have cartoony characters or stylized emotions like in The Incredibles, do we really need CG-3D?” asks Barnes, “Or could we go back to 2D? CG-3D’s still a stylistic choice but as far as necessity, it’s like you are using this finely sharp pencil to do something you could be doing with a charcoal pastel…”

I would love to think we could go back to 2D with its built in flexibility and total license. But can we, given the current CG-3D-centric climate?

“2D’s in danger,” says Bonifacio, “It’s going to lack resources for the next 10 years because everyone’s going CG-3D. So what do you do in 10 years with a generation of artists that don’t do inbetweens or cleanup — how so you find those people?”

“On the other hand, Pixar’s in a good position to come out with a 2D feature to rejuvenate the artform. Their approach to development is so unique; they could make a really interesting 2D film. There’s always speculation, though no confirmation.”

“The other issue that ties into this is the ongoing role of drawing,” continues Bonifacio, “I believe that by drawing, one can access something about the animation learning process in very unique and powerful ways. But even so, the jury is still out for me. If drawing is just a tool, as the computer is just a tool, then perhaps either is expendable. We rarely use the quill pen anymore; do we still really need to draw?”

With The Incredibles, Brad Bird definitely made a cartoon but the question still remains whether that approach is the most suitable application of CG-3D. © 2004 Disney Enterprises Inc./Pixar Animation Studios. All rights reserved.

But often in these transition periods the older technology emerges with a new role.

“I feel that when we look back on this era it will be compared to the painting versus photography issue,” says Barnes, “And while some people say it’s either/or, I’d love to think that there will still be a place for 2D. As someone who went into it not for the specific technique but because I loved the idea of bringing things to life, I would vote for not throwing anything out and instead think that there is a master plan of how everything relates.”

Perhaps the model, then, should be one of cross-reference: 2D and CG-3D influencing each other. If the 2D classical principles can directly influence the CG-3D cartoon approach, then perhaps the other extreme of Landreth’s ambiguity could influence the approach to performance in 2D and commercial CG-3D. Right now, we have two extremes in performance with Ryan on one hand and the unified front on the other. How about something inbetween — broader than Landreth’s multi-level approach but perhaps showing two or three levels of thought/feeling? This would still extend the acting range into something more subtle and real, an approach that could work even in industry applications of 2D and CG-3D.