Dramatic stories, emotional impact, and artistic styles.

I liked Monsters, Inc but found it kind of cold. I'd have to say that The Incredibles really opened my eyes to 3D character animation. It has a kind of richness I haven't seen in 3D before.

Going back a movie for Brad Bird, I really liked a lot of the character design in Iron Giant. The story managed to be subversive enough, but did it in this hoaky way. I have mixed feelings about the movie as a whole, the two adult characters Dean and Annie, I think, were just really beautiful designs.

If you want to see drama with minimal design, you might want to check out the collection Caricature by Daniel Clowes. His characters are amazingly expressive, but have a simple, minimal look that I think would work well in animation.

I don't think any sort of success in creating a story can really be manufactured through some formula. I think you can tell when the creator had fun making something; it really shows in the work. Time travel was a very tired idea when I finally saw Back to the Future, but that didn't stop me from enjoying the movie as much as I did. In contrast... remember Timecop? The same matter can't occupy the same space!!! :D still cracks me up.
The same thing with characters. If an artist really cares for his/her characters, it will come through in the direction (the biggest contributing factor), the animation, and all aspects of the creation. And it follows that the audience will as well, if you communicate it well. And obviously, the more wacky and zany a character looks, the harder it's going to be to get the audience to seriously empathize. A more realistic style is going to make the emotion more real, so just make sure your style matches what you're trying to communicate.

Serious discussion with, what I see, as well defined areas. BossMonkey makes a good point about matching up a characters appearance with their role in a story line. An extreme example is how movies will place less appealing people in the roles of villains and their attire would also come off as bleak.

Modern story tellers now mix things up, like "Sin City" uses of a hero who was far from handsome as one would wont to get.

Animations can do the same thing, but choices have to be made as to weather to take the easy path or a more challenging one. If you have the skill the characters Beavis or Butthead could be made into sympathetic characters. Spinning a tell of love and pain that any viewer would find compelling and forgetting all those dumb jokes thoses two have told.

I honestly think the medium doesn't matter. I mean, where the industry is right now, there are tons of traditionally animated films that capture audience a thousand times better than some of the 3D dreck on the market. But of course, that has nothing to do with that fact that it's traditional. Somewhere along the line, we got obsessed with rendering and aesthetic beauty, and forgot all about good story.

We're only just starting to recapture good story, and I think you'll see a huge explosion of great 3D feature films in the coming years.

in regards to the 2d 3d question, I do think there is a certain amount of charm that can be created with 2d (I'm currently obsessed with Louis Clichy's Akoacacere) that you don't get with 3d, unless you're using 3d to imitate a 2d style (like Ghibli's My Neighbors the Yamadas). I'm a little biased though... when I was going through the Monsters, Inc DVD I thought the 2d storyboards looked way better than the 3d. Again, it all depends on what you're trying to communicate.

I think 3D is still finding it's way. Remember how long it took for traditional to do that. You'll most definately see charm evolve, once the sheer novely of 3d dies down.

I think the way we're heading is a hybrid, where the kind of subjective space that's possible in 3D can be used with the very expressive movement in 2D to make something really astonishing. (The Deep Canvas in Tarzan...which seems a hundred years ago now is a good example.)

The new rigs possible with 3D, (Chicken Little...Pixar stuff...the Incredibles) I think came from the squash and stretch possible in 2D but not, (previously possible) in 3D. (Deformations/ joint breaking/ etc.) But there seems to be this back and forth with one tradition helping the other, and not a competition...(though ask the 2D Disney folks laid off and you'd probably get another answer.)

The one thing that mystifies me is the desire to make your own realistic human...but that's just me. (I guess I get it psychologically...your own humans..Fun.!) But, unless you see them at a distance of several yards/ (film space) the realistic humans always look like zombies to me still. Motion capture/ (so called "performance capture" doesn't seem to make a difference...if anything the lose of exaggeration sucks the life out of these puppies still more.)

Not a new opinion, but my humble one, is that the story is the thing that matters, and whatever best supports the story is what works best. (Not too groundbreaking.) Maybe one of those universal truths? Otherwise why would it be so much fun to watch all that limited animation that's script driven...and funny, or with good story? Waxing on......

images. always images that get me. of all the animation i have seen the one i enjoyed the most was Program from Animatrix. it was just to me a very special piece of work. with some great poses and shots.

I've always thought that the animation takes back seat to the story, no matter what style it's been made (2d v 3d). The Incredibles and Shrek seem to be on the same level in terms of animation quality, but I've always gone with Incredibles because the story seems so much better. Instead of going for jokes like most movies, the movie was mostly series and that impressed me with Pixar a lot.

I think if a lot of live-action movies could have been animated and would have turned out just as good or even better. Mostly sci-fi, but I'd love to see some kind of romance or drama made into a cartoon. Imagine Titanic drawn by John K. I'd go see that in a heartbeat.

Really? That was just an example that popped into my head, but I guess it wasn't as far-fetched as I thought. Any idea where I could find them?

At an acting workshop I attended recently, the teacher said he thought the "Shamanic" qualities of Monsters, made it a better movie than the "Incredibles." He was referring I think, to the underworld of the monsters, transformational quality of the "arcs" for the main characters, and the level at which the viewer is engaged; the monster in the closet/ childhood terrors/ etc. It gets us where we live/ where the child we were lived......I thought it was an interesting take on getting more levels/ profundity into animated stories. :cool:

I've always thought that the animation takes back seat to the story, no matter what style it's been made (2d v 3d). The Incredibles and Shrek seem to be on the same level in terms of animation quality, but I've always gone with Incredibles because the story seems so much better. Instead of going for jokes like most movies, the movie was mostly series and that impressed me with Pixar a lot.

I think if a lot of live-action movies could have been animated and would have turned out just as good or even better. Mostly sci-fi, but I'd love to see some kind of romance or drama made into a cartoon. Imagine Titanic drawn by John K. I'd go see that in a heartbeat.

I agree. Story is always king. You too, DSG. Good stuff.

I really don't think the animation world should be a 2d vs. 3d realm, like it has been recently (thanks a lot Michael Eisner). Like you said, different visual styles depending on the movie.