6 ms·

Cartoon eyes and to a lesser extent mouths did a lot to display emotion. We are too caught up in making things photorealistic that we miss out on these things.

by manav 7y ago

dymk 7y ago
The only big movies I know of with talking, photorealistic animals are the Jungle Book remake, and this Lion King remake. “Caught up” is a bit of a stretch when most anthropomorphic stories are still heavily stylized.
- parsimo2010 7y ago
  They’ve also remade Winnie the Pooh, Aladdin, Dumbo, and others. They are currently remaking The Little Mermaid, Mulan, and Lady and the Tramp. The entirety of Disney’s classic animated catalog is fair game apparently. Of course not every remake has sparked the same level of outrage, and it’s not always directed at the CGI. Aladdin took flak because they replaced Robin Williams’ Genie with Will Smith, and he wasn’t expected to be as good. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_live-action_remakes_of_animated_films https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_live-action_r...
  - kfrzcode 7y ago
    Peter Rabbit
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    Too bad they don't plan to do the Black Cauldron. If you haven't seen it, it's almost unimaginable it was ever produced by Disney.
    - otherjason 7y ago
      You’re in luck: > On July 16, 2019, it was reported that a live-action remake of The Black Cauldron is in early stages of development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Cauldron_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Cauldron_(film)
      - ekianjo 7y ago
        No doubt it will be heavily modified...
  - dymk 7y ago
    None of those feature non-stylized, non-cartoony, talking photorealistic animals
    - parsimo2010 7y ago
      That's because most of them didn't have a cast that was made solely of animals, but they do have their share of cringey CGI mistakes. The Little Mermaid will feature photorealistic sea creatures, but we don't know how they'll turn out yet. Christopher Robin's Winnie the Pooh was photorealistic and looked creepy. The slightly less recent Beauty and the Beast had a bad looking Beast. The Jungle Book remake had a god-awful Baloo. Disney's track record is not good with these remakes.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >Aladdin took flak because they replaced Robin Williams’ Genie with Will Smith, and he wasn’t expected to be as good. Aladdin took flak entirely because the CGI genie they released in the teaser trailer looked so bad. I don't recall much reaction to Will Smith's performance, pro or con.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
This most most brought out to me in Beauty and the Beast. Mrs Potts in the cartoon felt warm and human. The CGI Mrs Potts in the new Beauty and the Beast felt creepy. Much of the same applies to Lumeire.
GuiA 7y ago
We can make things photorealistic and still very expressive. See Rango for a fantastic example. Of course the Disney artists know that, but that decision was likely well above their paygrade.
anaphor 7y ago
I think most animators still understand that, and they know how to do animation properly (make it expressive, use brighter color palettes, etc), but I'm guessing that a lot of the producers and people involved in this particular film just wanted to make something "cool". The entire thing is basically a vehicle for Disney to show off their fancy rendering engine.
- falcor84 7y ago
  I couldn't for the life of me understand why they even decided on this project. With films like Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin they recreated the animated film as a live-action one, which makes sense to me as a worthwhile endeavor, regardless of the result. But here they've just converted one animation style to another, which I don't understand the creative need for, so I assume it's just a money grab.
  - enonevets 7y ago
    With every Pixar film, the team learns something new or how to do something better. This has been said in multiple interviews with newer Pixar films that come out compared to the old ones. Aside from the superb storytelling and all that, it makes the team push for new breakthrough in animation. I can see Lion King serving as a real world project for Disney animators in the same way, and a way to get paid to learn and push the fold in realistic animation. Not saying that's the reason behind it as I'm sure remaking a bunch of these movies was likely planned already but if you can level up your team, learn something new in the process, and get paid for doing it, why not.
  - nabdab 7y ago
    They are trying to build up material to drive their eventual lobbying for extending IP rights to lifetime of creator plus 2000 years. They are just looking back through their portfolio going “what’s easy to remake somehow” and going with photorealistic remakes of all the animal movies was an easy one. Remember. Disney is a theme-park & toy company that does movies as commercials/branding. But the first two businesses are critically dependent on retaining all the IP rights for the movies in perpetuity.

Cartoon eyes and to a lesser extent mouths did a lot to display emotion. We are too caught up in making things photorealistic that we miss out on these things.

by manav 7y ago

Cartoon eyes and to a lesser extent mouths did a lot to display emotion. We are too caught up in making things photorealistic that we miss out on these things.

dymk 7y ago

The only big movies I know of with talking, photorealistic animals are the Jungle Book remake, and this Lion King remake. “Caught up” is a bit of a stretch when most anthropomorphic stories are still heavily stylized.

parsimo2010 7y ago
They’ve also remade Winnie the Pooh, Aladdin, Dumbo, and others. They are currently remaking The Little Mermaid, Mulan, and Lady and the Tramp. The entirety of Disney’s classic animated catalog is fair game apparently. Of course not every remake has sparked the same level of outrage, and it’s not always directed at the CGI. Aladdin took flak because they replaced Robin Williams’ Genie with Will Smith, and he wasn’t expected to be as good. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_live-action_remakes_of_animated_films https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_live-action_r...
- kfrzcode 7y ago
  Peter Rabbit
- ekianjo 7y ago
  Too bad they don't plan to do the Black Cauldron. If you haven't seen it, it's almost unimaginable it was ever produced by Disney.
  - otherjason 7y ago
    You’re in luck: > On July 16, 2019, it was reported that a live-action remake of The Black Cauldron is in early stages of development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Cauldron_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Cauldron_(film)
    - ekianjo 7y ago
      No doubt it will be heavily modified...
- dymk 7y ago
  None of those feature non-stylized, non-cartoony, talking photorealistic animals
  - parsimo2010 7y ago
    That's because most of them didn't have a cast that was made solely of animals, but they do have their share of cringey CGI mistakes. The Little Mermaid will feature photorealistic sea creatures, but we don't know how they'll turn out yet. Christopher Robin's Winnie the Pooh was photorealistic and looked creepy. The slightly less recent Beauty and the Beast had a bad looking Beast. The Jungle Book remake had a god-awful Baloo. Disney's track record is not good with these remakes.
- krapp 7y ago
  >Aladdin took flak because they replaced Robin Williams’ Genie with Will Smith, and he wasn’t expected to be as good. Aladdin took flak entirely because the CGI genie they released in the teaser trailer looked so bad. I don't recall much reaction to Will Smith's performance, pro or con.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

This most most brought out to me in Beauty and the Beast. Mrs Potts in the cartoon felt warm and human. The CGI Mrs Potts in the new Beauty and the Beast felt creepy. Much of the same applies to Lumeire.

GuiA 7y ago

We can make things photorealistic and still very expressive. See Rango for a fantastic example. Of course the Disney artists know that, but that decision was likely well above their paygrade.

anaphor 7y ago

I think most animators still understand that, and they know how to do animation properly (make it expressive, use brighter color palettes, etc), but I'm guessing that a lot of the producers and people involved in this particular film just wanted to make something "cool". The entire thing is basically a vehicle for Disney to show off their fancy rendering engine.

falcor84 7y ago
I couldn't for the life of me understand why they even decided on this project. With films like Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin they recreated the animated film as a live-action one, which makes sense to me as a worthwhile endeavor, regardless of the result. But here they've just converted one animation style to another, which I don't understand the creative need for, so I assume it's just a money grab.
- enonevets 7y ago
  With every Pixar film, the team learns something new or how to do something better. This has been said in multiple interviews with newer Pixar films that come out compared to the old ones. Aside from the superb storytelling and all that, it makes the team push for new breakthrough in animation. I can see Lion King serving as a real world project for Disney animators in the same way, and a way to get paid to learn and push the fold in realistic animation. Not saying that's the reason behind it as I'm sure remaking a bunch of these movies was likely planned already but if you can level up your team, learn something new in the process, and get paid for doing it, why not.
- nabdab 7y ago
  They are trying to build up material to drive their eventual lobbying for extending IP rights to lifetime of creator plus 2000 years. They are just looking back through their portfolio going “what’s easy to remake somehow” and going with photorealistic remakes of all the animal movies was an easy one. Remember. Disney is a theme-park & toy company that does movies as commercials/branding. But the first two businesses are critically dependent on retaining all the IP rights for the movies in perpetuity.