4 ms·
TL;DR is that good storytelling (via plot and character development) is what matters. Pixar was successful because they mastered that via a culture that wanted
by hylaride 1y ago
TL;DR is that good storytelling (via plot and character development) is what matters.
Pixar was successful because they mastered that via a culture that wanted to make the best of a new technology for movies. It’s the same for Studio Ghibli with traditional animation.
The issue with “Hollywood” (and American business in general) is that accountants seem to eventually take over and they don’t see the forest for the trees.
- the_af 1y agoGood storytelling matters a lot, but it's not the only thing that matters. The visuals and the medium matter as well. The same story told as 3D vs 2D animation, or in photorealistic vs stylized fashion, or in live action, or color vs black & white, is not the same. In some works of art, the story doesn't even matter.
- DSMan195276 1y agoIMO the article is being a little unfair to being highly misleading by only talking about box-office numbers, they're a much more complicated discussion than the article treats them (especially so since it includes a number of pandemic years). Additionally it's ignoring the reason _why_ CG is so popular and there's so many flops - you can make then a lot quicker than hand-drawn animation. Tons of hugely successful CG movies came out in the past few years that are not mentioned in the article (Inside Out 2, Frozen 2, Mario movie, Moana 2, Spider-man, etc.) - all of those movies had a higher box-office gross than every hand-drawn animated movie ever except for the Lion King in '94. I'm not saying they're _better_, but rather that box office numbers aren't a great reason to argue for hand-drawn animation, I don't think Disney and other companies are very concerned about the flops when the successes rake in so much money.