I tried to convince my (very computer-oriented) colleagues at the Filmakademie R&D group that we should title our FMX talk “The 2D revolution; it’s about time” and talk about what the revolution might be, what its goals will and won’t be. I wanted to rant in a constructive way about the predominant attitude among most of my hand-drawn animation friends who sincerely believe that the 2D revolution will be summoned by simply dusting off the light table and likewise pester my 3D friends who can’t imagine NPR beyond 3D cel shading.
So this morning, I’m off into the wwworld and stumble into Ken Perlin. He describes this false dichotomy with a suitable question from his father: “Do you want to go to Brooklyn, or by bus?” He’s addressing the science vs religion dichotomy, but it suits the 2D vs 3D debate as well. Two sides hotly debating the pros of going to Brooklyn and the cons of taking the bus.
Which brings me to my next encounter: Kevin Geiger. Kevin’s riled (let me spice things up a little) by a down-with-digital plea by Floyd Norman over at the JimHill media blog. Mind you, these are people I deeply respect. And both speak truisms – more or less eloquently. A classic dichotomy: do you want to draw, or make a film?
Both Kevin’s and Floyd’s arguments are so familiar that it’s worth watching for anyone interested in NPR. I’ll try to sum it up with some heavy paraphrasing:
Floyd:
Bolt‘s under-performance is proof that cg films are indistinguishable. So get rid of Disney’s cg studio. Because of hard-cash production logic, not artistic romanticism. Leave cg to Pixar.
Kevin:
Hand-drawn is great (good luck on Princess and the Frog), but cg has a valid place – even at Disney. Don’t harp on the success of these artists.
While some of the arguments are pure froth (Floyd says: “The problem with digital animation (is) there’s nothing that truly distinguishes one film from another”; ala - all rap music sounds the same) there’s an underlying truth. Too many cg animations haven’t managed to distinguish themselves – neither stylistically nor story-wise. But here’s an animator arguing against a powerful animation tool… one that Disney has in the past exploited to masterly result. Tarzan, Mulan and Lion King all used innovative cg technologies to achieve visuals that would have been prohibitively expensive to hand-draw. Breath-taking stampedes and camera pans would have been impossible without them. And they developed tools that empowered their talented artists to draw things like 3 dimensional jungles.

Floyd turns a blind eye to the heritage of cg tool development at Disney, as this demonstration of artistic cg technology reveals. Disney was at the top of the game, even in digital 3D technologies, while making ‘traditionally’ animated films that were box-office successes. And they also deliver an unbeatable argument for exploring digital processes as an artistic tool, as opposed to the rigid, un-erasable, un-scribbable, ray-tracing machines that we all suffer with, as soon as we try to do something non-effects oriented, non-realistic. Something we want to correctly tweak into a solid line-of-action.
Also – It’s great to see the pencil-in-hand guys (I hate the term ‘traditional animator’) arguing on production terms; ie. drawn animation can save money and draw crowds, Mr. Executive. Though I don’t buy that argument for a second. It is about artistry, because that’s what’s going to draw in the crowds.
I wish Kevin had defended cg by presenting it as a toolset… so that Floyd’s call to drop cg can be seen as absurd as it is. I looking forward to meeting Kevin at fmx/09 to see what he will think of the hand-drawn revolution I propose…. his post aroused the suspicion that he’s likewise viewing cg tools too rigidly, which may not be surprising – as he’s been pushing the envelope with them for some time. Kein Wald vor lauter Baueme…
I would love to chat with Floyd, too – as I suspect that the right kind of cg in his toolbox would be welcome to him.