(no subject)
Dec. 3rd, 2005 02:54 amI just watched Beauty and the Beast for "research" for my Disney class. No, really. But it was for fun, too, of course.
And my God. What an incredible masterpiece. I cried. In "Something There," for God's sake. And of course in the title song... and of course from the goodbye scene through the transformation to the end. Incredible. I truly think this is what Walt would have wanted.
To think. Just the opening prologue is absolutely breathtaking. The artwork, the music...
Do people really prefer what Disney has come to?
If they do, I'm really depressed.
Beauty and the Beast is a perfect example of how you don't have to have just one type of animation (i.e., cel vs. CGI). Of course, most of it was done with cel animation, and it's incredible what background paintings you can see in that movie... but there is no doubt that it would not have been the same without the help of that primitive 1991 CGI in the ballroom scene. It just made it so much more realistic - in the sense that you were drawn into the movie, not that the movie was drawn for you (like so many recent CGI movies, such as Chicken Little, seem to have done. Nothing artistically moving at all, except I do recall being mildly fascinated by the detail on Chicken Little's feathers). People are open-minded enough to appreciate cel animation, and with the (minimal!) help of computers, I think the art style can be made even more tangible.
PLEASE, Disney. Change your mind. WE WANT CEL ANIMATION BACK!!!
Who is with me????
And my God. What an incredible masterpiece. I cried. In "Something There," for God's sake. And of course in the title song... and of course from the goodbye scene through the transformation to the end. Incredible. I truly think this is what Walt would have wanted.
To think. Just the opening prologue is absolutely breathtaking. The artwork, the music...
Do people really prefer what Disney has come to?
If they do, I'm really depressed.
Beauty and the Beast is a perfect example of how you don't have to have just one type of animation (i.e., cel vs. CGI). Of course, most of it was done with cel animation, and it's incredible what background paintings you can see in that movie... but there is no doubt that it would not have been the same without the help of that primitive 1991 CGI in the ballroom scene. It just made it so much more realistic - in the sense that you were drawn into the movie, not that the movie was drawn for you (like so many recent CGI movies, such as Chicken Little, seem to have done. Nothing artistically moving at all, except I do recall being mildly fascinated by the detail on Chicken Little's feathers). People are open-minded enough to appreciate cel animation, and with the (minimal!) help of computers, I think the art style can be made even more tangible.
PLEASE, Disney. Change your mind. WE WANT CEL ANIMATION BACK!!!
Who is with me????
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 08:47 am (UTC)I totally agree with you; cel animation is great.
*babbles*
Date: 2005-12-04 04:02 am (UTC)[/rant]