Quote:
|
Speaking of which, what stops you from converting to straight CGI? I have no doubt there's an incredible feeling of accomplishment when you're finally finished with the live animation...But with today's technology where it is, it seems you could potentially get similar results with much less effort and let the computer do all the work?
|
That's a debate that's raging all over the animation industry. The comparison of man hours versus quality is roughly the same. It was once thought that CG was cheaper to produce the same results as stop motion, but Corpse Bride proved that you could get beautiful animation for half the cost of CG animation. Both approaches are labor intensive. In stop motion, labor is spread across construction of sets and puppets and actual animation time. It's exactly the same in CG animation, except the "building" is done on the computer and the animating is as well. The computer doesn't really do any work for you except fill in some in between frames. You still have to build the models, sets, and props digitally. Then you have to block the scenes with the characters and everything they need in place and then you start animating the digital puppet in keyframes just as you do in traditional 2D animation. The work load is the same across the board, and I would argue that with huge, expensive productions like Pixar's films, the man hour time is higher than traditional animation.
The thing that makes CG better for the animator is that they can endlessly tweak their animated scenes. You can also do this in 2D animation. But, with stop motion, you have one shot at getting the scene right, or you are back to frame one and starting over. This means stop motion animators have to be very good at getting the thing right and life like on the first run through, or they're using more time and money to reshoot. But, again, I think this equals out if you consider how long CG animators tweek their work into shape.
I think the more Pixar, Burton, and Ardman produce amazing films in all forms of animation, the more the industry sees that one method is no better than another. The main concern is that the animation technique, art direction, and story all fit together to make a film that works. Though, there is no argument that CG movie effects have completely replaced stop motion and practical effects. They are just gorgeous and seemless. But, when you are talking animation, the hats are off and you can use lumps of clay like Arrdman, or really high tech puppets like Tim Burton, or even beautifully detailed digital charaters like Pixar.
Now, personally, I love and prefer stop motion to other forms of animation. I have Maya on my computer and I play around with it, but it doesn't have the same satisfaction as building something with my hands. There's also the nice perk of having the puppets and models left over when you are done as a physical representation of the film for years afterward. Arrdman and Tim Burton have Wallace and Grommit, as well as Corpse Bride props and puppets touring the world in museums, but their isn't a single Pixar museum piece.
New approaches and technologies don't need to replace the old ones, particularly when you are talking about art. Photoshop will never replace painters. It's just another tool to create with. It's the same for animators.