Exactly Chay - - my intention was not to attack Neatorama. By the way - - I often find myself noticing many of my favorite posts are made by you, Miss Cellania.
Miss Cellania, I have never seen Tangled either. In the terms we're talking, have you ever seen Up, Ratatouille, Toy Story, The Incredibles, etc? Those are all 3D, in the sense they are created with 3D computer animation. Not talking about 3D films with the 3D glasses - - that's regarding the presentation, rather than the medium. In the sense of how to easily distinguish hand-drawn animation vs digital, computer animation (which is still animated by people, just using computers instead of pencils as the main tool I might add), it comes down to the line art. Hand-drawn has lines creating the forms and then filled in with color. Digital animation is typically shaded and lit as in real life. Compare The Lion King, Family Guy or The Simpsons with Pixar films and you should see the difference. One is not better than the other, they're just different means.
Last point I neglected to mention the first time: Cell is misspelled. Should be "cel" when in regards to animation. However, actual painted cels have been out of use by Disney since 1989. Ok, I'm done.
Hi! Just wanted to drop a line to offer my input. The article you're linking to represents the worst in journalism, if one could even call it that. The segment you reference implies rather strongly and even more so, inaccurately, that Tangled is a film produced in the medium of hand-drawn animation. Clearly it is not. Furthermore, it postulates that hand-drawn animation is more expensive to produce than digital/computer animation. This is as unfounded a point as it is moot. "Presumably" hand-drawn animation is more expensive? Why presume anything if it can be researched within the few seconds it takes to type "[film title] + budget" into Google. For instance, according to Wikipedia, The Frog and The Princess (medium: majority of it is hand drawn) had a budget of $105 million. That same year, 2009 found Pixar releasing Up (a computer/digitally-animated film). It's budget? $175 million. That's about as close of a comparison as you can make - - same year, both a big studio film that strives for the best in quality. In those side by side comparisons, hand-drawn animation appears to have been cheaper. Is that always the case? Nope.
Which brings me to my next point. The article finds itself in the unenviable position of continuing the stereotype that animation is a genre. Movies are movies. Period. Stop-motion, hand-drawn, computer/digitally animated, live action, hybrids. These are mediums. Budgets will vary greatly. So was Tangled really inexplicably expensive? Hmmm...not really. Had the author, Jason Bailey over at Flavorwire desired to produce a compelling piece, he could have made what appears on its outer-most surface "inexplicable" actually quite enlightening. The production was in development for 6 years and was marred by change-ups in directors (including losing Disney animator legend Glen Keane at its helm along the way). Now had this Jason-fella wanted to make something great, he could have looked into why all that happened and presented it in a fascinating fashion. What he did instead is write a fluff piece with one section so full of easily recognizable inaccuracies that I can't even bother reading the rest for fear I maybe reading a future Snopes entry. What is so Neato about that?
I apologize if this comment leads you to believe I'm an ass. I AM an ass. However, a fair amount of people seem to like me just fine, sometimes even because it. I can be quite charming. This post angered me and I had some time to kill in an airport so I collected my thoughts and offer them here. Thanks for reading and maybe taking a moment to consider that you could elevate the type of things to which you link on this site, which I sincerely do find to be Neato much of the time.
Miss Cellania, I have never seen Tangled either. In the terms we're talking, have you ever seen Up, Ratatouille, Toy Story, The Incredibles, etc? Those are all 3D, in the sense they are created with 3D computer animation. Not talking about 3D films with the 3D glasses - - that's regarding the presentation, rather than the medium. In the sense of how to easily distinguish hand-drawn animation vs digital, computer animation (which is still animated by people, just using computers instead of pencils as the main tool I might add), it comes down to the line art. Hand-drawn has lines creating the forms and then filled in with color. Digital animation is typically shaded and lit as in real life. Compare The Lion King, Family Guy or The Simpsons with Pixar films and you should see the difference. One is not better than the other, they're just different means.
Hi! Just wanted to drop a line to offer my input. The article you're linking to represents the worst in journalism, if one could even call it that. The segment you reference implies rather strongly and even more so, inaccurately, that Tangled is a film produced in the medium of hand-drawn animation. Clearly it is not. Furthermore, it postulates that hand-drawn animation is more expensive to produce than digital/computer animation. This is as unfounded a point as it is moot. "Presumably" hand-drawn animation is more expensive? Why presume anything if it can be researched within the few seconds it takes to type "[film title] + budget" into Google. For instance, according to Wikipedia, The Frog and The Princess (medium: majority of it is hand drawn) had a budget of $105 million. That same year, 2009 found Pixar releasing Up (a computer/digitally-animated film). It's budget? $175 million. That's about as close of a comparison as you can make - - same year, both a big studio film that strives for the best in quality. In those side by side comparisons, hand-drawn animation appears to have been cheaper. Is that always the case? Nope.
Which brings me to my next point. The article finds itself in the unenviable position of continuing the stereotype that animation is a genre. Movies are movies. Period. Stop-motion, hand-drawn, computer/digitally animated, live action, hybrids. These are mediums. Budgets will vary greatly. So was Tangled really inexplicably expensive? Hmmm...not really. Had the author, Jason Bailey over at Flavorwire desired to produce a compelling piece, he could have made what appears on its outer-most surface "inexplicable" actually quite enlightening. The production was in development for 6 years and was marred by change-ups in directors (including losing Disney animator legend Glen Keane at its helm along the way). Now had this Jason-fella wanted to make something great, he could have looked into why all that happened and presented it in a fascinating fashion. What he did instead is write a fluff piece with one section so full of easily recognizable inaccuracies that I can't even bother reading the rest for fear I maybe reading a future Snopes entry. What is so Neato about that?
I apologize if this comment leads you to believe I'm an ass. I AM an ass. However, a fair amount of people seem to like me just fine, sometimes even because it. I can be quite charming. This post angered me and I had some time to kill in an airport so I collected my thoughts and offer them here. Thanks for reading and maybe taking a moment to consider that you could elevate the type of things to which you link on this site, which I sincerely do find to be Neato much of the time.
Best,
Travis