NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so my friend and I were having a discussion last night, and we talked about Tim Burton's Nightmare before Christmas and Corpse's Bride. We both like Stop Motion Animations better than CGI animation. Mainly because we feel it takes real talent to do Stop Motion, where anyone can do CGI, and plus it more artistic than CGI. So which style of animation do you like, CGI or Stop Motion?

This is CGI

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IIODY3d_aXE&mode=related&search=

and this is Stop Motion Animation

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DsA0Z5lNrUo

depends on the story. For Burton, stop-motion is perfect because it is somewhat surreal.

I tend to prefer traditional animation, personally.

It depends on the situation ... as a filler into an existing movie CGI all the way

But for origional content I preffer Stop motion

I prefer CGI to watch (though I like stop motion animation, too). But I think stop motion takes more talent.

Anyone can do CGI, eh? Can you? Can you do it well? It's an artform as well. Hacks can do, of course, but hacks can also do stop motion.

However, I prefer them for different things. CGI if you trying to demonstrate things more realistically, Stop-motion if you are going for the more bizarre.

So where's your Emmy for special effects? Or your Oscar?
I know someone who has one of those, and her CGI is fantastic.

Cell-shading FTW!

Anyone can do CGI, eh? Can you? Can you do it well? It's an artform as well. Hacks can do, of course, but hacks can also do stop motion.

More and more CGI motion pictures are made nowadays because it's so easy to make, and it's cheaper. Thus more hacks are doing it. Given the proper software, sure I can put together a five minute CGI movie pretty well.

If stop motion's good enough for Wallace and Gromit, it's good enough for me.

So where's your Emmy for special effects? Or your Oscar?
I know someone who has one of those, and her CGI is fantastic.

Meh I don't do animation, and if I did, I would do stop-motions.

More and more CGI motion pictures are made nowadays because it's so easy to make, and it's cheaper. Thus more hacks are doing it. Given the proper software, sure I can put together a five minute CGI movie pretty well.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Meh I don't do animation, and if I did, I would do stop-motions.

So, in other words, you have an opinion without any knowledge of what goes into the different kinds of animation, but you're going to pronounce one better than the other and call anyone doing CGI work a hack.

I will admit, Wallace and Gromit is great; so was Chicken Run. To call CGI artists hacks without any clear understanding of what they do is just plain ignorant.

So, in other words, you have an opinion without any knowledge of what goes into the different kinds of animation, but you're going to pronounce one better than the other and call anyone doing CGI work a hack.

I will admit, Wallace and Gromit is great; so was Chicken Run. To call CGI artists hacks without any clear understanding of what they do is just plain ignorant.

I know very well what they do. I have done a short stop animation movie for a class one time, and we've studied CGI. I guess it's more of personal preference than anything if we want to be honest about it. I prefer stop-motion because it's just something you don't see as often anymore, where you see CGI almost everyday.

I loved that claymation episode of Conan.

MTV Celebrity Deathmatch was pretty awesome too.

More and more CGI motion pictures are made nowadays because it's so easy to make, and it's cheaper. Thus more hacks are doing it. Given the proper software, sure I can put together a five minute CGI movie pretty well.

All you are proving with that statement is that you don't know a damned thing about working in CGI.

How are your lighting skills?
Your texture mapping and painting abilities?
Rigging?
Modeling?
How about knowledge of particles and fluids?
Versed in rendering engines?
Writing software scripts?
You know a lot about camera tracking, motion capture, HDRI?
Dealt much with render passes?
Hell, how is your ability to setup proper keyframes?
Timing is everything.

There are more movies out there because more studios are getting into the action. And more people are taking the time to learn how to create 3D video. Not because it's cheaper. You have any idea just how much it costs to put together even a most basic studio? It ain't cheap bubba. The studio I worked at spent a few hundred grand just setting up equipment, buying all the software and getting the stuff together to actually hire a crew. Then they had to come up with the money to actually pay us our salaries and our benefits. Studios gobble up alot of money trying to keep their heads above water. And there are massive amounts of creativity, knowledge, skill and just plain effort involved in even the simplest CG creation.

And for those who call it less artistic, one of the most biggest items a studio looks for in a prospective hire, is DRAWING ability. Your skill and talent with a pencil is just as important as your skill and talent with the latest software.

Before you talk crap about a subject, try learning about it first.

I think you're silly trying to say one or the other is better. They are both techniques, a means to an end, not the end itself. Try the films of Juenet and Caro (Delicatessen, City of the Lost Children). They are masters of using a special effect to get what they want on film, then ignoring it the rest of the film. It is the end product, not the method of production, that I focus upon. (Although I must admit I was disapointed when it turned out that Being John Malkovich was not done entirely with marionettes :p )

I think you're silly trying to say one or the other is better. They are both techniques, a means to an end, not the end itself. Try the films of Juenet and Caro (Delicatessen, City of the Lost Children). They are masters of using a special effect to get what they want on film, then ignoring it the rest of the film. It is the end product, not the method of production, that I focus upon. (Although I must admit I was disapointed when it turned out that Being John Malkovich was not done entriely with marionettes :p )

This.

To say one takes more talent than the other is kind of ludicris, and creates the question, what's the measuring stick? What about it takes more talent? What volume of talent is used, and how is that determined?

Astheticly, I think some of the older methods still look better. A rich physical enviroment would have looked less flat then the computer generated Star Wars prequels. Ultimately there wasn't anything wrong with the puppets.

There was an unnatural jump after Jurassic Park, even though it actually contained very few seconds of actual computer animation in it, it was used more to fill in the gaps. When the techniques are blended really then the most is taken out of them all.

For me, I'm a big fan of Harryhausen and that's what I like. The animator for James and the Giant Peach/Nightmare Before Christmas/Corpse Bride/Life Aquatic does a pretty good job. I like that work.

Of course, I also love Aardman Wallace and Gromit, but even they switched to CGI for Flushed Away because they couldn't be as dynamic as the script called for in stop-motion. So it depends on what you're going for.

The name is Gumby.
http://hal.ucr.edu/~cathy/bean/gumby.gif
Nuff said!

Cell-shading FTW!

Cell shading is incredibly difficult to do well. Actually, I don't know that I'm just assuming because I find most cell shading looks like garbage.
Good cell-shading:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih2Cnr_7bn8
The video game "XIII" is also an example of reasonably good cell shading.
Bad cell-shading:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDzR9xrvypg
Some other examples I can think of but can't find internet links to are the newer Ninja Turtles & Spiderman TV shows.

I don't think you can compare the two. CGI is obviously more advanced and is easier to create whatever you want, whereas claymation takes a lot of time and effort. I appreciate both for different reasons.

So it depends on what you're going for.

exactly. Some scripts call for live action, others for cel animation, others CGI, others stop-motion.

Can they cross over? Of course. But often times, one just works.
The stop motion used in Beetlejuice worked because it allows for very surreal effects that other methods fail on. the CGI in Lord of the Rings or Aslan in Narnia just work best with CGI. The opening scenes of The Lion King (really, all the cel animation of Disney) just call for the warmth and playfullness of cel. For an integrated movie, Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Space Jam...it allows a certain distance from reality.

No one method is better than the others inherently. They all have strength and weakness...it really comes down to what you want to do with it.

And all of the styles require great skill and craftsmanship. Anyone can do a frame by frame shot, moving stuff very slowly. Anyone can draw series of pictures. Anyone can manipulate an image on screen. To make it look good (and I mean really really good in many cases) takes artistry.

\Of course, I also love Aardman Wallace and Gromit, but even they switched to CGI for Flushed Away because they couldn't be as dynamic as the script called for in stop-motion. So it depends on what you're going for.

I had heard that the water was the main reason for switching to CGI for this one.

While I agree that each has a time and place I pick Claymation because of this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088678/

I had heard that the water was the main reason for switching to CGI for this one.

Probably had more than a little to do with it. Though I imagine if it was the only barrier they could have CG'd the water into the stop motion footage. I only heard a passing interview, so I don't know all the details.

http://www.iit.edu/~chilnic/Gumby hat.jpg
:cool:

Dammit, I am pissed, I just spent 5 freaking hours rendering a view of a car model I am working on, and just as it was finishing making the render, I ran out of memory, crashing the file!!!!

AAAAARRRGGHH!!!

sorry, rant over, carry on.:D

Dammit, I am pissed, I just spent 5 freaking hours rendering a view of a car model I am working on, and just as it was finishing making the render, I ran out of memory, crashing the file!!!!

AAAAARRRGGHH!!!

sorry, rant over, carry on.:D

I once lost almost 24 straight hours of editing in a single crash.

I wandered from editing suite to editing suite giving anyone who was working a wild eyed stare...

I love the Wallace & Gromit films, so claymation for me.

Dammit, I am pissed, I just spent 5 freaking hours rendering a view of a car model I am working on, and just as it was finishing making the render, I ran out of memory, crashing the file!!!!

AAAAARRRGGHH!!!

sorry, rant over, carry on.:D

hehe, stop-motion animators don't have to worry about crashes. :p

I once lost almost 24 straight hours of editing in a single crash.

I wandered from editing suite to editing suite giving anyone who was working a wild eyed stare...

oooohhhh, shit......:(

Damn, I do feel you pain bud, I do. God, that sucks big time.

Sometimes, I really hate computers and anything computer related.

So where's your Emmy for special effects? Or your Oscar?
I know someone who has one of those, and her CGI is fantastic.

Hey Kat, you happen to have a link for your friends work? I'd love to see it.

Traditional animation or, failing that, CGI.

hehe, stop-motion animators don't have to worry about crashes. :p

No, instead, they have to worry about a puppet breaking or a single light going dead mid shot and not being noticed.

And they sort of do, just not for the actual filming. Most compiling, and much of the editing process, is now digital, from what I have been told.

CGI movies blow. If I'm going to watch what amounts to a bleedin' video game, I better have a joystick in my hand and be able to control one of the characters.

Some perverse combination of the two, and live action, and regular animation.

To me, there's a difference between Claymation and Stop-Motion. Claymation is a subset of Stop Motion, if you will. I've never cared for Claymation, it makes everything look like a poorly rendered Gumby episode. Stop Motion, however, when done properly, is very good. The original King King springs to mind as great Stop Motion animation.

Robot Chicken is quite funneh.

And this is all I have to say on the matter.

I prefer stop-motion (primarily Svankmajer, Harryhausen and Burton), it just feels sexier, or something.
Though, I never understood why stop-motion seems so prone to personality cults, while CGI people are hardly noticed by those not involved with special efffects in some way.

I prefer stop-motion (primarily Svankmajer, Harryhausen and Burton), it just feels sexier, or something.
Though, I never understood why stop-motion seems so prone to personality cults, while CGI people are hardly noticed by those not involved with special efffects in some way.

I rather assume we aren't noticed because most people have Wilgroves attitude about CG; Anyone can do it, and the computer does all the work anyways. we are seen as a bunch of computer geeks without any artistic skill, the software supplies the art skill. Hence the misnomer; Computer-Generated.

As for the "cult" issue, it may just be because there are only a scant few Claymation/Stop-Motion studios still in business. So it's easier to make a name for yourself in that field and attract attention. Most of them have come over to the Dark Side. Same with traditional animation here in the US, I can only think of one studio here, and maybe two in North America, that still do 2D animation. Now a days, they outsource all the 2D to Korea or Japan. Mostly Korea.

Even Disney cartoons are made overseas now.

I helped kids do both over the summer in homeschool co-op and they are both time consuming and hard. I had more fun with the stop-motion than the CGI, but probably because that damn computer didn't like me.

I helped kids do both over the summer in homeschool co-op and they are both time consuming and hard. I had more fun with the stop-motion than the CGI, but probably because that damn computer didn't like me.

Sounds like fun.

Trust me m'dear, computers hate EVERYONE, not just you. And 3D software absolutely despises the human race. (Apparently, so do the programmers at Autodesk.)

Ok, so my friend and I were having a discussion last night, and we talked about Tim Burton's Nightmare before Christmas and Corpse's Bride. We both like Stop Motion Animations better than CGI animation. Mainly because we feel it takes real talent to do Stop Motion, where anyone can do CGI, and plus it more artistic than CGI. So which style of animation do you like, CGI or Stop Motion?

This is CGI

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IIODY3d_aXE&mode=related&search=

and this is Stop Motion Animation

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DsA0Z5lNrUo

1. Burton uses CGI all over his movies. When he's don with the stop motion he fixes it in CGI.

2. Saying it takes more talent to use claymation than CGI displays a lack of understanding of talent. Because it takes more work to do claymation does not mean it takes more talent. The real talent in all kinds of anitmation lies in imagination, not how hard it is to do. CGI frees you up to do much more with your imagination, it does not sap it. Saying claymation takes more talent is like saying it takes more talent to shoot a movie on film rather than on hidef.

Cgi Ftw

Sounds like fun.

Trust me m'dear, computers hate EVERYONE, not just you. And 3D software absolutely despises the human race. (Apparently, so do the programmers at Autodesk.)

it took us all summer to do a 1 minute 30 second claymation cartoon, and only about 3 weeks to do the same with CGI, I have to say the CGI was more frustrating.

it took us all summer to do a 1 minute 30 second claymation cartoon, and only about 3 weeks to do the same with CGI, I have to say the CGI was more frustrating.

I don't know what you were using, but we have very few problems with it.

I don't know what you were using, but we have very few problems with it.

I think a bulk of the problems stemed from it being a hands on project for kids ranging in age from 8 to 12. I didn't help much unless there was something they could not do (had no experience with) and then I only showed them and then backed out and made them do it again.

Whatever problems were left over after that hurdle were caused by a computer with just about zero processing power and a grudge against me.

Silly, silly humans! You keep picking one or the other when you don't have to! What is this perverse condition that makes everything a competition? Dump the patriarchy!

I think a bulk of the problems stemed from it being a hands on project for kids ranging in age from 8 to 12. I didn't help much unless there was something they could not do (had no experience with) and then I only showed them and then backed out and made them do it again.

Whatever problems were left over after that hurdle were caused by a computer with just about zero processing power and a grudge against me.

That's what I was figuring.

it took us all summer to do a 1 minute 30 second claymation cartoon, and only about 3 weeks to do the same with CGI, I have to say the CGI was more frustrating.

it can be. It's fun to me though. 3 weeks..... It took a crew of us 3 months to do 2 minutes. From concept to lighting and texturing. Never did finalize the SFX for the two finished scenes dammit!

it can be. It's fun to me though. 3 weeks..... It took a crew of us 3 months to do 2 minutes. From concept to lighting and texturing. Never did finalize the SFX for the two finished scenes dammit!

does it help that ours was silent? :)

Even Disney cartoons are made overseas now.

Not entirely true. Disney had feature animation studios in Anaheim, Orlando, Paris, Toronto, and Tokyo, as well as Sydney. All of the studios were 100% owned by Disney Since the shrinking of Feature Animation, all but Anaheim have closed, and Anaheim is a shell of its former self (although, there are signs of a Disney return to traditional animation in the coming years). They still produce the Disney movies.

Sydney was the "odd man out" studio. They were not feature animation, but not non-disney. They did most of the direct to dvd sequels, as well as TV cartoons. The TV cartoons are now done by a seperate division of the company with no real studio.

Some are outsourced. The major features, however, are all done in house by either Feature Animation (those movies labled Disney) or Pixar (none have been released by Pixar since the Disney takeover, but it seems that they will retain autonomy).

The exception WAS The Nightmare Before Christmas. This was the first animated feature done in house not released as "Walt Disney Presents". It was "Tim Burton Presents" and was originally released as a Touchstone Pictures production. I say "was" because for the re-release, it has been placed under Feature Animation, and is a Walt Disney production presented by Tim Burton.

So the short answer to your statement is "kinda". Feature films were produced in house, but partly overseas. the TV animation is questionable...part is in house, part probably isn't, but most is done overseas.

Give me Stop Motion anyday, if you get CGI wrong it looks like a bunch of cardboard boxes selotaped together and painted silver, you can't really get Stop Motion wrong unless you were trying too or are not that skilled... I can actually think of many films which could have benefitted from Stop Motion rather than poorly done CGI ¬_¬

where anyone can do CGIReally? Well, I'd like to see you make an example then. Something to rival final fantasy if you please..

CGI movies blow. If I'm going to watch what amounts to a bleedin' video game, I better have a joystick in my hand and be able to control one of the characters.Well, the rendering of a CGI movie is a lot better than in a video game. But if you're any good at playing, I'd happily watch.
Of course likening a CGI movie to a videogame is a bit like likening a regular movie to larping, and claymation to playing with play-doh.

I can actually think of many films which could have benefitted from Stop Motion rather than poorly done CGI ¬_¬That would have been hilarious in a lot of bad movies..

Not entirely true. Disney had feature animation studios in Anaheim, Orlando, Paris, Toronto, and Tokyo, as well as Sydney. All of the studios were 100% owned by Disney Since the shrinking of Feature Animation, all but Anaheim have closed, and Anaheim is a shell of its former self (although, there are signs of a Disney return to traditional animation in the coming years). They still produce the Disney movies.

Sydney was the "odd man out" studio. They were not feature animation, but not non-disney. They did most of the direct to dvd sequels, as well as TV cartoons. The TV cartoons are now done by a seperate division of the company with no real studio.

Some are outsourced. The major features, however, are all done in house by either Feature Animation (those movies labled Disney) or Pixar (none have been released by Pixar since the Disney takeover, but it seems that they will retain autonomy).

The exception WAS The Nightmare Before Christmas. This was the first animated feature done in house not released as "Walt Disney Presents". It was "Tim Burton Presents" and was originally released as a Touchstone Pictures production. I say "was" because for the re-release, it has been placed under Feature Animation, and is a Walt Disney production presented by Tim Burton.

So the short answer to your statement is "kinda". Feature films were produced in house, but partly overseas. the TV animation is questionable...part is in house, part probably isn't, but most is done overseas.

Odd, because from what friends who work/ed at Disney and official press releases have been saying, Disney laid off their entire staff of traditional animators to make way for a purely 3D unit.

Pixar has essentially taken over the 3D stuff from the inhouse facility. Lasseter is running the animation department for Disney/Pixar and Ed Catmull is a major player within the studio now.

Erm, Disneyland is in Anaheim, Disney Studios is in Burbank. Has been for decades, the front entrance is on Buena Vista I believe. And the Burbank facilities has no 2D studios anymore that I am aware of.

The last traditionally animated movie that Disney did was Treasure Planet, back in 2002. Well, mostly 2D animation anyways. They had been adding 3D elements since Beauty and the Beast. Since then, they have made no 2D movies. It's been all live action or CG.

does it help that ours was silent? :)

Less frustrating anyways.

Someone don't know CGI...

Odd, because from what friends who work/ed at Disney and official press releases have been saying, Disney laid off their entire staff of traditional animators to make way for a purely 3D unit. Somewhat true. There is a film en route that is a combination live action and traditional animation movie that will be done by feature animation. The entire staff hasn't been fired, but the remaining ones are currently working on 3d. If the studio returns to 2d, they plan on a release every 3-4 years. Additionally, Lasseter has green lit The Frog Princess, a wholly 2d feature

Pixar has essentially taken over the 3D stuff from the inhouse facility. Lasseter is running the animation department for Disney/Pixar and Ed Catmull is a major player within the studio now.Again, not entirely true. Pixar and Disney Feature Animation are still seperate and autonomous groups within Disney, with no signs of that changing. Feature Animation is currently working on several films (all films actually being actvely worked on are 3d with the exception of Frog Princess), the first being Meet the Robinsons, due out in 2007. It looks as if Feature Animation will return to traditional, while pixar will remain the 3d branch.

Erm, Disneyland is in Anaheim, Disney Studios is in Burbank. Has been for decades, the front entrance is on Buena Vista I believe. And the Burbank facilities has no 2D studios anymore that I am aware of.My mistake, you're right. The studio is in Burbank. They have converted currently to 3d. However, as I mentioned, Enchanted is planned to use 2d, much like Song of the South, and The Fron Princess has been greenlit.

The last traditionally animated movie that Disney did was Treasure Planet, back in 2002. Well, mostly 2D animation anyways. They had been adding 3D elements since Beauty and the Beast. Since then, they have made no 2D movies. It's been all live action or CG.Not true. Disney has released Brother Bear and Home on the Range since Treasure Planet (2003 and 2004, respectively).

Somewhat true. There is a film en route that is a combination live action and traditional animation movie that will be done by feature animation. The entire staff hasn't been fired, but the remaining ones are currently working on 3d. If the studio returns to 2d, they plan on a release every 3-4 years. Additionally, Lasseter has green lit The Frog Princess, a wholly 2d feature

Again, not entirely true. Pixar and Disney Feature Animation are still seperate and autonomous groups within Disney, with no signs of that changing. Feature Animation is currently working on several films (all films actually being actvely worked on are 3d with the exception of Frog Princess), the first being Meet the Robinsons, due out in 2007. It looks as if Feature Animation will return to traditional, while pixar will remain the 3d branch.

My mistake, you're right. The studio is in Burbank. They have converted currently to 3d. However, as I mentioned, Enchanted is planned to use 2d, much like Song of the South, and The Fron Princess has been greenlit.

Not true. Disney has released Brother Bear and Home on the Range since Treasure Planet (2003 and 2004, respectively).

Disney is actually admitting to Home on the Range?:D I had completely forgotten Brother Bear too. My mistake.

Damn, things have really changed the past few months, what I had talked about was the most recent news I had heard of. But a quicky net search confirmed what you said, Sarkhaan. Looks like I am not nearly as up-to-date as I thought I was. I am glad they are returning to 2D, I always thought dropping that was a really bad idea for Disney. Hopefully they can find some good animators and artists for that again.

Thank you for correcting me.:fluffle:

As an animator, I reject the implication that anyone can do CGI. CGI requires state of the art computers, years of training, and usually a large team of animators to make it time efficient.

Stop motion on the other hand, can be done by anyone with a digital camera (still or video). I've won art direction awards for some stop motion work and I've had no formal training as an animator. I've never met anyone who can say the same about CGI.

GCz

As an animator, I reject the implication that anyone can do CGI. CGI requires state of the art computers, years of training, and usually a large team of animators to make it time efficient.

Stop motion on the other hand, can be done by anyone with a digital camera (still or video). I've won art direction awards for some stop motion work and I've had no formal training as an animator. I've never met anyone who can say the same about CGI.

GCz

You forgot to add Imagination, Skill and Knowledge.:D

So, all of you who see CGI people as being lesser or non-artistic, have we made our point yet?

one reason for Stop Motion Animation

http://www.geekculture.com/blurbs/reviews/reviewimages/iStopmotion/skeletons.jpg

As an animator, I reject the implication that anyone can do CGI. CGI requires state of the art computers, years of training, and usually a large team of animators to make it time efficient.

Stop motion on the other hand, can be done by anyone with a digital camera (still or video). I've won art direction awards for some stop motion work and I've had no formal training as an animator. I've never met anyone who can say the same about CGI.

GCz

Oh comon, you have to move several puppets at one time if you're doing a crowd scene, It takes forever to do even 1 minute of film, and you have to pull off several special effects not with computers, but with gadgets and other mechanics that gives you the effect that you want. Like in Corpse bride, they had to use strings to make the bride's gown look like it was blowing in the wind, don't even get me started on changing the mouth and lighting.

(I have done stop-motion before, but it never been finished, didn't have the means to move it from computer to film.)

Oh comon, you have to move several puppets at one time if you're doing a crowd scene, It takes forever to do even 1 minute of film, and you have to pull off several special effects not with computers, but with gadgets and other mechanics that gives you the effect that you want. Like in Corpse bride, they had to use strings to make the bride's gown look like it was blowing in the wind, don't even get me started on changing the mouth and lighting.

(I have done stop-motion before, but it never been finished, didn't have the means to move it from computer to film.)

Nothing you said refutes what Gczap said. So it takes a bit more effort, sometimes. That doesn't make STA superior artistically to CG.

one reason for Stop Motion Animation

http://www.geekculture.com/blurbs/reviews/reviewimages/iStopmotion/skeletons.jpg

I've spent hours going through that scene trying to figure out many parts of that, not the least of which was how Jason took the spear from the skeleton and hit him with it.

CGI, because there's literally nothing you can't do with it. Anything you can imagine can be animated in CGI.

The same can't be said for stop-motion animation... Though for certain projects, it does fit the bill better.

Disney is actually admitting to Home on the Range?:D I had completely forgotten Brother Bear too. My mistake.haha...I have a few issues with several of the movies they consider "classics", but I suppose it isn't my position to talk:p

Damn, things have really changed the past few months, what I had talked about was the most recent news I had heard of. But a quicky net search confirmed what you said, Sarkhaan. Looks like I am not nearly as up-to-date as I thought I was. I am glad they are returning to 2D, I always thought dropping that was a really bad idea for Disney. Hopefully they can find some good animators and artists for that again.

Thank you for correcting me.:fluffle:haha...I like to keep up with Disney, and have been pretty interested since they got Pixar...things have been looking up which is great because a) I love the company and b) I'm a shareholder. I also have a few inside people who let me know about the big changes, which is nice.

Always good to see someone else who keeps up with Disney around here...alot of people aren't what you would call "fans":)

haha...I have a few issues with several of the movies they consider "classics", but I suppose it isn't my position to talk:p

haha...I like to keep up with Disney, and have been pretty interested since they got Pixar...things have been looking up which is great because a) I love the company and b) I'm a shareholder. I also have a few inside people who let me know about the big changes, which is nice.

Always good to see someone else who keeps up with Disney around here...alot of people aren't what you would call "fans":)

I applied to be an assistant projectionist there (in Emeryville) and I didn't even get an interview. sniffle. If I had known I would have worked you as a connection..;)

haha...I have a few issues with several of the movies they consider "classics", but I suppose it isn't my position to talk:p

haha...I like to keep up with Disney, and have been pretty interested since they got Pixar...things have been looking up which is great because a) I love the company and b) I'm a shareholder. I also have a few inside people who let me know about the big changes, which is nice.

Always good to see someone else who keeps up with Disney around here...alot of people aren't what you would call "fans":)


I am a cartoon/animation fanatic, which might expalin why I went and spent 4 years learing it. I love Disney animation, their traditional work was always the best work ever done, in my opinion. Not a fan of the corporate portion, but the Old Men are and were some of my heroes.

one reason for Stop Motion Animation

http://www.geekculture.com/blurbs/reviews/reviewimages/iStopmotion/skeletons.jpg

Oooo funky!

I applied to be an assistant projectionist there (in Emeryville) and I didn't even get an interview. sniffle. If I had known I would have worked you as a connection..;)

Not all that surprising, Pixar is bar none, the hardest company to get into and the most sought after place to work. Most animation people would give vital organs to work there.

Not all that surprising, Pixar is bar none, the hardest company to get into and the most sought after place to work. Most animation people would give vital organs to work there.

Yeah, and I'm not an animator by any stretch. But I had the requisite 5 years experience in 35mm projection, I mean, how many people these days have that? Bah...it's the second time they've listed that job, maybe it will list again. Then I'm totally working Sarky as my inside man ;)

In their last film they referenced an art project by the guy who ran my college film program (Cadillac Ranch, you know all those Cadillacs nosed into the ground in Texas? That.)

Yeah, and I'm not an animator by any stretch. But I had the requisite 5 years experience in 35mm projection, I mean, how many people these days have that? Bah...it's the second time they've listed that job, maybe it will list again. Then I'm totally working Sarky as my inside man ;)

In their last film they referenced an art project by the guy who ran my college film program (Cadillac Ranch, you know all those Cadillacs nosed into the ground in Texas? That.)

haha...I could try to pull some strings down at WDW if you wanted...doubt he has much clout over at burbank

haha...I could try to pull some strings down at WDW if you wanted...doubt he has much clout over at burbank

Even worse, this was in Emeryville-NorCal...it would've been sweet. After a year of freelancing, I'm all kinds of ready for a regular paycheck. No one I know went to school going, "I want to schlep around stuff for reality shows, yay!"

Hopefully you'll get in. if you do, could you put in a good word for me? :D

Anyone who has an interest in cars knows about Cadillac Ranch. Very well known landmark for automotive enthusiasts.

I do actually have a sort of contact with Disney. My aunts best friend is friends with Tim Burton and the guy who is apparently being put in charge of recreating the 2D animation unit. He worked there for years as a animator and product designer, plus he worked for Don Bluth for several years, an dhe was part of the SFX team on the first Star Trek movie.