You know Traditionally Animated Films like Home on the Range and The Smurfs and the Magic Flute???? Yeah? So there are also Traditionally Animated TV Shows such as The Smurfs, Dexter's Lab & Krypto the Superdog. And Wreck-it Ralph has Traditionally Animated Pencil Tests based on the CGI film. But Wreck-it Ralph is a CGI film. But I wish it was Traditionally Animated. I'm also seeing another CGI film on October 18th called Turbo. It comes out on that date in the UK. And I'm British. There are some mixtures of CGI and Traditional Animation. Such as The Smurfs: A Christmas Carol & The Smurfs: The Legend of Smurfy Hollow. That's a fact. NOT fiction. BTW, I have an excellent 2D and Stop Motion Software called MonkeyJam. If you want to see this Traditional Animation of Wreck-it Ralph, click here. It's good. Also, There is another Traditionally Animated Film called Oliver & Company. To watch it, click here. For a CGI Angry Birds video, click here.
So, which is better? Tell me!

Thanks!
BigFox8

I prefer Traditional Animation, it has a nice warm feel to it and is applicable for anything.

Depends on what type of movie you are making. Toy Story, Wreck It Ralph, Shrek, and such all work better as CGI.

honesty wrote:

Depends on what type of movie you are making. Toy Story, Wreck It Ralph, Shrek, and such all work better as CGI.

Agreed, 3D thins are much better in CGI.

It really depends on how you define CGI animation. Personally I love the show Bob's Burgers (probably not suitable for most of you) but it's arguably CGI animation, being an all digital affair. Similarly South Park is all CGI.

Hand drawn is wonderful but I can't imagine it's cost effective any more.

Flamekebab wrote:

It really depends on how you define CGI animation. Personally I love the show Bob's Burgers (probably not suitable for most of you) but it's arguably CGI animation, being an all digital affair. Similarly South Park is all CGI.

Hand drawn is wonderful but I can't imagine it's cost effective any more.

I've never seen Bob's Burgers but isn't by the same people who worked on Home Movies?

Looks like it, yes.

I prefer traditional animation, but I like CGI if it's done well.

I like the classic feel of traditional animation.

Flamekebab wrote:

It really depends on how you define CGI animation. Personally I love the show Bob's Burgers (probably not suitable for most of you) but it's arguably CGI animation, being an all digital affair. Similarly South Park is all CGI.

Hand drawn is wonderful but I can't imagine it's cost effective any more.

Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but while we're on the subject of Bob's Burgers…
Louise Belcher looks amazingly like Nepeta Leijon, from Homestuck.

Zaneki wrote:

Flamekebab wrote:

It really depends on how you define CGI animation. Personally I love the show Bob's Burgers (probably not suitable for most of you) but it's arguably CGI animation, being an all digital affair. Similarly South Park is all CGI.

Hand drawn is wonderful but I can't imagine it's cost effective any more.

Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but while we're on the subject of Bob's Burgers…
Louise Belcher looks amazingly like Nepeta Leijon, from Homestuck.

Her hat kind of reminds me of Finn's genderswapped version Fionna from Adventure Time, and she has the same voice as Mabel from Gravity Falls. XD

Zaneki wrote:

Louise Belcher looks amazingly like Nepeta Leijon, from Homestuck.

Aside from the eared hat I'm not really seeing it. It's not like Louise normally wears a jacket either.

Gene Belcher on the other hand not only looks like a young version of his voice actor but shares the same name too (Eugene Mirman).

Traditional has more freedom in it's style. There are characters that can be animated perfectly in traditional animation that would not work at all in CGI. There are so many possibilities. Low budget traditional animation can still look good if it's in the hands of the right cartoonists and animators (Ralph Bakshi's animated films are a good example), while low budget CGI really suffers and looks extremely cheap. Low budget traditional animation might have a limited amount of frames, but the drawings in said frames can be as professional as possible (Jetter Mars, while having a very low frame rate still has some fantastic character designs and drawings). You can also have more abstract and surreal designs in traditional animation (the original version of The Thief and the Cobbler is the best example I can think of). And it can be more stylized (Power Puff Girls being a good example).

I'm not saying all traditional animation is good. If you have an artist who can't draw a stick man properly to save his (or her) own life, you will have quite an ugly result. Who in all seriousness thought that Problem Solvers should become a series? The designs of the characters are hideous!

But overall. Traditional animation is better because it relies on the skills of the artist behind it while CGI just relies on the computer.

Traditional animation is harder to work on though, and this is coming from an actual cartoonist. I haven't used CGI, but I heard it's a lot simpler to use. I think that traditional animation just looks better.

I hate CGI, handdrawn FTW

I sort of prefer traditional over CG, namely because many of my favorite animated films are traditional. The first two examples that come to mind for me are Aladdin, which is a movie that I've enjoyed since a very young age of 2, and Fantasia.

to be honest im more of a fan of traditional
the character movement doesn't look as awkward or stiff as it does in CG

kingdragon wrote:

Traditional has more freedom in it's style. There are characters that can be animated perfectly in traditional animation that would not work at all in CGI. There are so many possibilities. Low budget traditional animation can still look good if it's in the hands of the right cartoonists and animators (Ralph Bakshi's animated films are a good example), while low budget CGI really suffers and looks extremely cheap. Low budget traditional animation might have a limited amount of frames, but the drawings in said frames can be as professional as possible (Jetter Mars, while having a very low frame rate still has some fantastic character designs and drawings). You can also have more abstract and surreal designs in traditional animation (the original version of The Thief and the Cobbler is the best example I can think of). And it can be more stylized (Power Puff Girls being a good example).

I'm not saying all traditional animation is good. If you have an artist who can't draw a stick man properly to save his (or her) own life, you will have quite an ugly result. Who in all seriousness thought that Problem Solvers should become a series? The designs of the characters are hideous!

But overall. Traditional animation is better because it relies on the skills of the artist behind it while CGI just relies on the computer.

Traditional animation is harder to work on though, and this is coming from an actual cartoonist. I haven't used CGI, but I heard it's a lot simpler to use. I think that traditional animation just looks better.

cgi doesn't rely just on the computer, though, and low-budget cgi can still look great - see this and the related videos for examples. while there are fancy equations that determine things like how cloth drapes and shading that make the process slightly easier, the character designs and movement are ultimately up to the animators' ability to design characters and make things move realistically - you don't just press a few buttons and let the compy do the rest.

I honestly like both. Although I really wish that Disney would still do traditional animation movies still. They stopped doing it in around 2005, I think because the last few traditional animated movies they had made (like The Emperor's New Groove, which I thought was a good movie) hadn't done so well in the box office, so I think that is why they stopped doing it.

hoole001 wrote:

I honestly like both. Although I really wish that Disney would still do traditional animation movies still. They stopped doing it in around 2005, I think because the last few traditional animated movies they had made (like The Emperor's New Groove, which I thought was a good movie) hadn't done so well in the box office, so I think that is why they stopped doing it.

What are you thinking about? Did you think that Mr. Peabody & Sherman was Traditionally animated?! Or do you prefer the CGI film of them to.