[Kingpin]

There's just more a feeling of craftsmanship to the animation done in cel.

Knowing what work can go into building and animating a 3D model, I believe there might be a similar level of craftsmanship in CG animation to cel - the craftsmanship is different but no more easy. It might not look it, but organic-looking characters and animals are harder to make than they look.

[pferreira1983]

There's just more a feeling of craftsmanship to the animation done in cel.

Knowing what work can go into building and animating a 3D model, I believe there might be a similar level of craftsmanship in CG animation to cel - the craftsmanship is different but no more easy. It might not look it, but organic-looking characters and animals are harder to make than they look.

Nah it's all done with computers. It's me typing on a keyboard. The ability to hold a pencil and draw is the real skill, it's provides the best results because of this.

[Alphagaia]

I know a few 2d/3d artists, one having made drawings for Efteling, the biggest amusement park here in the Netherlands, and trust me it's both an art to be a 2d or 3d artist.

Creating a character that looks good on all angles without 'perspective cheating' is a very tough thing to get right.

Also it helps immensely if you can draw if you are a 3d artist and vice versa, since you can make your own skin maps and concept drawings before you start in 3d and get a good grip of the 3d world for your 2d positions.

Also, virtually all 2d art is done with computers nowadays as well. Wacom for life, baby.

[Kingpin]

Nah it's all done with computers.

I apologise in advance if my response gets a little heated, but I feel the need to set the record straight.

It is not all done with computers.

I designed and constructed a number of 3D models and animations across a span of about five years - two years at a college, three at a University. That included texturing them, lot of inorganic animation, lighting, and editing (not including sound and music design, and adding visual effects in post-production).

There was one element that I didn't either partially make, or create completely from scratch, which were a selection of motion-captured animations, which at the time we had no facilities to capture.

So about 90% (if not more) of the 3D computer model projects I worked on were not just "done by the computer".

And I don't even consider myself a 3D specialist, I am without a doubt an amateur to people who are able to digitally sculpt models in Maya and make them look life-like.

3D animated films and TV series deserve a lot of credit because there is a lot of work that goes into them, regardless of if they're building everything from scratch for each instalment, or if they're utilising pre-existing content, or a mixture of the both. It isn't fair to suggest that a 3D animated feature is less deserving of credit because each frame hasn't been hand-drawn (it'll still have hand-drawn storyboards, regardless of the CG medium)

What it is however, is artistic snobbery.

A final point, as an exercise, locate a digital artist on DeviantArt (or a similar website) with phenomenal skill, and say to them that what they're doing "is all done by the computer/Photoshop", I think you'll be surprised at the reaction.

[savintheday]

Yeah dude, if anything 3D modeling is more difficult than drawing. It still takes artistic ability as well as technical ability, which is a rare combination.

Not saying one is better than the other, but both take a large degree of skill to do properly.

[pferreira1983]

Nah it's all done with computers.

3D animated films and TV series deserve a lot of credit because there is a lot of work that goes into them, regardless of if they're building everything from scratch for each instalment, or if they're utilising pre-existing content, or a mixture of the both. It isn't fair to suggest that a 3D animated feature is less deserving of credit because each frame hasn't been hand-drawn (it'll still have hand-drawn storyboards, regardless of the CG medium)

Oh sure CGI takes some work but it's mostly number crunching. You end up using less of your imagination and it becomes more of how to get the computer to do a task. 2D animation requires the same level of planning however the skill for being artistic is more there.

[pferreira1983]

Also, virtually all 2d art is done with computers nowadays as well. Wacom for life, baby.

And it looks better? We'll have to agree to disagree on that I'm afraid.

[Kingpin]

Oh sure CGI takes some work but it's mostly number crunching.

Look, if you want to say you don't like CGI animation, that's fair enough.

What I'd like to know however, is do you have a background in it? If you do, I'll admit I'm surprised at the position you're holding. If you don't, then really (and I know this will come off as rude, unfortunately I don't think I can say it in another way) you don't know what you're talking about.

There's still plenty of imagination in 3D animation (if you doubt me, just take a look at the models and graphic elements that frequently get hidden in the background or the peripheral, at some of the animated motions which are referred straight from real life - just like classic Disney cell animation), sure, there are times where you have to try work, or even trick a computer into doing what you want to do, but CGI provides plenty of challenges on creativity and imagination in its own right.

When Disney was making Tarzan, they combined digitally painted backgrounds with 3D architecture to create the illusion of deep jungles, and yet managed to match the style of their traditional work, that's enough of an example there that there's imagination in 3D work.

[Alphagaia]

Also, virtually all 2d art is done with computers nowadays as well. Wacom for life, baby.

And it looks better? We'll have to agree to disagree on that I'm afraid.

You think this looks worse then drawn by pencil? It's at least on par, with easier and adaptable workspace.

[gold333]

I am a commercial advertising photographer who lives on photoshop and wacom tablets. I have this discussion with "purists" all the time.

The simple truth is that we are all artists with a set of tools. A camera, a pencil, a piece of marble, photoshop, a wacom tablet, a cloth canvas, a hammer and chisel, Maya, etc.

A technical instrument (like Maya, Photoshop or a hammer) can never make a creative decision.

[timeware]

It would be great if we could get an RGB movie done in the disney infinity style and get a third party company to make cross platform compatible game figures. Or a whole portable console based on the GB universe.

[DarkSpectre]

It would be great to get anything RGB at this point

[Kingpin]

It would be great to get anything RGB at this point

Well... not quite anything. (Slimer & The Real Ghostbusters)

[pferreira1983]

Oh sure CGI takes some work but it's mostly number crunching.

Look, if you want to say you don't like CGI animation, that's fair enough.

What I'd like to know however, is do you have a background in it? If you do, I'll admit I'm surprised at the position you're holding. If you don't, then really (and I know this will come off as rude, unfortunately I don't think I can say it in another way) you don't know what you're talking about.

There's still plenty of imagination in 3D animation (if you doubt me, just take a look at the models and graphic elements that frequently get hidden in the background or the peripheral, at some of the animated motions which are referred straight from real life - just like classic Disney cell animation), sure, there are times where you have to try work, or even trick a computer into doing what you want to do, but CGI provides plenty of challenges on creativity and imagination in its own right.

When Disney was making Tarzan, they combined digitally painted backgrounds with 3D architecture to create the illusion of deep jungles, and yet managed to match the style of their traditional work, that's enough of an example there that there's imagination in 3D work.

See that works because it's a combination of both used properly together. 3D animation on it's own however is something that still hasn't been perfected as a craft. We're not there yet.

[pferreira1983]

And it looks better? We'll have to agree to disagree on that I'm afraid.

You think this looks worse then drawn by pencil? It's at least on par, with easier and adaptable workspace.

Nah, it still doesn't look better than cel animation. Although not a bad example you've given.

[Kingpin]

3D animation on it's own however is something that still hasn't been perfected as a craft. We're not there yet.

Some 3D animation that's used to supplement or replace real-world elements still faces the problem of not appearing entirely convincing.

But 3D cartoon animation, stuff like DreamWorks, Pixar, stuff that isn't trying to appear 100% lifelike that has been perfected. Wall-e, Zootopia/Zootropolis, The LEGO Movie and How to Train Your Dragon 2 are plenty proof of that.

[pferreira1983]

3D animation on it's own however is something that still hasn't been perfected as a craft. We're not there yet.

Some 3D animation that's used to supplement or replace real-world elements still faces the problem of not appearing entirely convincing.

But 3D cartoon animation, stuff like DreamWorks, Pixar, stuff that isn't trying to appear 100% lifelike that has been perfected. Wall-e, Zootopia/Zootropolis, The LEGO Movie and How to Train Your Dragon 2 are plenty proof of that.

The Lego Movie is one of the first CGI movies to actually impress me. The combination of a creative, well written story with Lego done realistically in CGI worked terrific.

[Roger Rabbit]

I doubt this is gonna be RGB-releated. Most likely it will be a spinoff of the new movie.

[Slimered]

I also hope it's not in the perspective of a ghost. Why is it so hard just to make a good story about the original guys without putting some Kind of spin on it.

I actually think it sounds like quite a clever idea. I like it when companies are inventive with franchises rather than sticking with what works.

Hey if it's animated they could make it take place whenever. They could pass the torch, or they could just stay on and just add new young members to the roster. If they're animated there is no need for them to retire. The Question is Do you get the remaining cast together to voice their iconic roles with someone filling in for Egon, or do you have new actors to voice all the originals? If there is truth to the rumor there are many possibilities.

I don't think they should recast Egon. It wouldn't feel right to me. They should just kill him off off-screen.

Just some food for thought but what if with the massive expansion of Lego's licensed properties with the Lego Dimension game means a Lego Ghostbusters film? It's not out of the realm of possibility, they've already revealed a Lego Batman film for 2017 for general release. Plus they've done direct to dvd Lego Batman films, DC films and have had a Lego Star Wars TV show. Perhaps making more lego movies of different franchises is something they'd like to expand on.

I hope so. I'd love to see a LEGO Doctor Who movie too.

[pferreira1983]

I doubt this is gonna be RGB-releated. Most likely it will be a spinoff of the new movie.

I get that impression as well.

[DarkSpectre]

If they want to give reboot slimer his own movie then anyone else up for a Dan Schoening styled GB cartoon? Lol

[Slimered]

I doubt this is gonna be RGB-releated. Most likely it will be a spinoff of the new movie.

I get that impression as well.

I'm not so sure when Paul Feig has been talking up the notion of a multiverse.