Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Forum administrators, Interface administrators, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
116,942
edits
m (added Category:The Law of Conservation of Detail using HotCat) |
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (update footnote about RWBY) |
||
Line 8:
For example, suppose you make a big budget CGI movie, or even a movie that contains a lot of CGI, that's about the life of a perfectly normal human family in which perfectly normal stuff happens. This film could easily have been made in live action. It would have been cheaper to make it in live-action—and the less expensive the film, the fewer viewers it takes to make it profitable. And using animation for this kind of film increases the risk of [[Special Effect Failure]] and decreases the realism; either of these will annoy some viewers... But, if you want to make the movie CGI, you can turn the family into, say, [[The Incredibles|superheroes]]. It ''can'' still be done in live action, albeit with lots of special effects, but now you have justification to make it all CGI. Just remember the superheroics.
It is easier to justify an all-2D animated film than a film that's all CGI animation, especially if the film has a human cast. That is because using CGI to depict humans realistically will trigger the [[Uncanny Valley]].<ref>For a mid-to-late-2010s example, see the early volumes ''[[RWBY]]'' - a very good try, but there
It should be noted that mixing live-action and CGI is often cheaper than making a truly hand-drawn 2D cartoon—you do have to pay the artists, and hand-drawn cartoons of good quality require a lot of panels. CGI special effects allow the filmmaker to use both real humans and elaborate special effects. Stop-motion animation is cheaper still but doesn't blend in as well. Old fashioned special effects are cheaper than that, but they can't do ''everything'' CGI can; even when they can, CGI is often less destructive or dangerous.
|