Sonic Boom (Working Title)

[Tara]

I heard it was CG animated...

 

Why is it that most modern shows are CG? Just wondering.

In some aspects it's easier, less time-consuming depending on the time budget, and it wastes a lot less trees than traditional animation to name a few.

[Dizcrybe]

I heard it was CG animated...

 

Why is it that most modern shows are CG? Just wondering.

 

Because kids don't care about hand-drawn stuff anymore.

 

^ Or that.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Dizcrybe

[Zaysho]

In some aspects it's easier, less time-consuming depending on the time budget, and it wastes a lot less trees than traditional animation to name a few.

 

Isn't even hand-drawn animation done primarily on the computer these days though? I know they still do some things on paper (storyboards mostly, I think), but the actual animation is all digital, isn't it?

[Nepenthe]

Most "traditional" animation is indeed all digital now. Also, most animated television shows are still traditional, and by significantly wide margin at that (especially if you count anime), probably because it has an easier pipeline more dependent upon the artist and less on the cooperation of a computer. Following from that, kids do care about traditional animation. -.-+

[iDEATH]

I heard it was CG animated...

 

Why is it that most modern shows are CG? Just wondering.

 

I'm assuming you're using CG to mean 3D, rarther than simply any show made using a computer.

 

Either way though, I guess it's the same answer, it's quicker and easier.

 

3D is generally easier than 2D beacue you're not coninutally drawing and redrawing the same character. in traditional animation you've got to draw each character 12-24 times per second and obviously that's a massive ammount of work.

With 3d, you've one character model that you can drop into any scene and work with straight away.

 

Not that the animation skill is any less of course, but yeah, it's seen as being quicker/easier/cheaper. gotta save those dolla dolla bills.

[Jet Prower]

I thought a lot of companies were all moving away from traditional animation because of cost usually. I've heard that the difference in production cost in CGI and Tranditional is quite large, thus why a lot of companies are all dumping their traditional departments in favor of CGI.

 

This big thing though is from what I've seen, CGI just doesn't sometimes look as good as Tranditional in some cases and in other cases it can match it. Things just look so different in CGI that it just doesn't feel the same or things in some cases of I've seen CGI tends to be a bit blockier maybe? Maybe it is just me, but Traditional often looks a lot more well drawn or have a more normal flow to them than CGI, which can just sometimes seem to have this blocky feel to them if that makes sense?

[-Metal Sonic-]

That's true.

 

Cel animation does require a lot of time and patience. 3D animation takes less time.

 

I just prefer 2D animation. :V

[Tenko]

Personally I would take Sonic CD's intro/outro over any of the CGI stuff anyday. There's more charm in the hand drawn stuff (even the digital hand drawn) for me. Not to say 3D can't be charming or well done. I just prefer the old style most of the time.

The only animation style the really grinds my gears and comes off as lazy is Flash animation. (I'm talking as a syndicated TV show here btw, not personal projects or the stuff you find on Newgrounds etc). Sure its quirky and I imagine very cost effective, but very few shows that use it pull it off well. Isn't to say there aren't some really well done ones, it's just that the majority look horrible. One mans opinion.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Tenko

[Mauro Fonseca]

>They're using 3d because they're lazy asses

Well, except for the fact 3d shows actually are more expensive, just ask Giancarlo Volpe.

It's all about the public perception, or more correctly, the executives' perception of public perception. Said Executives' perception is "3d shows are what's selling", so that's what goes.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Albator

[Tara]

Personally I would take Sonic CD's intro/outro over any of the CGI stuff anyday. There's more charm in the hand drawn stuff (even the digital hand drawn) for me. Not to say 3D can't be charming or well done. I just prefer the old style most of the time.

The only animation style the really grinds my gears and comes off as lazy is Flash animation. (I'm talking as a syndicated TV show here btw, not personal projects or the stuff you find on Newgrounds etc). Sure its quirky and I imagine very cost effective, but very few shows that use it pull it off well. Isn't to say there aren't some really well done ones, it's just that the majority look horrible. One mans opinion.

Eh, I honestly don't think it's any different than the 90% of terrible traditional animation.  A lot of Hannah Barbara cartoons had some flimsy-looking animations that was pretty much on par with today's Flash cartoons, but the ones that didn't were phenomenal.  That mostly has more to do with a good time and quality ratio, though, I think.

[Nepenthe]

I want to go back to the subject of financial costs because I don't know why or even how this idea that CGI is somehow cheaper has been propagated. For instance, look up the production costs between Princess and the Frog and any CGI film released around the same time period. The only CGI studio with low budgets is Illumination Entertainment, and that's because it's their modus operandi, but even then Winnie The Pooh 2011 had half the budget of Despicable Me anyway.

 

Yes, CG animation is "easier" in that you don't have to draw every frame (although for any skilled animator, this isn't necessarily a trade-off), that's not that great an advantage in terms of cost cutting when you remember the fact that it takes two other departments (modellers and riggers) to even get that character or object up and running in order to be animated, and even then that's no guarantee they'll always work and thus won't need to be sent back to said departments for troubleshooting. With traditional animation, you don't need a rigging department or any real troubleshooting. You design a character and draw all of the movements.

 

Let's not forget the fact that you need about three departments for final environmental art (environmental modellers, texture artists, and lighters), which on a traditional film are condensed into a just single painting department. Then there's the fact that you need to render the CG out into film, which requires a decent render farm if you need professional work to get done quickly, as well as a team of engineers because rendering out a film sequence- or just making CG in general- is notorious for never going smoothly. On a traditional production, you could literally do an entire 22-minute episode in Toon Boom Studio and render it out in Adobe After Effects on one computer just by being a good animator and Photoshop painter.

 

On average CGI isn't cheaper, and that's because each piece of the film-making process has been given significant depth and technical barriers due to the power of computing that it's impossible for most people to become an expert generalist in Maya. Thus, you need excess specialization, along with IT back-up on the side and tons more computers to get it done.

[Someguy]

I'm not sure how it applies to Sonic Boom, but 3D can make some things easier to work with. Environments can be created just once and then used multiple times at any angle, camera angles in general can do some things easier in 3D, and while it can result in early episodes feeling emptier as they start with what they've made, a growing collection of character, prop and location models can be reused and re-purposed as the series goes on very easily.

 

Things like that might attract them to making it CG, but they might have just gone "Kids are liking CG cartoons!" instead.

[Nepenthe]

The reuse of a single environment and props in different shots is essentially the trade-off for the increased amount of manpower it takes to even create an environment and props, while it takes nothing to just draw a prop, for example. Neither medium is inherently without its checks and balances, although again, traditional is- on average- going to cost noticeably less than CG as a result of said manpower.

[Jet Prower]

I want to go back to the subject of financial costs because I don't know why or even how this idea that CGI is somehow cheaper has been propagated. For instance, look up the production costs between Princess and the Frog and any CGI film released around the same time period. The only CGI studio with low budgets is Illumination Entertainment, and that's because it's their modus operandi, but even then Winnie The Pooh 2011 had half the budget of Despicable Me anyway.

 

Yes, CG animation is "easier" in that you don't have to draw every frame (although for any skilled animator, this isn't necessarily a trade-off), that's not that great an advantage in terms of cost cutting when you remember the fact that it takes two other departments (modellers and riggers) to even get that character or object up and running in order to be animated, and even then that's no guarantee they'll always work and thus won't need to be sent back to said departments for troubleshooting. With traditional animation, you don't need a rigging department or any real troubleshooting. You design a character and draw all of the movements.

 

Let's not forget the fact that you need about three departments for final environmental art (environmental modellers, texture artists, and lighters), which on a traditional film are condensed into a just single painting department. Then there's the fact that you need to render the CG out into film, which requires a decent render farm if you need professional work to get done quickly, as well as a team of engineers because rendering out a film sequence- or just making CG in general- is notorious for never going smoothly. On a traditional production, you could literally do an entire 22-minute episode in Toon Boom Studio and render it out in Adobe After Effects on one computer just by being a good animator and Photoshop painter.

 

On average CGI isn't cheaper, and that's because each piece of the film-making process has been given significant depth and technical barriers due to the power of computing that it's impossible for most people to become an expert generalist in Maya. Thus, you need excess specialization, along with IT back-up on the side and tons more computers to get it done.

 

Really? If that's true then the things people have told me are all not true then. I've heard so many people use cost as the main excuse they say as to why people are all ditching traditional and going for GCI and Flash and such like that for cartoons these days. That they only care for the cost and dont give a flip about the quality at all. People even told me that was why Disney is dumping all their traditional departments and only doing CGI and such now. That  is news to me definitely if that is true.

[Tenko]

Really? If that's true then the things people have told me are all not true then. I've heard so many people use cost as the main excuse they say as to why people are all ditching traditional and going for GCI and Flash and such like that for cartoons these days. That they only care for the cost and dont give a flip about the quality at all. People even told me that was why Disney is dumping all their traditional departments and only doing CGI and such now. That is news to me definitely if that is true.

Isn't Gravity Falls, one of Disney's highest rated shows at the moment done traditionally. I seem to recall them saying they wanted a traditional Saturday morning'ish cartoon created the old fashioned way in a market saturated with CGI and Flash based stuff to really make it stand out.

[Jet Prower]

If they are still doing traditional stuff and others are, that's good to hear. I remember people all getting upset when Disney said they would be doing no more traditional movies that they were saying their dreams of being an animator were crushed forever and such like that since no one does it anymore. I don't follow Disney as close as others do, so I don't exactly know all the details. I just know what some people have told me over time that said wanted to be animators.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

So have we learned anything new yet? Seriously, SEGA aught to have given more info by now rather than just let the fear and worry pulsate and grow!

[Tara]

So have we learned anything new yet? Seriously, SEGA aught to have given more info by now rather than just let the fear and worry pulsate and grow!

The premier is still about a year away, and it has only been a little over a month since the show was even announced.  I doubt we're going to get anything for awhile.

[Tani Coyote]

Precedent is the best guide in a time of uncertainty. When do commercials, pilots, etc. for new Cartoon Network shows start showing? For all we know, we could get the first episode a varying amount ahead of the premiere.

I'd have my fingers crossed they'd at least make a composite clip a minute or so long and show it to us at some point. I'd hope for something in March and such since that's when the news usually rolls in, but I wouldn't be surprised if the earliest we'd see anything would be Sonic Boom 2014.

[Jet Prower]

At the very least, they should give something small way ahead of time so you can get some fan feedback. If people don't like your concept in an early stage, you have time to change it. If you wait until like a few months before the premier when you likely have quite a few episodes already done and then find out people don't like what you have done, you are a bit late by that point. You could be in for a surprise when your thing launches and you already know a lot of people don't like your designs and premise.

[jords]

I want to go back to the subject of financial costs because I don't know why or even how this idea that CGI is somehow cheaper has been propagated. For instance, look up the production costs between Princess and the Frog and any CGI film released around the same time period. The only CGI studio with low budgets is Illumination Entertainment, and that's because it's their modus operandi, but even then Winnie The Pooh 2011 had half the budget of Despicable Me anyway.

 

Yes, CG animation is "easier" in that you don't have to draw every frame (although for any skilled animator, this isn't necessarily a trade-off), that's not that great an advantage in terms of cost cutting when you remember the fact that it takes two other departments (modellers and riggers) to even get that character or object up and running in order to be animated, and even then that's no guarantee they'll always work and thus won't need to be sent back to said departments for troubleshooting. With traditional animation, you don't need a rigging department or any real troubleshooting. You design a character and draw all of the movements.

 

Let's not forget the fact that you need about three departments for final environmental art (environmental modellers, texture artists, and lighters), which on a traditional film are condensed into a just single painting department. Then there's the fact that you need to render the CG out into film, which requires a decent render farm if you need professional work to get done quickly, as well as a team of engineers because rendering out a film sequence- or just making CG in general- is notorious for never going smoothly. On a traditional production, you could literally do an entire 22-minute episode in Toon Boom Studio and render it out in Adobe After Effects on one computer just by being a good animator and Photoshop painter.

 

On average CGI isn't cheaper, and that's because each piece of the film-making process has been given significant depth and technical barriers due to the power of computing that it's impossible for most people to become an expert generalist in Maya. Thus, you need excess specialization, along with IT back-up on the side and tons more computers to get it done.

 

Wow! most of you guys know your facts.

 

I barely research CG, but I always thought CG was harder, thinking you gotta do so much, to make one model work well.

 

I definitely learned something new today!

Edited November 17, 2013 by jordine

[Vec]

 

Ok seriously...what happened to Knuckles? I hope it's a one episode thing or something....

[AdventChild]

One of the reasons I think CGI is mostly used common these days is because of big budgeted Hollywood films that use a crap ton of it for eye-candy and eye-candy alone without much substance and stories and gets many views with huge audiences. I'm looking at you James Cameron's Avatar and Bay's Transformers. Then, you have influence from Pixar and Dreamworks that are immensely popular with the CGI films that are geared towards family friendly audiences too, but at least they have some workings of a good story as well though imitators tend to forget that. Not to mention some TV/films corporations having the moronic mindset that 'kids are stupid and will like anything that they see on screen or tied with their gender/age demographic based on marketing statistics and numbers' and 'get with the technological (/pop cultural) times' kinda thing as well. 

[Milo]

 

Ok seriously...what happened to Knuckles? I hope it's a one episode thing or something....

 

Unless it was a pilot, why would the significantly change the design of a character after the first episode?

[Jet Prower]

Unless it was a pilot, why would the significantly change the design of a character after the first episode?

 

As I said before, if you want to test the waters with your audience, release something way ahead of time and see what the people think of it. If the people don't like where it is going, you still have time to change things. If you wait too late before showing stuff to where you have done many things and then found out people don't like it, well it is too late by then.