Creativity?
Creativity... what is it? How do we all know what it is, but have a hard time giving a straight definition? I think creativity is the expression of ourselves and the way that we choose to express ourselves. But if that is true, does that not mean that we should be all equally creative? Just because someone is an amazing artist does not mean that they express themselves more than an influential speaker. Go into a class room and tell the kids to show you a flower. Some will draw it, some will Google it, some will make one out of paper, and one might even go get you a real flower. Which is more creative? Those who chose to draw it may not have even thought to go pick a flower. Those who Google’d it wouldn’t have imagined making a flower. Yet we say to the class who in here is creative, and only those who can draw will raise their hands.
The only thing that I have found that could explain why some are more creative than others would be the fact that a couple people are more attached to the way others express themselves. More people are interested in expressing themselves through drawing rather than through words or through journals so therefore they could be considered more creative than some based purely on their attraction of others.
For now I remain claiming to the public that I am not creative, simply because the way in which I express myself does not interest the masses, though it does interest me. Deep down I know I am creative in my own way and I will continue to hold on to that when I feel unconfident in my drawing ability.
-ToriIs 2-D animation becoming extinct?
In the beginning, animated films were art. Time, effort, and imagination were the ingredients to bringing a brilliant story together and making wonderful characters come to life. Those were the good old days. Now, animated films have been robbed of 2-D animation and have been replaced with Computer Generated Imagery (CGI). Instead of hand drawing, and painting, everything is done on the computer. Though CGI is impressive, it doesn’t replace 2-D animation, but it appears to be trying.
The CGI craze began with the success of Pixar’s “Toy Story” (1995). CGI films continued to be produced but didn’t lose their quality of story, including “A Bug’s Life” (1998), “Monsters Inc.” (2001), “Finding Nemo” (2003) and the list goes on. As more and more CGI films were being created, obviously, the more the graphics improved. However, though technology advanced and possibilities expanded, the content of the films has become lacking.
“The Polar Express” (2004) is an example of a failed CGI film. The movie was about a train that runs on Christmas Eve and takes a kid to the North Pole to visit Santa. It was boring and slightly creepy since Tom Hanks did the voice acting for almost every character. Another is the Shrek series. The first was released in 2001 and not too long ago a fourth in 2010. The franchise has gained popularity, but I don’t understand why since the only humour present is crude and the characters are unbelievably annoying. Many other films have been just as disappointing, such as “Shark Tale” (2004), “Cars” (2006) and “The Smurfs” (2011) and many more.
Industries have now put profit before imagination. Creating movies has always been about making money, but at least back in the 80’s and early 2000’s it was done with style. Now, it seems that the goal is to make a movie as quickly as possible and if it’s shit, it doesn’t matter because the company will still make money.
All CGI movies are now IMAX movies. 3-D technology used to be something unique that only a handful of movies had, but now that all movies (not just animation, but also live action) are in 3-D, the effect has worn off and is no longer special.
The main problem with computer animated films I think is that they have been overdone. Back in the day when CGI was first introduced, it was new and intriguing, but now that it’s taken over and 2-D animation seems to be forgotten, it’s gotten old. Very few 2-D animated films have been released recently, one being Disney’s “The Princess and the Frog” (2009), which was friggin’ awesome. It was a relief and refreshing to see 2-D again, but CGI continues to dominate the scene.
In 2010, DreamWorks Studios released “Megamind”: the story of a super villain who realises he doesn’t want to be a villain anymore. The film had stunning graphics and a well written story with fun characters. Disney’s twist on the classic tale of Rapunzel “Tangled” (2010) was another recent CGI film (and Disney’s 50th animated feature) that was highly entertaining. With composer Alan Menken (Aladdin, 1992), the songs gave the movie that awesome classic Disney feel. Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation also got in the act, and came out with “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” (2009), based on the children’s book of the same title by Judi Barrett. The movie was funny with loveable characters, and taught the message that being a nerd is cool. Examples such as these films prove that CGI can be awesome; they just need the effort put in.
One good point is that CGI is visually appealing. Though the writing is rubbish most of the time, the graphics are always impressive. As mentioned before, CGI has also helped advance technology. Watching CGI films throughout the years, it’s evident how much the graphics have improved. Movements are smoother, colours are sharper and little added details to actions, characters and settings make the graphics incredibly life-like. CGI shows just how far technology has come and where it’s going.
Still, despite the good qualities of CGI, I miss the type of movies I grew up with: 2-D. It’s clear that CGI isn’t going to slow down anytime soon and is here to stay; I just hope that 2-D animation won’t become a permanent thing of the past. Being someone who grew up with 2-D, I find it hard to really enjoy CGI films; the writing just isn’t as good as it used to be.
