Thread 150064265

Why did the Cave of Wonders need to be 3D? It's just a talking tiger head. Any of their animators on staff could've done that. I understand why use it for things like moving environments or crowd sequences. Were they just looking for a reason to use their 3D department?

>>150064265 (OP)
Dunno, but it makes it look eerie and otherwordly and perhaps that was the intended effect they were looking for.

>>150064286
Intent? In my art? Nooo things have to be done one way cause that's how it was in 1940.

>>150064265 (OP)
Nobody had a twist in their knickers over 3D back then. It was just new technology. Nothing less, nothing more. Disney had already toyed around with it in Rescuers Down Under and they were trying to see what sort of applications it could have in the future.

At the very least, they were not thinking, "Hey, if we do this tiger head in 3D instead of drawing it, won't some jobless, sexless, friendless manchild on an internet forum 30 years in the future scrutinize us for not being completely authentic and practical in our application of artistic technology?"

As a kid, I didn't notice he was 3D but I sure as hell noticed the flying carpet sequence when the cave was collapsing.

>>150064265 (OP)
But it WAS a moving environment.
It didn't "need" to be 3D; but it was done in 3D because that's how they could best do dynamic shots with a fully rendered surfacing and lighting so it looked like an animated background rather than a very big character.

>>150064265 (OP)
I had a lot of nightmares of getting eaten by it.

>Develop a whole program and method to paint over 3D elements
>Give it a name like a product ready to sell
>Never use it again

????

>>150064265 (OP)
The "retroer is always better" philosophy in /co/ form.

>>150064286
>makes it look eerie and otherwordly and perhaps that was the intended effect they were looking for
Probably this. As OP said, Disney animators could obviously draw a tiger head—Jasmine literally has a pet tiger in this same move. But this way they could make the cave of wonders seem more distinct.

Also they were probably looking for a way to integrate 3D after having only used it for backgrounds in Rescuers Down Under and Beauty and the Beast, and the giant talking cave entrance probably just seemed like a good opportunity—a single character that will talk and emote, but doesn't have to actually move around or interact with other characters. I think being CGI also lent it a better sense of scale, too.

>>150064265 (OP)
Because one: It looks cool & two: His voice actor, Frank Welker makes it even more cooler.

>>150064265 (OP)
Pixar did the animation of the cave

>>150064423
didnt they just paint wireframes?

>>150064522
Sorry, I was wrong

>>150064312
It's probably not a good idea to imply that the 1940's was a stagnant period for animation. The effects and innovation that they designed just for Fantasia alone (even though it was primarily made in the 1930's) is honestly incredible. You should've said 1960's instead.

>>150064563
They painted wireframes and the computer remembered the inputs, so it would track all the painting to the wireframes.

>>150064265 (OP)
Because in 1992 simply having something in the movie be 3D was really cool and sold tickets for the novelty alone.

>>150064522
No they didn't, but Disney did use Renderman, Pixar's proprietary rendering software (licensing that and selling workstations was how they actually made money back in the day)

>>150064265 (OP)
in the late 80s-early 90s the scene that had the cgi thing in it was the big money shot they showed around everywhere.

The chandelier in Beauty and the Beast was the big money shot they loved replaying everywhere they could.

>>150064581
I still remember the long lines of people clamoring to finally watch the Animated Lion Cave Entrance Movie movie, as we called it back then.

CGI still felt new and exciting.

>>150064265 (OP)
It's the one 3D element in the film that has held up though. The magic carpet POV rollercoaster escape looked pretty bad even back in the day.

>>150064581
Nobody even fucking knew there was 3D in Aladdin before they went to see it. Nobody cared. They went to see it because it was a Disney movie with fun songs and silly jokes and action and adventure and romance, and MAYBE because Robin Williams was in it. 3D was nowhere on the radar.

>>150064711
>the one 3D element in the film that has held up though
Actually there was another 3D element that arguably held up better, and it's because of that that you probably don't even realize it was 3D.

>>150064265 (OP)
It was a flex.

>>150064711
>The magic carpet POV rollercoaster escape looked pretty bad even back in the day.
I dunno, I question that statement. I remember being WOWed by the Simpsons treehouse episode even in 1999, four years after that episode had come out.

I feel 1992 audiences perception of that scene is vastly different than the kids who remember watching Aladdin on VHS in like, 1998.

>>150064758
The magic carpet? You may be right; the fully hand-drawn tv show version was definitely a shocking downgrade.

>The Rescuers Down Under
>Beauty and the Beast
>Aladdin
>The Lion King
>Pocahontas
>Toy Story
>The Hunchback of Notre Dame
>Hercules
>Mulan
>A Bug's Life
>Tarzan
>Toy Story 2

WDAS and Pixar were so good in the 90s

Thoughts on the Hydra?

>>150064265 (OP)
Because Disney felt the need to whip their dick out.

>>150064772
I loved that episode back in the day; even today it looks nice. The key was that they understood the limitations and made the most of it as an original aesthetic rather than getting too excited with the tech and overreaching with what it could do.

Anyway, the Magic Carpet Escape was also exciting for what it was but it simply didn't gel with the rest of the artwork and visual style as (comparatively) well as stuff like the Cave Entrance did (or the magic carpet itself, which after all was animated traditionally with the CG being merely the "color")

>>150064745
>Let me tell you all how I'm definitely not 18 without ever telling you I'm not even 18!
zoomzoom

>>150064832
>The Rescuers Down Under
>Pocahontas
>good
lol, lmao even

>>150064896
Probably one of my favorite creatures done this way for a hand-drawn feature; the Gerald Scarfe design is amazing and the end result looks better (most of the time) than even stuff done nearly a decade later for Atlantis or Dreamwork's shitty Sinbad movie.

>>150064745
Disney advertised their 3D shit over and over and over and over again nonstop pretty much throughout the whole renaissance era. They had specials running just about how they made the Belle and Beast dance scene, and they made sure that tiger head was in every preview.

>>150064265 (OP)
>Were they just looking for a reason to use their 3D department?
Yes and the Cave of Wonders allows them to show off without giving them too much to handle or putting their work in the spotlight for too long.

>>150064265 (OP)
What are THE best usages of hybrid 3D in the Disney Renaissance? Not in terms of simply memorable scenes like this one or the ballroom dance in Beauty and the Beast, but actually instrumental for storytelling that would have been logistically impossible to pull off without it?

The stampede in TLK is an obvious example, but I'm sure there's others.

>>150064265 (OP)
Proof of concept, and technological innovation. They used to make whole movies around one new innovation. Then it stopped, when executive decided profit was more important to investors than improvement.

>>150065590
Lilo & Stitch's CG vehicles blend in pretty seamlessly with the 2D art. However, I think the absolute winner is not a Disney movie but the Iron Giant in terms of combining 2D+3D elements. It's so good looking, I think people should look at it as a point of reference even now-a-days.

>>150065590
They are lots other Hybrid 3D stuff such as
>the background Crowds in the Hunchback of Notre Dame (seen here) and Space Jam,
>The Hydra in Hercules
> the Water and the weather in Wallace and Gromit and Chicken Run
>Most of the Explosions/smoke in TV Cartoons like Futurama and Phineas and Ferb
>(I think) the Exorcist Angels when they're flying, Sir Pentious's airship and Alastor's tentacles in Hazbin Hotel, could be wrong.
>the Cars and Spaceships in Family Guy

>>150064265 (OP)
What if I stood outside his lip and masturbated and cummed inside his mouth?

Serious question, did anyone notice the CGI clockwork in Great Mouse Detective? Was it ever mentioned in any reviews or Disney press releases?

>>150064265 (OP)
What are the rules for the cave?

>>150066442
Well, it technically the final shot itself wasn't CGI. CGI was used to create the reference layout that was then traced over frame by frame, basically rotoscoping. Considering the other stories surrounding the initial pushback inside the studio against computer usage, they probably saw it as a cheat more than anything else and had no reason to hype it for the journalists and glow pieces.

Curiously, Roger Ebert for example at the time highlighted in his review the fact that the movie was screened paired with the classic and entirely hand-drawn Clock Cleaners cartoon lol

>>150066596
>Clock Cleaners
Based choice. Kinda says a lot when you can still punch these 1930's shorts into a film's release, and nobody says a bad word about it.