FA+
Shop
334
Views
Views
4
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Traditional) / General Furry Art
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1100 x 850
File Size 996.2 kB
Report this content
More from bluecollie55
Earlier this spring, The Disney studios once again gutted out its hand drawn animation unit and blocked plans to create more new old-fanshioned hand-drawn animated movies to resume being yet another greedy,cowardly, CGI-animation only Pixar clone, a decision that still continues to be heartbreaking and upseting to me. This comes after producing its last two new hand-drawn full-length features. "The Pricness and the Frog" and the "Winnie The Pooh" full-length movie.
Out of this unhappiness, fear, and anger over what Disney had broken its promise to return to its artistic roots -- along with other big-time Hollywood studios also abanding old-fashioned animation techniques for CGI out of profit alone, I drew and painted this picture of my own original character Bluecollie, happening to be at some sort of bar and grill resturaunt, with Disney cartoon star/studio mascot Mickey Mouse being funk depresed over his studio turing down the art form that made him a star and made his studio very rich for over 9 decades. Bluecollie comforts him over the difficult news concerning the mouse's fortunes of being out of work to make old fashioned cartoons, that he (Mickey) and his freinds may not ever again make another movie the same way again, if possible, as long as Disney is run by profit-centric executives.
I would have posted this back in November during Mickey's birthday alongside my more cheerful "Bluecollie The Animator" picture but I couldn't get the acrylic painting part finished in time, due to being busy with other things and goofing off in the real world. So at least here it is at least in time for both Walt Disney's upcoming birthday (December 5, 1901) and his annarversary of his death (December 15, 1966).
Bluecollie is my own character created by me, technically copyright bluecollie55
Mickey Mouse is copyright 1928 The Walt Disney Company. Created by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks. Mickey appears for the use for fanart appearances.
Out of this unhappiness, fear, and anger over what Disney had broken its promise to return to its artistic roots -- along with other big-time Hollywood studios also abanding old-fashioned animation techniques for CGI out of profit alone, I drew and painted this picture of my own original character Bluecollie, happening to be at some sort of bar and grill resturaunt, with Disney cartoon star/studio mascot Mickey Mouse being funk depresed over his studio turing down the art form that made him a star and made his studio very rich for over 9 decades. Bluecollie comforts him over the difficult news concerning the mouse's fortunes of being out of work to make old fashioned cartoons, that he (Mickey) and his freinds may not ever again make another movie the same way again, if possible, as long as Disney is run by profit-centric executives.
I would have posted this back in November during Mickey's birthday alongside my more cheerful "Bluecollie The Animator" picture but I couldn't get the acrylic painting part finished in time, due to being busy with other things and goofing off in the real world. So at least here it is at least in time for both Walt Disney's upcoming birthday (December 5, 1901) and his annarversary of his death (December 15, 1966).
Bluecollie is my own character created by me, technically copyright bluecollie55
Mickey Mouse is copyright 1928 The Walt Disney Company. Created by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks. Mickey appears for the use for fanart appearances.
Category Artwork (Traditional) / General Furry Art
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1100 x 850px
File Size 996.2 kB
*Nods* Understandable I agree that it is sickening, and very maddening. I remember how when I was a kid, there used to be many ways to produce animation alomg with analog hand drawings, such as clay aniamtion, minature figurine animation (ie, the classic "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" TV special), cutout animation with photographs and/or drawings, and so on. But classic analog hand drawn animation was often the most domaniant form of making animation on film or TV from cirea the 1900s or so till about 2003.
But more to the point: While CGI animation does have some good things going for it, and has been capible to be made for some good movies, I tend to perfer hand-drawn cartoons over the computer stuff neverless. The richer, high-production animation for classic hand drawn films (Don Bluth, pre-CG Disney, Warner Bros.) offers a far more warmer, strecher, more fluid, and more zestier movement for the characters than both CGI animation and cheap TV drawing animation. Such movement makes it all the better for the characters personalities to shine through and for both the animators and their characters to act for the movie. Also characters and things appearing in classical high-budget hand-drawn feature tend to appear in artwork designed with such a higher artistic appeal to the eyes than CGI does, despite how CG is better in its nigh-perfect photo-real depiction of surface objects alike fur/hair, shiny surfaces, and highlights.
I remember when Pixar first came out with its "Toy Story" movie, I wasn't very interested in seeing it since the CGI visuals didn't look as great as the majestic art used to create "The Lion King", "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", "Fantasia", "Oliver and Company", "The Secret of NIMH", "Balto", and "Lady and the Tramp". I do like Dreamworks' CGI stuff better than Pixar and Disney, but even Dreamworks' CGI isn't as visually classical as the old Hand-drawn movies, as well as my viewings of movies as Germany's "Felidae" and "The Fearless Four", and Russia's "Well, Just you wait" series.
But more to the point: While CGI animation does have some good things going for it, and has been capible to be made for some good movies, I tend to perfer hand-drawn cartoons over the computer stuff neverless. The richer, high-production animation for classic hand drawn films (Don Bluth, pre-CG Disney, Warner Bros.) offers a far more warmer, strecher, more fluid, and more zestier movement for the characters than both CGI animation and cheap TV drawing animation. Such movement makes it all the better for the characters personalities to shine through and for both the animators and their characters to act for the movie. Also characters and things appearing in classical high-budget hand-drawn feature tend to appear in artwork designed with such a higher artistic appeal to the eyes than CGI does, despite how CG is better in its nigh-perfect photo-real depiction of surface objects alike fur/hair, shiny surfaces, and highlights.
I remember when Pixar first came out with its "Toy Story" movie, I wasn't very interested in seeing it since the CGI visuals didn't look as great as the majestic art used to create "The Lion King", "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", "Fantasia", "Oliver and Company", "The Secret of NIMH", "Balto", and "Lady and the Tramp". I do like Dreamworks' CGI stuff better than Pixar and Disney, but even Dreamworks' CGI isn't as visually classical as the old Hand-drawn movies, as well as my viewings of movies as Germany's "Felidae" and "The Fearless Four", and Russia's "Well, Just you wait" series.
I personally have nothing against CG. In fact I'll be taking a computer graphics class next semester, and I'm pretty psyched. I just don't like how they are slapping limits on their current work. Yes, I agree that it's kinda inferior to the beauty we all see in 2D animation. I just wish they would keep it, as well as experiment with other styles of animation.
Comments