HOME | DD
silvanuszed β Tiana
#disney #disneyfanart #disneyprincess #tiana #princessandthefrog #princesstiana #disneytiana #tianadisney #tianaprincessandthefrog
Published: 2017-02-14 06:47:29 +0000 UTC; Views: 6273; Favourites: 161; Downloads: 28
Redirect to original
Description
Tiana from the Disney film "The Princess and the Frog".Β3d Render made with Zbrush, Photoshop and Gimp.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OncvHY⦠for animated turnaround.
Related content
Comments: 21
You know, the whole point of her movie was to make a statement against the idea that all animated films today have to be 3D, and to remind everyone about the beauty of hand-drawn animation.
And making something like this goes against that message entirely. Hope you're proud of yourself.
π: 0 β©: 2
Yo wtf, this is fanart. Don't get your panties in a twist about it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well aren't you just a ray of sunshine.
Isn't the moral to The Princess and the Frog to "work hard for your dreams" and "the importance of family, love and respect"? It looks like you missed that message entirely. Hope you're proud of yourself.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's the movie's message on the surface, but I'm talking about the studio's underlying message on why the movie was made.
With that in mind, what do you think the Disney studio's underlying message has been for most of the recent animated films that they've put out after Princess and the Frog? Well seeing as how they're all CGI, and knowing about how they "gutted their hand-drawn animation division" and practically cheated their audiences out of the 2D revival that they promised us, the message they're secretly telling us with those 3D movies is perfectly clear to anyone who can see past the movies themselves.
They're even contradicting the messages that they have in their animated films, like Mama Odie singing that "money ain't got no soul, money ain't got no heart". Because their decision to cheat out hand-drawn animation for CGI again was totally not motivated by money, am I right?
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, the movie was made to entertain people, and yes to also make money. Your preoccupation with artistic mediums is honestly amusing.
Yes, they have been making more 3D movies than ever before, but that's not to say that 2D art is entirely dead. The character concepts, world designs and story line, among other things, are still hand-drawn. For example: conceptartworld.com/books/the-β¦ There is plenty of art and imagination behind the creation of these 3D movies that you're completely disregarding in your witch hunt against an art style. What is it that makes you hate 3D so much? It's still art, painstakingly worked on by artists for hours. It's not as easy as it looks, and it still requires artistic talent. You don't make 3D art with a mathematician punching 0s and 1s and creating an "artistic algorithm". Yes, it's created on a computer, but so is much of the 2D art that you see today.
Is there something wrong with getting paid for your work? Money doesn't grow on trees and if you're not getting paid and making money, the entertainment industry, movies, tv shows and the like will cease to exist. It's a fact of life, and you're just going to have to deal with that fact. (The phrase "starving artist" wasn't invented because artists are known to get all the high-paying jobs.) Also, you can't claim that 3D is the only thing to blame when it comes to an effort to make money. As much as I love Hanna Barbera cartoons, they were continuously criticized for taking artistic shortcuts in an effort to pump out as many cartoons as they could. (This isn't just pre-90s, but they made cartoons into the 90s as well, by the way.) When you watch the cartoons you can see mis-colored regions flash on screen from time to time. They also re-use animations and forget accessories and symbols worn by the characters. But, even with all the flaws, they have given us many great cartoons like the Jetsons and Scooby Doo. I could also criticize the Simpsons for being there to make money. The art style and characters are simplistic, and most of it is flat-colored as opposed to using shadows and highlights. It has also been around for how many seasons now....? For those people that managed to stick around, the Simpsons has been a steady, full-time job.
I was a 90s child as well and I do miss many of those cartoons dearly, but for as many good cartoons as there were, there were still flaws. Art is a very subjective medium, so while some art styles appeal to people, others do not. That being said, you can't simply force your opinions onto other people! A few 90s cartoons I disliked were Johnny Bravo, Ed Edd and Eddy, Courage the Cowardly Dog and other cartoons that often fell into the "gross out" category. I partially disliked these cartoons because the art style did not appeal to me, but it was also influenced by other factors like the type of humor and episodic plot vs. an overarching plot drawn across the entire season.
If you want to continue to rant and rave about 3D animation being the devil due to people trying to feed their families and put a roof over their heads, maybe you ought to think about what it would be like if you worked at your current job and were expected to do a good job and not get paid.
π: 0 β©: 1
They're killing off 2D by not allowing it to be its own art anymore. Only something that has to be used for the production of 3D animation so it can still have an excuse to take 2D's place in the feature film industry.
You know what I say to that?
3D animation today has crossed the line from simply being an "art" or just "another medium". Now it just exists in Hollywood to be a corporate agenda.
π: 0 β©: 1
Is art not allowed to evolve just like everything else? Technology has made advances in every other aspect of our lives: medicine, communication, transportation, the list goes on. Other forms of entertainment have also been affected by advances in technology. The movies that we love and enjoy have been transitioning to digital medium as well, as opposed to being shot on film cameras. Who knows? With how fast technology has been developing, at some point even 3D art might become outdated.
I would advise you to actually try and watch some of these "corporate agendas" before simply passing judgement on them. (It's similar to growing up when your parents would make you try new foods as opposed to deciding that you didn't like something without even taking a bite.) Films like How to Train Your Dragon and Moana were clearly crafted with care, thought and feeling. The art is simply the vehicle with which the characters and story are driven.
π: 0 β©: 1
3D animation is not some "superior evolution" to 2D animation. That's what the agenda of current Disney is. 2D animation is its own style, and its own art, in its own right, and should be respected in the industry as such. In some ways it's still more appealing than 3D animation because it actually knows that it's animation and isn't obsessed with how damn realistic every hair on a character's head or all the water in the ocean can look.
π: 0 β©: 1
2D does have its own charms and it is separate from 3D as a completely different form of art, but what 2D can't do with 3D is compete as far as the cost of making art itself. Once you buy the art programs you need, they are nearly infinitely re-usable. Contrast that with 2D, especially traditional 2D. There's paper, pencils, markers, rulers, etc, and many of the supplies have to be continually replenished. Looking at it from an environmental perspective you're also saving lots and LOTS of paper.
Like 2D art, 3D art can utilize many different styles, from basic forms and textures to hyper-realism. Your last remark about realism is a little silly because why shouldn't artists continue to strive and be better at what they already do best? It's that drive to improve that makes some people so good at what they do! Certainly if someone is taking the time to get to that level of detail they care about what they're doing and it's not just about the money they'll be making because of how realistic the environment looks.
π: 0 β©: 1
Because realism defeats the whole meaning of animation in the first place. That animation doesn't look like real life!
I'm not continuing this any further.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, animation is simply taking a sequence of images and playing them back in a sequence in order to tell a story. There is no defining factor about how realistic or unrealistic it's supposed to look. That is up to the artists. If a movie entertains you, it's doing what it was meant to do. If a movie doesn't entertain you, then it doesn't happen to fit your particular tastes.
Entertainment: movies, tv shows and the like are similar to food. Each has their own taste and while some people will like it, others inevitably will not. As a rule of thumb it's good to respect others, even if their tastes differ from yours.
π: 0 β©: 1
Don't be smart with me. Being smart is my job.
π: 0 β©: 1
Good night to you too!
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you so much. I really appreciate that.
π: 0 β©: 0
