迪士尼的Chicken Little在年底上映之後 一定又會掀起一波2D或是3D的討論 這是我post在Jim Hull網站的一篇comment
Is a good story the only element to make a good film? I don't agree. People usually overlook the medium itself that can deliver a lot of information as well. If only the story matters, then why bother spend so much time making an animation. One can just read a book, get the complete story and are sucked into the characters. Why animation is so attractive? I think one of its reasons is because of its looks. When we are talking about how amazing the inanimate object can come to life on the screen, we are talking about medium, isn't it? When a filmmaker is making a film, what medium the film will be presented on is always on his mind, so he can make the most of the story via the specific medium no matter it's a hand-drawn, cut-out or 3D animation.
Think of Nightmare before Xmas, if it were a hand-drawn animation, would it still have the same kind of richness on its looks? How about Toy Story 1, if it were a hand-drawn animation, could it portrait the plastic feels of those toys so successfully? Not to mention those animators exploring the medium itself such as Norman McLaren's scratch-on-films or Carolin Leaf's sand animation (some of them are still narrative story though). Medium and story always come hand to hand. Another example, would The Adventures of Andre & Wally B., Tin Toy or Luxor Jr. be so significant it they were not on 3D? Think about that.
Then why they said 2D animation is dead. 2D animation is not dead. Instead, we should say Disney style hand-drawn narrative animation is fading out. If you were an animator animating with Disney style, you are always thinking in 3D. How to keep the volume, perspective, how to draw the fine lines so they won't wobble thus distracting audience's illusion, etc. Glen Keane said he always draws the shade on characters so he can tell the dimensions. They are all for one purpose- creating a 3D illusion on a flat dimension. But this has it's limitation in faking 3D space. That's why when true 3D images generated by computer came out; the hand-drawn stuffs could be replaced so quickly.
Contrary to this, some of UPA's animations are flat. They didn't intend to create a 3D illusion although it stems from the economy reason. Instead, it made the good use of 2 dimensions and creates a very stylized 2D look.
The move from 2D to 3D is difficult for Disney since it's dominated by hand-drawn artists from the beginning of the studio. The success of Lion King made the studio overlooked this new medium and didn't put much effort on making its own 3D films.
People always have a wrong impression on 3D animation as if computers can do everything and replace artists. In contract, it needs extra artists to handle modeling, texturing, lighting, rendering etc. in order to make a good film. It is still people make the film, not computers. Unfortunately, the lacking of experience and training of some of those 3D artists may not adequate for the job. That's why Glen would say some images on Shrek are bad drawings for him (from a hand-drawn artist's point of view). 3D animation as an art form is in its juvenile. Only the artists from every where will make it mature.
Over all, I don't know if Disney's move to 3D is good or bad but it is conceivable since 3D animation is more captivating for audience so far. Hand-drawn animation may not dominate animation industry anymore but it will not dead like those Hollywood hand-drawn artists said.
好的故事是一部成功影片的唯一條件嗎 我不認為如此 很多人忽視媒材(或是形式)自身也具有傳遞訊息的能力 假如只有故事重要的話 那麼為何要花這麼多時間拍攝動畫片 看一本書也可以得知故事的內容 也可以被故事裡的角色所吸引 那麼為何動畫這麼吸引人呢 我認為其中一個原因就在它媒材自身的特質 當我們在談論一個不能動的物體竟然可以在銀幕上活靈活現的時後 我們在談論的就是媒材 不是嗎 一個導演在拍電影時 一定也會考慮到媒材的屬性 這樣他才可以將故事透過最適合的方式表現出來 不管這個方式是手繪動畫 剪紙動畫 或是3D動畫
想想看提姆波頓的耶誕夜驚魂 假設它是手繪動畫的話 它還可以保有偶動畫特有的豐富質感嗎 至於玩具總動員第1集 如果它是手繪動畫的話 絕對沒法將影片中玩具特有的塑膠感表現得恰到好處 更不用提許多藝術家不斷在媒材上開發更多表現的可能性 像是Norman McLaren直接在底片上製作動畫或是Carolin Leaf使用砂來作動畫一樣 他們的部分作品雖仍具傳統敘述的結構 但跟其形式相互呼應 媒材(形式)和故事(內容)是相輔相成的 另一個例子 要是Pixar的The Adventures of Andre & Wally B., Tin Toy 或是 Luxor Jr.不是3D動畫的話 它們今天會有相同的重要性嗎 好好想想
那麼為何說2D動畫已死呢 2D動畫並沒有死 應該說 迪士尼風格 依據傳統敘述結構的手繪動畫在慢慢消失中 假設你是迪士尼的動畫師 你作動畫時一定會時時刻刻想著體積 透視感 如何保持線條的穩定以避免干擾觀眾等等 Glen Keane說他在作動畫時會習慣畫上陰影以辨識空間感 即使之後清稿這些都是會不見的 這些所有都為了一個目的 製造3D在2D平面上的幻覺 不過這個媒材在模擬空間上有其內在的限制 這就是為什麼藉由電腦作出的真正的3D影像出現後 原本的動畫可以這麼快的被取代
相反的 像是UPA的許多動畫都非常的平面 有時雖然是因為經濟上的考量 重點是他們並不在創造3D的幻覺 而是在2D平面上表現 進而創造出其他媒材沒有的特殊2D風格
迪士尼要由2D轉到3D絕對不容易 畢竟這是個從一開始就是手繪動畫師主導的公司 獅子王(連結是關於獅子王如何嫖竊小白獅王影片的文章 根本篇主題基本上無關 但內容有趣 值得一讀)的成功讓公司錯估情勢 而沒有花多些時間在3D動畫的發展上 一方面是決策階層的酣愚 一方面也要歸咎於公司內手繪動畫師對電腦的排斥造成的結果
人們對電腦動畫總有個錯誤的印象 以為電腦可以作任何事 然後取代所有的人 事實上 想反的 電腦動畫的製作需要更多原本沒有的人才 像是modeling, texturing, lighting, rendering等等 才可以作一部好的動畫 同樣還是人在作電影 並不是電腦 可惜的是 很多電腦動畫家缺少經驗 或是缺少訓練 讓他們達不到應有的水準 這是為什麼Glen說Shrek對他來說每個畫面都是難看的圖畫 (以一個手繪動畫師的角度) 電腦動畫目前還在茁壯之中 只有個各領域來的藝術家可以讓它更加成熟
總之 我不知道迪士尼轉成3D公司是好是壞 不過它的這個舉動是可以理解的 畢竟電腦動畫比手繪動畫具有吸引力 手繪動畫或許再也不會在動畫界獨領風騷 但它絕對不會像好來塢這些手繪動畫師所說的一樣 就此消失
