Crisp Inquisition: media change; intriguing or perplexing?

[NewMaxFranklin]

Seeing as how Max Steel looks to be going from CGI animation to cel, I thought it appropriate to srtike while the iron;s hot. I'm not interested in your opinions about Max Steel in particular, but about swapping media in general.
I'm sure all of you have compaired and contrasted the Batman live action films and their animated counterparts. We've seen the X-men, Superman, Blade and countless animated characters brought to life, so to speak, with more on the way. In the past posters have expressed frustration with the portrayal of their beloved characters in live action film.
Why does hollywood feel it has to legitimize the characters with live film, when animation is so boundless and closer to the roots of the characters?
With todays technology the next Bond movie could star a computer generated 40-ish Sean Connery, with Connery supplying his own voice.
Or what if the a popular animated movie had a cel animated sequel? Or vice versa? Look at movies like The Mummy Reaturns and Titanic. They're the "Who framed Roger Rabbit's" of today. Actors interacting with nothing.
Think of your favorite films. Would you be interested in a squel that was done in a different media? L.A. Confidential 2 done in cell? A Gladiator prequel in CGI? Toy Story 3 in claymation?...or Live?

[NewMaxFranklin]

Sorry if it got confusing close towards the end there. I meant a live action movie with an animated sequel or vice versa (not animated or cell animated.) I spelt "Returns" wrong too. Yeesh!:rolleyes:

[Salvor]

I never cared for Max Steel and I never will... to me it displays a very low quality of CG animation.

On the contrary Final Fantasy looks very promising and it's the kind of animation I'd want to see in such movies.

BUT (there's a but... a huge one) I don't think any computer-generated movie can match a "standard" movie. To my mind, real actors will always top pale virtual copies. A tremendous actor has just something in him that machines will never be able to get: talent, and even genius.

I also don' t think anyone can identify with CG characters, which is a major problem. A movie cannot be moving if viewers don't get what the main characters experience.

So I'm skeptical.

[Crazy8s]

The problem with switching to an animated medium to tell a sequel's story is that most western audiences equate animation with children's programming and simply won't take it seriously or may bring their kids to it, expecting it to be watered down and suitable for kids.

I've found that live action translates better into animation than visa versa. Live actors never look completely correct in animated roles, but heck, the animated Nick Tatopoulis is far more in keeping with the character than Mathew Broderick ever was. Better looking, too!:p

While I still consider cgi in it's infancy and not at all ready for comparisons to live action acting, I must say that I do think that traditional animated characters can act and emote quite nicely. The combination of a good animation team and talented voice actors can make you believe in the characters and what they feel.

[RockItShipper]

At CalArts, computer animation is taught throuch courses rather a set major. So that means the basic requirements of entering into hand-drawn animation are the same. Not to mention a number of drawing courses are available and the computers treated more like a drawing tool. So with that very general bit of info (not headed that route myself) does have a greater chance of producing more lifelike CGI.

[Calhoun07]

[i]I also don' t think anyone can identify with CG characters, which is a major problem. A movie cannot be moving if viewers don't get what the main characters experience.[/B]

I know I can. And who couldn't identify with the toys in Toy Story (and if Jesse's song didn't move you, your heart is rock, dude!) or the pining longing of Shrek? Those are the two most recent examples I can think of. There are live action movies where I can't identify at all with the live action characters and animated moives, CG or other wise, where the characters totally come alive for me, even if it is a slinky dog toy! To say nobody can identify with a character because it is CG...well, I guess I don't know what would motivate you to say that, but I can certainly find myself identifying with CG characters!

[Calhoun07]

Trying to answer Max's original question, I would have to say that I think they are doing this to maximize profits. As much as we love the Batman animated series, they want to make more money off of the character and the only way they can do that is to bring it to live action. I don't think in their minds they are legitimizing anything, they are just trying to make money and survive.